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 .

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to speak to the budget.

A big part of what politicians do is decide which problems in society need to be solved by governments and which problems are best left to individuals and to families and to the private sector.

The Liberal government, with its NDP coalition partners, spends a great deal of time, effort, energy and taxpayers' money trying to solve all sorts of problems, while unfortunately accomplishing very little and more often than not being counterproductive.

I remember when the finance minister presented her budget last month. She received one partial standing ovation from the official opposition when she said:

There are those who claim that the only good thing government can do when it comes to economic growth is to get out of the way.

The finance minister went on to cite the example of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project as an example of her government's success when it comes to government intervention in the economy. It was not too long ago that resource companies and international investors were excited about all of the potential pipeline projects in this country, such as northern gateway, Keystone XL and energy east, just to name a few.

Building pipelines such as these is something that private sector companies are able to do in most countries, but sadly not in Canada. All of the blueprints for all of these pipeline projects have been sitting on the shelf collecting dust for years because the Liberal government has made it practically impossible for the private sector to get projects like this built through its anti-development legislation, such as Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and Bill C-48, the “west coast oil tanker ban”.

It is sad that the finance minister would cite, as a success story, the one lonely, solitary pipeline expansion project that the government decided to take over while all the others were being chased away. It is also worth noting that this was not a new pipeline being built. It was simply the twinning of an existing pipeline, with a new pipe being laid right alongside the old one. This raises the question: How long did it take to build the new pipeline and how long did it take to build the old one?

The proposal for the original Trans Mountain pipeline was submitted for approval in 1951. Construction was finished in 1952. Compare that to the decade that it has taken for the expansion to be completed. That makes this project hardly anything for the Liberal government to brag about. One also cannot help but be concerned about the cost overruns that have happened under the Liberal government's watch. The Trans Mountain expansion was originally estimated to cost $7 billion. The final price came in at $34 billion.

When a fivefold increase in total cost is touted as a success story, that should give all Canadians pause the next time the Liberal government sets out on one of its interventions into the economy. The finance minister went on to talk about her government's new school lunch program. It seems that the Liberals have just recently discovered what Conservatives and food banks have been saying for years, namely that food bank use has skyrocketed under the Liberal government.

According to a report by Food Banks Canada, nearly two million Canadians had to use food banks in March of last year. That is a 32% increase from the year before. Furthermore, one third of food bank users are children. I did not hear the finance minister mention under whose watch food bank use skyrocketed. I did not hear anything in her speech about the Liberals increasing their carbon tax again this year on the farmers who grow the food, the truckers who truck the food and the grocers who refrigerate the food, and about all of those costs being passed on to consumers at the grocery store.

I also did not hear anything from the finance minister about passing Bill C-234 in its original form to exempt grain drying and barn heating from the carbon tax so that those costs are not passed on to consumers in the form of higher grocery prices.

I did not hear anything about the Liberals' $40-billion deficit driving up interest rates or the $60 billion in debt servicing charges making it more difficult for Canadians to make ends meet and causing Canadians to have to choose between putting a roof over their heads or putting food onto the dinner tables.

Instead of focusing on the root cause of the cost of living crisis, the Liberals have decided to bring in yet another government program. This time, it is a nationwide school lunch program. While school lunch programs are certainly a reasonable and beneficial public policy, anyone who bothers to take a brief skim of section 91 and section 92 of our Constitution will tell us this is clearly the jurisdiction of provincial governments and best left to provincial ministries of education and social services.

What I find so frustrating about the Liberal government is not only that it is bad at capitalism, but also that it is just as bad at socialism. Take, for example, the new Canada disability benefit. This program resulted from the passage of Bill C-22, a bill the Liberals introduced almost two years ago. The stated objective of this bill was actually very reasonable; it was to provide a social safety net for Canadians living with disabilities so that no one has to live in poverty due to a disability.

Personally, I have always felt programs such as this are best left to provincial governments. In my home province of Saskatchewan, we have a program called the Saskatchewan assured income for disability, SAID, program. I also believe very strongly in an inclusive society for persons with disabilities, so if the federal government wanted to join in, I certainly was not going to stand in the way. It seems that everyone else in this chamber felt the same way since Bill C-22 passed unanimously last year.

When the details of the Canada disability benefit were announced in the budget, they were certainly a disappointment for disability advocates everywhere, with the maximum benefit being only $200 per month and not one thin dime being paid out until July of next year. Two hundred dollars per month is not enough for anyone in this country to live off, even before inflation and the cost of living skyrocketed under the government.

After nine years of the Liberal government, and with the introduction of this budget, the size of the federal government and the cost of the federal government have now doubled under the Liberals' watch. After nine years, the government has come to the point where literally all of the revenue from the GST goes toward merely paying the interest on the federal debt. The Liberals are adding another $40 billion to the federal debt this year, which now stands at well over $1 trillion and rising.

I come back to the finance minister's statement, when she said that the only good thing the government can do when it comes to economic growth is to get out of the way. A more accurate statement would be that the only good thing that the current government can do is to get out of the way.

It is time for a new Conservative government to replace the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners and to fix the budget as well as the many other problems they have created. Therefore, Conservatives will vote against this budget and we will vote non-confidence in the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my fellow British Columbian about the Canadian disability benefit he talked about.

First of all, Bill C-22, which was the enabling legislation, simply delegated to the minister responsible, so the minister could introduce regulations that would define who was considered disabled, who would be eligible and for what amounts. Here we are, and the government is now saying it up to $200. It is not even a guarantee of $200. Does the member think we, as parliamentarians, did our job in accepting, basically at surface value, that the government was going to help persons with disabilities with this benefit?

For people who are on the Canadian pension plan disability, often times they are at a lower rate on that particular program than they would be, for example, in British Columbia, on social assistance. To me, it would make sense to at least help those individuals first, instead of telegraphing it to everyone. People had such high expectations and have only come to find out that persons with disabilities feel left out completely by this particular budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I am standing today as a woman in Parliament. Every time I enter this place, I am aware of how different my experiences in life are from those of the men who have tried to keep women out of this place for 100 years or more. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, said it explicitly recently when she called out the Conservative Party's infringing on the status of women committee. The fact that the Conservatives recently chose to arbitrarily remove the respected chair of the committee not only disrespected the voices of women on the committee but also was symbolic of how the women in the House of Commons are often punished when their voice is too strong, by a system designed to benefit men in power.

As I was reading through the budget this year, it was with the lens of being a woman and how, for 100 years, our needs have been second, for example with respect to child care. I have often said in the House that the only reason I am standing here is the $5-a-day day care I had access to when I lived in Quebec. That fact allowed me to go back to school and become a programmer analyst. That allowed me to capitalize on opportunities in the new, digital economy of Y2K. I know how important affordable child care is for women, and I am so pleased to see in the budget, with investments in educators as well, that it is going to be a gateway of economic empowerment. That reality for women cannot be understated.

Child care is the second-largest payment for families after housing. I am incredibly grateful to the leader of the NDP and the member for Winnipeg Centre for finally forcing the government to enact affordable, quality child care in this country. The Liberals would not have done it on their own; they proved that over the past 25 years. It was 28 years ago that I benefited from the $5-a-day day care in Quebec. That is how long the rest of Canada has been waiting for accessible, affordable child care.

The Conservatives would not have offered this type of child care at all. In fact, the Conservatives would walk back any kind of public, affordable, accessible child care if they were ever to get into power. I never want to see that.

The budget is not an NDP budget, but there are clear examples of the difference between how the NDP uses its power for good to support people and how Conservatives continue, with their gut-and-cut ideologies, to hurt people. Conservatives have used their past powers to make their corporate friends even richer by instituting $60-billion corporate handouts, which I want to say the Liberals have continued to support, while they cut services for women, families, seniors and persons with disabilities. By contrast, the NDP, with only 24 MPs, forced the government to enhance the social safety net that lowers costs for Canadians by addressing affordability, health care, housing, climate and more.

With that in mind, I need to address right away the deficit of respect the Liberals have shown for persons with disabilities, as it relates to the Canada disability benefit outlined in the budget. What is in the budget is not the Canada disability benefit in reality or in spirit. The Liberal government never seems to run out of money for handouts to giant corporations and rich CEOs, but when it comes to the benefit promised to people living with disabilities suddenly the government offers only crumbs.

Offering only $200 a month through the Canada disability benefit, hidden behind an inaccessible and inequitable disability tax credit is not recoverable for the government. It is insulting, and the government needs to adhere to the NDP amendments to Bill C-22 and those that came from the Senate, to ensure that the benefit will lift persons with disabilities out of poverty.

The Liberal government threw aside the advice and the input of disability advocates. Its own policy advisory council had resignations over the Canada disability benefit criteria. It disregarded the legislation, and worst of all, it disregarded people with disabilities. It is shameful. The government was told that the use of the disability tax credit would create a barrier to access. It did not care; it did it anyway.

While the Liberals' inadequate Canada disability benefit is best understood as an insult, there are important items in the budget that we need to protect in order to significantly reduce the cost of living for persons with disabilities and to increase overall well-being. That includes the long-overdue protection for renters to stop them from losing their homes to speculators and renovictions.

The current government, and the Conservatives before it, let this country lose affordable housing at a rate of 11:1. The Conservatives and the Liberals are the architects of the reality we are living now, walking away from affordable housing investments for decades and shovelling money to developers gentrifying neighbourhoods with investments in condos 50 storeys high. They left persons with disabilities behind, leaving them with less accessible and less affordable housing.

In the budget, the NDP forced the government to create a rental protection fund, the housing accelerator fund, and a new rapid housing stream to build deeply affordable homes. It is only because of the NDP that we are having a revitalization of affordable and accessible homes in this country.

The NDP has also secured historic expansions to our universal health care system for persons with disabilities and all Canadians, a health care system that is under attack of privatization by Conservative premiers across this country. That cannot happen. Privatization of health care and long-term care is hurting Canadians, and the NDP will not stand for it. We will always push back on privatization of health care at the same time as we advance historic wins for Canadians, like the universal single-payer pharmacare and the transformative dental care program that thousands of children in Port Moody—Coquitlam have already benefited from. We stand against Conservative ideology that puts profits in the hands of CEOs off the backs of people who are just trying to stay healthy. I echo that statement for the Liberals who are standing by and letting it happen.

The NDP pharmacare program will start with life-saving, free diabetes medication and devices and free birth control for millions of Canadians. These are equity measures Canadians cannot risk losing to a Conservative government that courts incels for votes and disregards the voices of women.

With respect to persons with disabilities, the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research Institute at Queen's University wrote, in an article in 2020, “Canadians with disabilities may skip doses of medication or neglect to get their prescriptions filled because of the cost of prescription drugs.” The article also stated that pharmacare would “remove financial barriers to prescription drugs, and overcome inequities among Canadians for this important aspect of health care.”

The Conservatives have already acted on trying to prevent pharmacare for Canadians, which is a program that would save $3.5 billion on Canadians' medications and billions more on preventing unnecessary trips to hospitals and doctors' offices, and on ongoing care for preventative illness. Another important program the Conservatives do not support is the creation of a national school food program. It was in my riding that James Moore asked, “is it my job to feed my neighbour's child?”. Conservative James Moore said, “I don't think so.” My NDP colleagues and I believe it is our job to make sure no child goes to school hungry.

I am going to close by saying women have been ignored in the economy for a long time, and I note that the Liberals put the support of a care economy, which I agree with 100%, and the launching of a national caregiver strategy, which is amazing work by James Janeiro and others in the caregiving realm, under the chapter heading “Lifting Up Every Generation” rather than under economic growth—

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member was at committee yesterday and asked some really good questions of the government and asked for documents. I look forward to those documents coming to the committee.

Conservatives on this side supported the disability benefit from the very beginning. We did not do anything to withhold the legislation. In fact, we did as much as we could to expedite it when it was debated at committee. It was Bill C-22 and we supported it right from the very beginning.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to highlight some of the important actions in budget 2024 to ensure that Canada's social safety net works for every generation.

When our government was first elected in 2015, we recognized that the economy had changed. People needed more supports and supports of a new kind. The government got to work very quickly after 2015. We introduced the Canada child benefit, which has helped cut the child poverty rate by more than half. We reinforced the security and dignity of retirement income by strengthening the Canada pension plan and increasing old age security for seniors aged 75 and over.

We permanently eliminated interest on federal student and apprenticeship loans and made generational investments in early learning and child care with $10-a-day child care, cutting child care costs by at least half, giving families money back in their pockets and giving children the best start in life. That equates to thousands of dollars per year. The average family in my area pays about $1,800 per month for child care. If we think about cutting those fees in half, that is substantial savings for each family. These have been investments in people, unprecedented in the history of Canada. With budget 2024, we are making transformative investments that will continue levelling the playing field and lifting up every generation.

At the heart of Canada's social safety net is the promise of access to universal public health care. We have made a promise to each other as Canadians that if we get ill or injured or are born with complicated health issues, we do not need to go into debt just to get essential care. Here in Canada, no matter where one lives or what one earns, people should always be able to get the medical care they need. That is why last year the federal government announced our 10-year health care plan providing close to $200 billion to clear backlogs, improve primary care and cut wait times, delivering the health outcomes that Canadians need and deserve.

With budget 2024, we are introducing new measures that will strengthen Canada's social safety net to lift up every generation. That includes national pharmacare. It includes our landmark move toward building a comprehensive national pharmacare program. Bill C-64, the pharmacare act, proposes the foundational principles of national universal pharmacare in Canada and describes the federal government's intent to work with provinces and territories to provide universal single-payer coverage for most prescription contraceptives and many diabetes medications. The pharmacare act is a concrete step toward the vision of a national pharmacare program that is comprehensive, inclusive and fiscally sustainable today and for the next generation. With budget 2024, the government is proposing to provide $1.5 billion over five years to Health Canada to support the launch of the national pharmacare plan.

Another aspect of strengthening the social safety net is the Canada disability benefit. Last year, Parliament passed Bill C-22, the Canada Disability Benefit Act. This landmark legislation created the legal framework for a benefit for persons with disabilities. The benefit fills the gap in the federal government's robust social safety net between the Canada child benefit and old age security for persons with disabilities, and it is intended to supplement them, not replace them. That is very important. We are not replacing the provincial and territorial income support measures, but offering to top them up. We strongly urge the provinces and territories not to claw back those supports for people living with disabilities.

With budget 2024, we are making this benefit a reality by proposing funding of $6.1 billion over six years and $1.4 billion per year ongoing for the new Canada disability benefit, which would begin providing payments to eligible Canadians starting in July 2025. The Canada disability benefit would increase the financial well-being of low-income persons with disabilities between the ages of 18 and 64 by providing an income-tested maximum benefit of $2,400 per year. As proposed, the benefit is estimated to increase the financial well-being of over 600,000 low-income, working-age persons with disabilities. It is just a start. We know that those individuals who are living below the poverty line and who are living with a disability are going to need more support, and we are committed to increasing that in the future.

With respect to the new youth mental health fund, our government is also well aware that young Canadians are facing high levels of stress and mental health challenges, including depression and anxiety. Many of them are still in school or just starting their careers and are struggling with the cost of private mental health care. The rising cost of living has further exacerbated this issue. This is a top issue for my youth constituency council that has been meeting for years, and the youth on the council have often said it is important for them to have greater access to mental health care. That is exactly why we have set up the $500-million youth mental health fund, which will provide resourcing for five years to help younger Canadians access the mental health care they need.

Supporting children is another aspect, and this is something I feel very strongly about as a father of two young girls. We know that children are the future of Canada. They will become tomorrow's doctors, nurses, electricians, teachers, scientists and small business owners. Every child deserves the best start in life. Their success is certainly Canada's success. With budget 2024, the government is advancing progress through investments to strengthen and grow our Canada-wide early learning and child care system, save for an education later in life, have good health care and unlock the promise of Canada for the next generation.

This includes a decisive action to launch a new national school food program. This is something I advocated for well before I became a member of Parliament, and it was a pleasure to see us get over the finish line and get it included in this year's budget. That national school food program will help ensure that children have the food they need to get a fair start in life regardless of their family circumstance. The $1-billion commitment to the program is expected to provide meals for more than 400,000 kids each year.

We are also supporting millennials and gen Z, for whom we must restore a fair chance. If one stays in school and studies hard, one should be able to afford college, university or an apprenticeship. One should be able to graduate into a good job, put a roof over one's head and build a good middle-class life in this country. In budget 2024, the government is helping to restore generational fairness for millennials and gen Z by unlocking access to post-secondary education, including for the most vulnerable students and youth; investing in the skills of tomorrow; and creating new opportunities for younger Canadians to get the skills they need to get good-paying jobs. More specifically, with budget 2024 we are announcing the government's intention to extend for an additional year the increase in full-time Canada student grants from $3,000 to $4,200 per year and interest-free Canada student loans from $210 to $300 per week. The increased grants will support 587,000 students, and increased interest-free loans will support 652,000 students, with a combined $7.3 billion for the upcoming academic year.

We are also helping to lower costs for everyday Canadians. While I am proud of the social safety net support that our government has provided to Canadians since 2015, we are well aware too many Canadians today are feeling like their hard work is not quite paying off. I am here today to reassure Canadians that it does not have to be this way, and that our government is working hard to help Canadians keep more of their hard-earned dollars. To do this, we are taking action to hold to account those who are charging Canadians unnecessarily high prices, whether it is corporations charging junk fees or unnecessary banking fees. The budget will help better ensure that corporations are not taking advantage of Canadians, and it will make sure the economy is fair, affordable and set up to make it easier to get a good deal.

As Canadians, we take care of each other. It is the promise and the heart of who we are, and it goes back generations. From universal public health care to employment insurance and to strong, stable, funded pensions like the Canada pension plan, there has always been an agreement that we will take care of our neighbours when they have the need. It gave our workers stability and gave our businesses confidence that the right supports were in place where we live. This supports our economy and keeps people healthy, ready and well supported. It keeps the middle class strong.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you. I'm going to go back to my time here.

What we have seen here today is the minister answering every single question with the same response. If you're just watching this....

People are looking for some answers, Minister. With all due respect, this is your file. That's done. What you've been doing for the last hour here or however long we have been here, is done.

The disability amount is $6 a day. It's $200 a month. When the former minister, Ms. Qualtrough, testified in this committee about Bill C-22 on October 31, 2022, she said, “It really will lift a significant number of people out of poverty, big time.”

People are watching at home. They can't afford to live. An Ontario man is applying for MAID because he's homeless. People with disabilities are applying for MAID.

Give Canadians some answers here today. It's been asked around this table multiple times: Do you think $6 a day is going to lift people out of poverty, or was your former minister wrong?

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

The NDP secured amendments to Bill C-22 so that this legislation would lift persons with disabilities out of poverty. Why are you okay with an inadequate $200 a month top-up, which violates the CRPD and is barely enough to buy groceries? Does your government think that people living with disabilities are worth only $200 a month?

Persons with Disabilities

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a petition on behalf of over 1,200 people who note, first of all, that people with disabilities often face barriers to employment, along with higher costs associated with health care and housing. They go on to note that the Canada Disability Benefit Act was delayed for over two years; the first attempt to establish the law, known as Bill C-35, was postponed because of the 2021 election.

The Canada Disability Benefit Act was meant to provide much-needed financial support for people with disabilities, many of whom live in poverty. They note that the minister responsible has told Canadians that implementing the Canada disability benefit is estimated to take a minimum of 18 months, following the passage of Bill C-22, which received royal assent last June. They note that there are insufficient supports in current disability programs federally and, particularly, provincially. This presents a significant risk to life and health for people with disabilities across the country who live in legislated poverty. They note that the federal government has refused to provide people with disabilities with an interim disability emergency response benefit and that the government has yet to bring the Canada disability benefit into force. The government is not starting the 12-month regulatory time clock, which is further delaying the benefit.

As a result, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to bring the Canada disability benefit into force within two weeks of this petition being presented in the House.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We know the Canada disability benefit was first announced in the 2020 throne speech, and the legislation wasn't tabled until June 2021. This legislation was Bill C-35, which died when the Prime Minister called the 2021 election. A second bill, Bill C-22, wasn't tabled until June 2022. In October 2022, the minister told this committee that she expected it to take 12 months to develop the regulations, with an early 2024 target for publication. We know that commitment timeline has come and gone.

Canadians living with disabilities don't know if they're eligible. They don't know how they're going to apply. They don't know what they'll receive. They don't know how they'll receive it, when they'll receive it, how it will interact with provincial programs or if clawbacks will be triggered. The Liberals have broken their promises.

I bring this up because we are on the precipice of budget 2024, and people living with disabilities and their families deserve these answers.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, the decisions made in this place have a direct impact on the lives of Canadians. That impact can be no greater than when it is a matter of life or death, and this is exactly the case with this piece of legislation. As members of Parliament, we have a duty to serve in the best interests of Canadians; this duty must extend to the protection of the most vulnerable in society.

I should note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Portage—Lisgar.

The expansion of medically assisted death to those suffering from mental illness is dangerous and, simply, reckless. It is inevitable that the expansion of MAID to those suffering solely from a mental illness would result in the deaths of Canadians who could have gotten better. This is not to say that those with mental illness should be left alone to suffer. Recovery is possible, and we cannot give up on these individuals and their loved ones. Canadians suffering from mental illness need and deserve support and treatment. They may feel that their situation is hopeless, but the antidote is hope, not death. They deserve government policy and a health care system that are compassionate and responsive to their needs. Where there are gaps or shortfalls in our care system, we should prioritize working alongside our provincial partners to address them. That, not expanding MAID, should be the priority.

The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying heard loud and clear from the mental health experts and advocates that the planned expansion of MAID was dangerous. The current Liberal government has already had to introduce eleventh-hour legislation to delay the expansion of MAID by one year from the date that it had arbitrarily set. We find ourselves, ironically, now in the same position as we were in last year. Bill C-62, once again, would only offer a temporary delay in the expansion of MAID to persons suffering from mental illness. The risks and dangers that exist today would continue to exist in three years. However, the Liberal government is intent on its expansion.

It is truly frightening to see that the Liberal government wants to continue to expand the access to MAID, despite clear concerns about safeguards of vulnerable people. The Liberals' careless approach was already evident when the Liberal government decided not to appeal the Truchon ruling and, instead, introduced legislation that went much further than the ruling had required.

What we have seen repeatedly from the current Liberal government is the willingness to offer MAID to more and more Canadians, without prioritizing supports or treatment. This continues to be the case with those in the end stages of life. Through pain management and psychological, emotional and practical supports, palliative and hospice care provides relief from pain, stress and symptoms of serious illness. Palliative care has proven to improve the quality of life not only for the patient but also for their family. However, access to this is not universal here in Canada.

The government's own report on the state of palliative care in Canada, released this past December, confirms that access to palliative care is indeed not universal. We do not have the necessary safeguards in place to protect vulnerable Canadians when access to MAID is more universal than access to palliative care is. When Canadians suffering from serious illness do not have access to appropriate care, they can be left feeling hopeless. Personal autonomy is not increased when a person feels as though they have no other choice.

When the current Liberal government removed the “reasonably foreseeable death” clause from the MAID framework, it opened up to persons with disabilities who are not close to death. Disability advocates raised alarm bells with this decision, and the news stories that have emerged in recent years have underscored the risks and the danger in that decision. Reports showing that poverty, not pain, is driving Canadians with disabilities to consider assisted death are truly heartbreaking.

For persons with disabilities, the pressures of the cost of living crisis are compounded. Their basic living costs are generally much more significant. As the prices go up on everything, their costs are even greater. It is unacceptable that there are persons with disabilities turning to MAID because of their cost of living situation.

This NDP-Liberal government's inflationary spending and taxes are fuelling the affordability crisis in this country, and what is even more shameful is that, despite the pain and suffering it is causing Canadians, there has been no course correction for this costly coalition. It has continued to mismanage tax dollars. It is intent on quadrupling the carbon tax, which is increasing the cost of just about everything.

Let us not forget that not a single disability payment has gone out to those who want it and have been asking for it. Bill C-22 was sped through the parliamentary process, but those who are desperate for financial assistance are still waiting.

The affordability crisis is continuing to surge across the country, and it is further putting persons with disabilities in a vulnerable position. Medically assisted death should not be more readily available to persons with disabilities than the supports and accommodations they need to live a full, healthy and dignified life.

Repeated reports that Canadians are being offered medically assisted death without first requesting it is also very alarming. It suggests that safeguards have not been put in place to ensure that vulnerable people are not being pressured or coerced into seeking medically assisted death. No person should feel that the health care system, the infrastructure that is meant to provide care and support, sees no value in their lives.

There are serious concerns with the existing MAID framework and the framework's ability to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. These are concerns that are not being addressed by the Liberal government and that ultimately should be the priority of the government on an issue such as medically assisted death. When the risks and concerns that exist with the current framework are already proven to be warranted, we should certainly heed the clear warnings against its expansion.

Experts have said that it is impossible to predict in any legitimate way that mental illness is irremediable. This means that individuals suffering solely from mental illness can recover and can improve. Their mental health state is not destitute nor without hope. If medical assistance in dying is offered to persons suffering solely from mental illness, it is inevitable that vulnerable Canadians will die who could have gotten better.

Experts have also made it clear that it is difficult for clinicians to distinguish between a rational MAID request and one motivated by suicidal thoughts. Persons with mental illness are already disproportionately affected by suicide and suicidal ideation. To extend access to medically assisted death to this group of individuals contradicts and undermines suicide prevention efforts. Every single person's life has value and purpose. It is not acceptable to have government policies in place that devalue the life of a person, and the Liberal government's intention to expand access to MAID fails individuals suffering from mental illness in this country.

Whether it happens in March of this year or in three years, the expansion of MAID will still be dangerous and reckless. The delayed expansion of MAID will ultimately still fail vulnerable Canadians. Bill C-62 does not go far enough to protect those suffering with mental illness. The Prime Minister must immediately and permanently halt the expansion of medical assistance in dying to persons with mental illness. We cannot give up on an individual who is suffering. They deserve support and treatment, not death.

Common-sense Conservatives know that recovery is possible for persons suffering from mental illness. We do not support policies that abandon people when they are in their most vulnerable state. Death is not a treatment for suffering. We will stand with them and their loved ones. Above all else, when we consider medically assisted death, we must be gripped by a resolve to protect the most vulnerable because, in matters of life and death, there is simply no room for error.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would tell them I would always vote for those kinds of supports, and I am very pleased we have passed Bill C-22 on creating a framework for an eventual disability benefit. It is excellent public policy and I am, quite frankly, hoping the next budget includes something more concrete on that around a figure of the kind of financial support people with disabilities can expect.

Yes, there are many social problems, and this is one of the reasons I do not think we are really ready. We do not know how to extract those influences such as the inability to find housing, loneliness, drug addictions, etc. We do not have the ability to extract those motivators from what we could call, I suppose, for lack of better words, a more considered request for MAID. It is a big problem. As a society, we have many problems to deal with, and that is why I am here. I am trying to do my best, as the member is, to solve those problems.

Persons with Disabilities

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present two petitions.

The first is on behalf of over 3,200 people from across the country, who note that people with disabilities often face barriers to employment along with higher costs associated with health care and housing. They note that the Canada disability benefit was delayed for over two years, as the first attempt to pass the law known as Bill C-35 was postponed due to the 2021 election. They note that the Canada disability benefit would provide much needed financial support for people with disabilities and that 40% of those living in poverty are those with disabilities.

They note that the minister responsible told Canadians that implementing the Canada disability benefit is expected to take at least 18 months following the passage of Bill C-22 in June 2023. In fact, that has been pushed back further still. They note that insufficient supports in current disability programs, both federally and provincially, present a significant risk of life and health for people with disabilities across the country living in legislative poverty.

They go on to note that the federal government has refused to provide an interim disability emergency response benefit similar to the CERB that was provided in the pandemic. They also note that back payments are provided to eligible recipients for other disability benefits, like the disability tax credit, and they note that the federal government has yet to budget the necessary funds for the Canada disability benefit.

As a result, they have two calls in their petition to the Government of Canada. The first is to provide back payments to eligible Canada disability benefit recipients covering the time from when the Canada Disability Benefit Act received royal assent in June 2023. The second is to budget the necessary funds for the Canada disability benefit into budget 2023 to show that the government is committed to providing the Canada disability benefit to the disability community as soon as possible.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kitchener Centre for his important advocacy around the disability benefit, for highlighting concerns and bringing them to this House.

The disability community is keen and anxious to see that the benefit will be realized, and realized correctly.

We understand that many Canadians with disabilities need the additional support from the Canada disability benefit.

Our government is eager to get money into the pockets of those who need it most. We must get it right. The delivery of the benefit needs to be smooth, targeted, effective and possible.

While the previous Conservative government made promises to Canadians and to the disability community, we actually fulfilled these promises and are going to realize them. Our government has delivered to persons with disabilities. We will continue to do so.

We carefully crafted consultations with the disability community. I, myself, over the last five months of being parliamentary secretary to the minister, have learned about the disability community and have learned about the contours, the uniquenesses within the community, and there are many. The disability benefit will reflect these contours, the uniquenesses of the community.

Bill C-22 received royal assent on June 22, 2023. Immediately, within a month, we announced the start of meaningful consultations. These consultations are informing the design of the regulations to serve those in need. This is absolutely necessary.

The regulatory process is crucial and we must respect it.

There is no better way to get it right than to include those with lived experiences. Persons with disabilities need to have the opportunity to contribute to the design of the benefit's regulations. The disability community must have a say in how this benefit will look, and reflect those concerns. In fact, it is required by the Canada Disability Benefit Act.

The benefit has real potential to reduce and alleviate poverty and to support those who are seeking financial security, those who are of working age and Canadians with disabilities. We know what the target is. We will hit the mark.

Our latest engagement has been via an online tool, where Canadians throughout the country shared their thoughts on details of the benefit. We sought the advice also within key areas from experts, the disability community and advocates.

This addresses the member's question on how the application process should be structured. We are now analyzing those very responses from coast to coast from advocates, from people who are living with disabilities and from those with the variations of disabilities reflected within our country.

We are assessing those responses right now, and we are drafting the regulations. They are being put into the final stage. We are making sure obstacles are removed so Canadians, those with disabilities, will have access to this important benefit.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to again thank the member opposite for her advocacy.

We are moving quickly on historic investments and measures. The legislation, Bill C-22, which is now law, requires that we consult with the community in a fulsome fashion, and we are doing so. It requires that we make regulations to have the benefit realized, actualized and in people's pockets, and we are doing so. The benefit will reduce poverty and will increase financial security for those who need it most.

The Canada disability benefit is important to all of us. It is important to our government, it is important to the member opposite, it is important to me and it is important to Canadians. We are working with the community tirelessly.

We need to get this right and we will get it right. It will help create real change. It will transform the realities—

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity]

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that our House, together, passed an important disability benefit with Bill C-22. We are committed to making sure that this benefit is realized, and that this will get dollars into the pockets of those who need it for Canadians who are with disability and who are of working age. This will help alleviate poverty and help Canadians who are looking forward to this benefit. We will do so properly and without delay.

[Yves Giroux]

I certainly have not seen anything related to Bill C-22, which could be significant if or when we see regulations that will implement or operationalize the disability benefit. I don't remember seeing anything on pay equity in the supplementary estimates or anything for dental care.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for his advocacy.

Our government recognizes that many Canadians with disabilities need additional financial support. That is the reason for the Canada disability benefit. The benefit will provide this.

We are in no way dilly-dallying and wasting time. The passage of Bill C-22 is a major milestone. Our government has a strong and unwavering commitment to create a more inclusive and barrier-free Canada. This is the result of decades of relentless advocacy by the disability community. I want to thank all parliamentarians of this House who supported the passing of this critical piece of legislation.

This summer, we reviewed the engagement process for developing regulations. We are moving forward with our commitment to create and implement a new Canada disability benefit as soon as possible.

This is a big undertaking. We must make sure it is done properly and done well. We cannot cut corners. We must respect the regulatory process. We must provide opportunities to persons with lived experiences to contribute to the benefit regulations. The disability community must have its say in how this benefit will look. This is required by the Canada Disability Benefit Act.

We are now actively engaging with a variety of stakeholders. They include persons with disabilities from a range of backgrounds, provincial and territorial governments and Canadians at large. We are working together in developing the regulations.

The Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities and I held a number of round tables with the community, who generously shared their perspectives and experiences.

Last week, we launched an online engagement tool. This will allow all Canadians to have their voices heard. We are diligently analyzing this input. The input is valuable. It will help us develop meaningful and impactful regulations. When we get there, the draft regulations will of course be published in the Canada Gazette. This will give one last opportunity for Canadians to share their feedback.

Again, we are doing everything to make sure that the disability benefit will be fulsome and impactful, and will serve Canadians and lift up those experiencing economic challenges who are of working age and living with disabilities.

[Vince Barletta, President and Chief Executive Officer, Harvest Manitoba]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning.

Harvest Manitoba is Manitoba's food bank supporting the food security programs of 380 agency partners in 46 communities across our province. These programs are serving more than 100,000 people every month.

The need for food banks in Canada and Manitoba has never been greater. Food bank use has increased by 150% since prepandemic levels. Across Canada today, nearly two million people are using a food bank to support their daily food needs. In fact, Stats Canada had a report just yesterday showing that one in five Canadians is food-insecure.

I do want to acknowledge the Government of Canada's support during the pandemic for the emergency food security fund, as well as the local food infrastructure fund, LFIF, which enabled Harvest Manitoba and other organizations to make investments and sustain their operations at a very difficult time. I would encourage those continued investments in food security organizations.

Whenever I speak with food bank clients about what is driving the need, the story is always the same: inflation, inflation, inflation. Rising prices for everything we buy, from food to housing to fuel, are pushing people to the edge and beyond. Sadly, we all know that in times of high inflation, it's those who have the least who hurt the most. That includes people like Taylor.

Taylor is a 26-year-old woman from Winnipeg who uses Harvest's food banks, and has for many years, due to her disabilities, which leave her unable to work. Taylor's source of income is employment and income assistance for persons with disabilities, a program that offers her an income of $1,177 a month, which is $945 below the market basket measure for poverty. Inflation and high grocery prices have caused Taylor to abstain from purchasing healthy food. A lack of that nutritious diet has negatively impacted her mental health, her heart issues and other challenges.

In Manitoba today, one in six people lives with a disability, and people with disabilities are disproportionately represented at our food banks. Forty per cent of food bank clients live with a disability that prevents them from working, causes underemployment, or creates additional expenses for health needs and nutrition.

Parliament took a major step forward when all members voted for the passage of Bill C-22, the Canada Disability Benefit Act. For too many Canadians today, having a disability is a sentence to a lifetime of poverty. Harvest Manitoba urges Parliament and the government to move swiftly to fund and implement the new Canada disability benefit with amounts that will raise people's incomes above the market basket measure for poverty, that will not be subject to clawbacks and that will be accessible to all Canadians who need it.

Over the past year, a growing number of food bank clients in Manitoba are new to Canada, particularly Ukrainians displaced by the illegal and unprovoked war brought by Vladimir Putin on the Ukrainian people. For so many who are new to our country, their new life in Canada unfortunately begins with a journey to a local food bank. At times over this past year, over half of all new food bank clients in the city of Winnipeg have been displaced Ukrainians.

New Canadians continue to lack meaningful pathways to gainful employment and education, and there is a lack of accessible and affordable housing. Harvest Manitoba urges Parliament to consider additional support for settlement organizations, training organizations and food banks, which continue to allow Canada to successfully settle people from around the world.

In Manitoba, 16 first nation communities remain isolated from the south, with a lack of all-weather road access. Sixty per cent of these households face regular food insecurity. The rates of diabetes are five times higher than the national average. Harvest Manitoba was pleased to be the first food bank in Canada to participate in the nutrition north Canada program.

Today, in partnership with nutrition north Canada and the Island Lake Tribal Council, Harvest Manitoba has established regular community-led food bank operations in remote first nations of over 10,000 people in those Island Lake communities 600 kilometres north of Winnipeg. In our first year of operation, we have shipped nearly 70,000 kilograms of nutritious food to those Island Lake nations, the equivalent of more than 200,000 meals.

Without the nutrition north Canada subsidy in its current and revised form, Harvest Manitoba would not have been able to sustain the high cost of transporting food by air and ice roads to these communities, nor continue our current expansion plans to deliver food in partnership with first nations to other remote northern communities.

We know that food banks and delivering food alone are not a long-term answer to northern food security. Food sovereignty is. Economic development is, as well as opportunity, but these communities need food today.

Canada can and must do better to address the crisis of food security in this country. Along with all Canadians and Manitobans, we look forward to working with this new federal budget that offers hope for a healthy future for all where no one goes hungry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

Before I get into my lines of questioning, I would like to move the following motion:

The committee immediately undertake a five meeting review on the disproportionate impact the carbon tax has on low income individuals.

This has been circulated to committee members.

We know that the carbon tax is impacting vulnerable Canadians by raising the cost of basic goods like gas, home heating and groceries. The Liberal government has admitted that it's doubling down on their carbon tax plan, including quadrupling the carbon tax on Canadians. The temporary pause the Liberal government has announced for the carbon tax on home heating oil won't help 97% of Canadians. The committee needs to study how proceeding with the government's carbon tax policy adds costs to the lives of the most vulnerable.

This is relevant to this committee specifically, because the mandate of this committee talks about studies that this committee can do and should prioritize. In our mandate, it includes income security and disability issues. The carbon tax affects income security by raising the price of basic necessities. As well, the carbon tax increasing costs impacts the most vulnerable in our society, especially persons with disabilities. We heard a lot of testimony at this committee during the Canada Disability Benefit Act legislation, where persons with disabilities were finding it hard to pay for basic necessities. We even heard of people considering medical assistance in dying, MAID, because they couldn't afford to live. All of that testimony was actually before the most recent carbon tax increase that happened this summer.

I have moved this motion. I hope the committee will support it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Absolutely, and I know disaggregated data is really important, but I'm looking at it and, seeing that we just finished Bill C-22, the disability act, I'm wondering how there have been zero reviews. It says, “The Gender Results Framework lacked disaggregated data to monitor progress in advancing gender equality”.

We've just passed a huge bill, yet there has been no framework for disability. I just sit there and think, “what a disconnect”. These are things that are extremely important for those who are most vulnerable.

Switching over to the Privy Council, I think it's really important when we're looking at legislation and policies that there is a GBA put on this, specifically, when I'm looking at women's safety, and those are vulnerable populations.

Can you share me what is being done to ensure, when you're looking at pieces of legislation, especially in the public safety realm, that the GBA lens is being applied?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Diversity]

Mr. Speaker, passing Bill C-22 was a major milestone and a strong and unwavering commitment to creating a more inclusive and barrier-free Canada. It is because of the relentless advocacy of the disability community. The benefit is yet another concrete step to significantly reduce poverty and support Canadians who need it the most.

In the true spirit of “Nothing without us”, we will continue to engage with Canadians and persons with disabilities on the design and delivery of the benefit. We are going to get it right, and we are going to make sure that the disability community feels that it is part of this engagement process.

Inclusion of Students with Disabilities

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister for placing his trust in me. I would also like to thank the people of Pierrefonds—Dollard for their support.

I would like to thank the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for his motion and his deep and personal concern for persons with disabilities, including children and youth. When it comes to creating a more inclusive and equitable country for persons with disabilities, we strongly must agree together. This must remain a government priority and a priority for all members of this House.

I am pleased to tell the opposition member that our government supports his motion.

In fact, this motion is consistent with the government's priorities. It is also consistent with our legislative program to promote the full social and economic inclusion of persons with disabilities. When it comes to educational opportunities for persons with disabilities, Canada is committed both domestically and internationally.

In the next moments, I will speak about our government's actions toward building a fairer and more inclusive Canada for all. This includes channelling our efforts through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act. I am especially proud of the historic Accessible Canada Act, which became law in 2019; and Canada's first-ever disability inclusion action plan, introduced in 2022. These are importantly supported going forward.

The member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin specifically seeks greater support for the inclusion of children with disabilities into the education system. This motion ties federal spending to specific measures to achieve that goal, here in Canada and through our international commitments. As we know, education falls within the jurisdiction of provinces and territories, except for the first nations education on reserve. However, the federal government does play a key role in building and maintaining a system of quality education across the country. We provide specific block transfers to the provinces and territories through the Canada social transfer, including for post-secondary education. We will not intervene in matters under provincial and territorial jurisdiction.

In the spirit of “Nothing Without Us”, we remain committed to directly engaging with the disability community. Of course, we work with our provincial and territorial colleagues to use every tool at our disposal to remove barriers to quality education. Part of that collaboration with provincial and territorial and indigenous partners has been the establishment of the Canada-wide early learning and child care system. Inclusive and equitable access to the system is built into the government's agreements with provinces and territories. Federal funding is being used by our provincial and territorial partners to provide supports that can address these unique circumstances with each and every individual child and family.

In addition, last June, our government announced a $12.5-million investment under the engaging accessibility fund, small projects component. This supported 225 early learning and child care centres to buy specialized equipment for children with special needs so they can thrive in those environments. Through agreements we have reached with provinces and territories, we are building an affordable child care system that is accessible and inclusive to all Canadians in every region of the country. It is disappointing that the Conservative Party does not see the value in this historic program.

All this is in addition to supporting lifelong learning and skills development opportunities for working-age persons with disabilities, for example, the workforce development agreements program and the opportunity fund.

Let me briefly circle back to the disability inclusion action plan. The action plan has four key pillars. First is financial security; second, employment; third, accessible and inclusive communities; and fourth, a modern approach to disability across the federal government. We know that when persons with disabilities have equal opportunities to contribute to our society and to Canada, our economy grows and strengthens. We achieve the Canada we want through this: a country that is a richer and more vibrant and inclusive country.

There is still much work to do, but we are making important progress. We are working alongside the disability community.

A good, quality education is key to being lifted out of poverty and to one's social advancement. It increases the chances of finding a good job and earning higher wages. There is always the opportunity to learn on the job and develop additional skills.

Persons with disabilities often face barriers to attaining higher levels of education. This can lead to a lifetime of inequality. It can also deny capable and willing Canadians the opportunity to fully contribute, which takes away from the economy.

Statistics Canada has the data. The percentage of school-aged youth with disabilities drops considerably as they transition from high school to young adulthood. Women with disabilities are more likely than men with disabilities to quit formal education or training because of their condition.

First, we know that greater educational opportunity means greater participation by persons with disabilities in the labour market. Second, we are living in a time of labour market shortages and market transitions as we gradually shift away from traditional jobs to a greener economy. This brings us to the logical conclusion that when persons with disabilities achieve their full potential and thrive so does all of Canada.

That is why we, as a Liberal government, will continue to invest in persons with disabilities. We want and need persons with disabilities to have the financial supports they need. This is to help them complete their studies and successfully move into the workforce.

This past June, Bill C-22 received royal assent. This was a very significant victory for the disability community. We must savour that win and take in that moment. The Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities will be moving forward to deliver the Canada disability benefit to those who need it the most. This significant, transformative piece of legislation is unique. It will lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty and will genuinely improve the lives of Canadians.

I know and fully understand that many are anxious to bring this benefit to the finish line. As we bring it to the finish line, we must not cut corners with the quality of the engagements the minister is leading with the disability community. We must make sure the benefit is what the disability community needs. We are focused on getting this right. We will get it right.

I hope to see all members of this House support the Canada disability benefit. It is not enough to say that we need to be more inclusive. We must also take concrete actions. We will take more concrete actions.

It is important to recognize that there exists an array of disabilities. This community is not a homogenous group. Disabilities vary in type and severity. The barriers that one person faces might be different from those of another.

Our government is committed to ensuring the full participation and inclusion of all persons with disabilities.

Through historic milestones such as the Accessible Canada Act, the Canada disability benefit and the disability inclusion action plan, we are moving away from an ableist mindset of what is possible. There are many possibilities. They are now being put into action and they will become a reality, because inclusion benefits everyone.

I would like to close by giving thanks to the disability community and the advocates involved in this space. I thank them for their work, for pressing and pushing, for getting us to where we are thus far and for helping us get across the finish line.

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

Thank you very much.

It's me and then Ms. Barron will be taking up the next round of questioning for me.

I'll start by saying that it seems there is a message out of the Senate that the House of Commons' motion to the Senate about amendments to Bill C-22 has been adopted in the Senate. I guess it is on its way, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to speak a little about mechanisms to ensure that targets are met in regulatory requirements. It's mentioned here in the report that the target was 80% and that was 69% met. I'm wondering if there are fines or if there are sanctions.

What is the mechanism to ensure targets are met? What do we do if they aren't?

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing the stories and narratives from people in her riding. It is very important that we remind ourselves exactly what the impact of obstructionism does in this place.

I have a constituent who constantly texts me about the progress of Bill C-22. It is a bill that I have supported from the beginning. She is living with a disability. She too is waiting for us to get the job done. I have supported the minister proposing that bill in every way I possibly can, formally and informally. It would wipe out a swath of poverty. I am hoping the letter that goes to the Senate will be accepted by the other place so we can put that in place.

I mentioned the example of Glen Assoun a moment ago and Bill C-40, another important bill that I have put forward to correct miscarriages of justice in the Canadian system. They exist; mistakes happen. However, this is a way to correct them more efficiently, more effectively and with greater access. I am sad that Glen Assoun, who worked for this result, did not live to see this bill get through Parliament.

I am hoping that we can eliminate all of these various delays so we can debate, as the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon wants us to do, the substance without all the other tactics that just grind this place to a halt.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to share some things that happened in my riding this weekend and why it is so important that in this chamber, we understand how our decisions impact people on the ground.

On Friday, a caller from outside of my riding, from Victoria, phoned in and said they considered taking their life on Wednesday of last week. It was only because the House passed Bill C-22 that they felt hope. That kept them going.

On Sunday, I was at a community event and a similar situation happened. A woman approached me and said that if it was not for the support of her family and her parents around her as she managed the system of income supports for the disability she is dealing with right now, she would have taken her life by now.

Today, the newspaper in British Columbia talked about 100,000 renting families being at risk of losing their home in our community. Some of that is due to corporate ownership of housing.

I wonder if the member opposite would share some of the impacts of being able to get work done in this House. That matters to people on the ground. As we talk about our privilege, we are not at risk of losing our housing and we are not at risk of not having coverage when we get a disability. People in Canada are. It actually turns my stomach and makes me feel a little ill to think that we would sit here while people consider taking their life because we do not want to advance legislation.

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology

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

Mr. Speaker, I always welcome the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives. Sometimes they just make it too easy.

When I first walked in this morning, honest to God, I really thought we were going to be passing historic legislation. I really thought we were going to be talking about Bill C-22. After all, if anyone went on the Internet and looked at what is happening in Ottawa, what would be debated in the House of Commons, the first thing in government business was Bill C-22.

I am sorry, Bill C-22 is another national program, that is the disability program. We do so much good stuff, there so much out there. We are supposed to be talking about Bill C-35, and it did not take a Conservative to point that out. They kind of get lost in the numbers.

At the end of the day, we were supposed to be talking about Bill C-35 today. It is a national child care plan, from coast to coast to coast, and we are enshrining it into law. We had 20 minutes to go, and then it would go into law.

However, no, the Conservatives had a different agenda. They have a partisan agenda. They have an agenda that says “cause frustration, do not allow legislation to pass.” The previous speaker stood up and said that we needed to have more legislation, referring to Bill C-27. He wants to multiply Bill C-27 into three bills. He wants us to introduce three more pieces of legislation so that the Conservatives have more to filibuster.

The member is criticizing the government, saying that it has been months since we last called this legislation. A lot of issues are happening on the floor of the House of Commons, even with the frustrations caused by the Conservatives, and they cause a lot of frustration. I will give them that much. They know how to play a destructive force. Never before have I seen an opposition, and I was in opposition for 20 years, so focused on playing a destructive force with respect to legislation.

Earlier today, I reminded the opposition that it was a minority government, and I acknowledge that. We accept the fact that we were elected as a minority government, and we thank Canadians for recognizing us and allowing us to continue in government. We take that very seriously. I kind of wish the Conservative Party would recognize that as well.

Do they not realize there is a sense of “responsibility” for opposition members as well. Providing endless filibusters and trying to prevent every piece of legislation from passing is the goal of the Conservative. Just last week, and I referenced it this morning, the Conservative leader made a strong statement, and it made the news. It was on Newswatch in fact, not to mention other news agencies. The Leader of the Conservative Party said that he was going to speak and speak and speak, and he might have said “speak” a few more times, to filibuster our budget implementation bill. Let us think about all the things in that the budget implementation bill, and there is not enough time to elaborate on that. That was his intention. He was going to speak until we changed it, and four hours later it passed.

We have these mechanisms to ensure that at least, even with the destructive force of the Conservative Party, we can still get things done for Canadians.

Let us fast forward things here. The Conservatives did not want to debate the child care bill this morning. Instead, they wanted to talk about an issue that now brings us to Bill C-27—

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

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

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and talk about substantive legislation that would have a profound impact, not only for today but also for future generations.

I think we would have to go back quite a way to find a government that has been so progressive in providing advancements in a wide spectrum of areas to support Canadians. I often hear, whether from the Prime Minister or one my colleagues, that the issue for us is that we want to see an economy that actually works for all Canadians. We often talk about Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it, and how we could develop policies and initiatives, and take the budgetary measures to advance that. That is what Canadians expect.

Through the last number of years, we have heard the Conservatives focusing on other things, outside of what is important to Canadians. Today is a good example. We see a government that is listening to what Canadians are saying and delivering on that in a very tangible way. For example, an hour or so ago, we were talking about Bill C-22. It is historic legislation. For the very first time, we are saying that Canadians with disabilities need to have support that would ensure that there would be fewer people with disabilities living in poverty. This would be as a direct result of Bill C-22, a wonderful, progressive piece of legislation.

Now, we are talking about Bill C-35. In many ways, Bill C-35 would have such a positive impact, no matter where, what region, in Canada one looks at. Getting these agreements is not necessarily an easy task. The current minister has reached out and contacted provincial and territorial stakeholders, not to mention, as she made reference to in response to a question, numerous advocates. In a very humble but accurate way, the minister acknowledged the input of those advocates who have been working, trying for years to put in place what Bill C-35 would do.

In some of those years, we have experienced a great deal of frustration. I have talked about the Conservative hidden agenda. Let me tell the House why there is a Conservative hidden agenda and why Bill C-35 is so critically important. Members across the way might recall the Stephen Harper days.

I would not say “hear, hear” to that.

With respect to child care, the first action former prime minister Harper took was to get rid of child care agreements, 15 years or so ago.

I want members to imagine, if they will, what would have happened had Stephen Harper and the Conservative government at the time recognized the real value of what Paul Martin, Ken Dryden and the Liberal government had put into place. It was a substantial, extensive program. I know that Ken Dryden, in particular, put so much effort into it in terms of working with some of the advocates the current minister has no doubt had to deal with. That plan was put into place, approved and signed off, and provinces were onside. Then the Conservative government, led by Stephen Harper, cancelled it outright, on day one. What was the cost of that policy decision?

A couple of years ago, after we made many other initiatives that have been really important to Canadians, we took the bold step to bring this thing back in a very real and tangible way. Once again, we have a national minister recognizing that there is a role for the federal government to ensure that we have child care from coast to coast to coast.

All one really needs to do is to take a look at what is happening in the province of Quebec. Quebec has had this model for many years, and we see the benefits to Quebec society as a direct result in terms of things that have been achieved, whether it is women engaging in the workforce far more than in any other jurisdiction, from what I understand, in North America, to providing an improved, quality standard of child care to ensuring that there are more equal opportunities, not to mention how the economy benefited by it.

We understood this many years ago, and now we are forwarding it. However, it is because of the goodwill and support from Canadians from coast to coast to coast that we were able to work it out with the many different stakeholders, in particular, the provinces and territories. I believe Ontario was the last one to sign on board back in March 2022. By Doug Ford's signature, we had a true, national, coast to coast, child care program, and that is something we should all be very proud of.

As a Liberal caucus and as a team, we understood the benefits of the program, and it is an issue we promoted. In fact, as my colleagues will recall, we only need to take a look at the last federal election. We had 337, 338 candidates going door to door talking about the importance of child care, and that if we were re-elected into government, we would materialize a child care program.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, said that they would tear it up, that they did not believe in what we were doing. So, when a Conservative member stands up and says “Well, we're voting for the legislation”, I encourage members to read some of the speeches that were given by Conservatives. Look at what they did on the first run. This is why we need the legislation. We do not want a potential Conservative cabinet 15 years from now making the decision to get rid of the program. We want this program to be there for future generations, because by making that sort of commitment, we know that society here in Canada will benefit greatly.

We cannot trust the Conservative Party, quite frankly. It has demonstrated that time and time again when its members talk about progressive policies for the betterment of Canadians, and I do not say that lightly. I actually sat in the chamber and listened to many of the Conservative MPs speak on this legislation, and I could not tell how they were going to vote. I think someone put their finger up in the air and felt the political wind and thought, “Oh, jeez, it might be tough for us to vote against this, so let's support it.”

Some might use the word “delusional”, but I would suggest, after 30 years of being in Parliament and watching the Conservatives at play, that it is more of a reality issue. I would suggest to members that the Conservatives actually recognize the true value of this program. They should be bold and go against their own leadership if need be and make some of the statements that are really important in recognizing the value of this program. They will say that, yes, they want to give more child care dollars to a certain degree, but they are not talking about the same sort of child care program that we are talking about.

What does this program do? It provides $10-a-day day care, which is life-changing. It is going to enable so many people the opportunity to afford, for the first time, child care services and the educational program that goes along with it.

I was really encouraged, and I think it was back in September, when the Prime Minister came to Winnipeg North and we went to Stanley Knowles School and visited the child care facility. We could see relief in the faces of the individuals who are recipients of what we are talking about today. It was relief, joy or just appreciation that there is finally a government trying to do the things that are important to citizens.

Winnipeg North is not the only riding the Prime Minister has visited. As he has gone through the country, he has attended town halls in other constituencies and has spoken to parents and been there with the children. I always enjoy the playful attitude the Prime Minister has toward the children of Canada because it is so genuine.

We have a Prime Minister who is committed not only to providing $10-a-day day care but who understands the needs of our young people. He is there to talk, answer questions and listen. As a result, whether it is him, the Minister of Families or my caucus colleagues, they take a look at the issues that come up in our constituencies and bring those issues to Ottawa so we can develop the budgets and the legislation necessary and that is going to make a difference in the lives of Canadians.

What are the issues today we often hear about? Inflation has to be one of them. I feel a great deal of empathy and sympathy for what Canadians need to overcome as a direct result of inflation, even though Canada is doing quite well on inflation compared to the U.S. and many of the European countries, our allied countries, and so many others. This is not to mention other economic indicators. It does not take away from the fact that as a government we still need to do what we can to help Canadians at a time of need.

With this program, we are talking about hundreds if not thousands of dollars every year that are going to be left in the pockets and purses of Canadians from coast to coast to coast as a direct result. That is action. That is going to make a difference in a very real and tangible way.

On other actions to support our children, remember the dental program. The Conservatives actually voted against this particular program. As we implemented the dental program, the first thing on the agenda was children under the age of 12. We do not want to recognize, by their smile, a child who is not able to get the dental work they require. Far too often children are going to hospitals to get dental work because their mom, dad or guardian do not have the financial resources, for some reason or another, to bring that child to a dentist.

Again, through this program, we are seeing literally dollars going into the pockets of families to assist children in being able to get the type of dental services that are necessary.

I started off by talking about national programs. I talked about the historic program of disabilities. Then I talked about children. Now I am making reference to dental work. I would challenge any member of this House to demonstrate any government before this government that has developed and put into place programs to support Canadians. It has been a wide spectrum of programs and I want to spend just a bit of time to emphasize that. It clearly shows why Bill C-35 is a part of a larger plan that is very comprehensive and shows Canadians that, whether it is a legislative measure or a budgetary measure, this is a government that has the backs of Canadians in a very real and tangible way. We have a government that has now negotiated, for example, an incredible $200-billion plan to ensure that future generations of Canadians are going to have a health care system that is based on the Canada Health Act.

We have a government that, within the first couple of years, understood the importance of retirement and worked with all the provinces, as it has done with the three programs I have just mentioned, and had CPP addressed, which is something that Stephen Harper completely ignored and said that he would not do. Before he was the leader of the Conservative Party, he advocated getting rid of the CPP. We as a government worked with the different provinces and stakeholders, including small business and labour groups and were able to get the agreement on CPP.

I say this because, like Bill C-35, these are initiatives that really make a difference in the lives of Canadians. That is why I am encouraging members opposite to change their attitudes toward the way in which government spends its money. Let me give a specific example by using Bill C-35.

The Conservatives have this mindset: If they spend a dollar, it is a bad thing if it is government dollars. It is cut, cut, cut. One day, I even had one of the members suggest that we could always cut money from military defence. I can say that when the government invests in programs, more often than not we get a pretty decent return. For example, yes, the child care program is going to cost a lot of money; there is no doubt about it. However, if we recognize the value of that investment and start acknowledging some of the benefits, we quickly find out that it is not costing as much as one might think.

For example, specifically as a direct result of Bill C-35 and the budgetary measures by this government, there is no doubt that we will see an increase in the workforce. We are going to see more, in particular, women participating in the economy. As a direct result of that, when more women are participating in the economy, more taxes are generated. When members say that there is a cost for child care, there is a cost benefit that also needs to be factored in. That is not to mention the other benefits that I have already cited: to the community, to the family unit and to the child receiving that quality child care.

In conclusion, I would encourage members to realize the benefits of not only saying they are voting for this particular legislation, but I am going to be looking to see the Facebook and social media commentaries coming from the Conservative Party, saying how wonderful this program is, and be—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier the member for Kelowna—Lake Country got up on a point of order with respect to the proceedings on Bill C-22 and said she was dismayed that the Green Party was excluded from having a speaking spot.

I think there has been some confusion over a long-standing opposition by the Conservatives to including Green Party members in UC motions to provide for extra speaking spots. If that has changed, I would ask that a Conservative rise in his or her place to affirm that change so that we can include Green Party members going forward.

Canada Disability Benefit Act

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

Madam Speaker, we are here today debating the Canada disability framework bill because of the incredible work done by the disability community, individuals, advocates and allies who have worked tirelessly to express to all members of this House the urgent need to improve the lives of persons with disabilities living in poverty in this country.

Their work has been difficult and powerful, and it is not finished yet. As we speak, disability organizations and advocates are gathered in New York City, attending the 16th session of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, still fighting for equality and human rights for persons with disabilities in Canada and across the globe.

This is the work they should not have to do. Persons with disabilities should not have to face discrimination and should not have to navigate the many barriers that are currently in place. It is our work here in this place to remove these obstacles. That is what the NDP will continue to do, as we have always done.

My colleagues and I are disappointed that the Canada disability framework does not yet meet the requirement of upholding human rights and does not ensure every Canadian with a disability is protected from poverty.

That is why the NDP will hold the government to account, to work collaboratively with the disability community, to meet its expectations and to create regulations in Bill C-22 that will put an end to disability poverty.

Bill C-22 initially came to the House incomplete and clumsy. New Democrats worked to improve it, proposing an assurance of an adequate income that conforms to article 28 from the CRPD, which states:

... the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing...

The Liberals should have accepted that and yet, in committee, they would not even allow for the debate, and the Conservatives abstained from having a vote on that debate and from standing up for human rights based on that amendment, abstained from even considering it.

Fortunately, even without that opportunity to debate the need for adequacy, the NDP was able to include adequacy in regulations. That adequacy has been enhanced with an amendment from the other place, which I appreciate.

Making adequacy even stronger but not absolute in stature is better than not having adequacy at all.

It will now be left up to the minister, and order in council, to honour the intent of adequacy and to honour the trust extended by the community, and the House, and build a benefit amount with a foundation based on human rights and adequacy, and to protect from clawbacks of any kind, including public insurance companies and in the negotiations with provinces and territories.

We all know that provinces already offer unequal benefits and some claw back funds from those living with a disability. In Alberta and Nova Scotia, for example, a person can only make around $10,000 annually before they experience clawbacks of their benefits. The provinces and territories do not have benefits that match the financial requirements to live in Canada.

The government must work to ensure that wherever one lives in Canada, one’s location does not indicate the quality of life one has access to. New Democrats have stated that this benefit must be an amount that will actually lift people out of poverty.

We know that Bill C-22 is urgently needed and it has been delayed for far too long, over and over again by the government. The community has been forced to wait and wait, and that delay by the Liberals has created a rush to the finish line. I have received hundreds of emails and phone calls asking for the government to get this bill passed and those voices can no longer wait.

The New Democrats will not ignore these Canadians. We will advance this bill while still holding the government to account, like we always do. The fight continues and the government must do the work to ensure that it meets the expectations of the disability community.

New Democrats will hold the government accountable for working with the provinces and territories to ensure that private insurance companies are not the beneficiaries of funding meant to go directly to people with disabilities living in poverty.

With the implementation, this benefit must do its work and not enhance the pocketbooks of corporate Canada. This Liberal government must not leave people behind again.

In addition, it is time for this government to acknowledge that an immediate interim support is needed. As the bill progresses into 2024, Canadians living with a disability in poverty cannot make ends meet. The reality is that, right now, poverty continues to be forced on them, and they must choose between paying their rent or buying groceries. One more year of waiting or more is not acceptable. The government must provide, in good faith, financial relief now for these Canadians who are suffering as they wait for this benefit. Financial relief is needed today.

The minister said that the government does not want to work on a disability emergency response fund while working on Bill C-22. However, those living in poverty do not have the luxury of that choice. Today, the NDP asks again for the government to enact an immediate relief payment, or what the community is calling “DERB”, as the community is asking for it.

The delays in this process with the bill has shown Canadians that the Liberal government is not concerned about upholding the rights and dignity of persons living with a disability. Government members know about the inadequacies of provincial and territorial benefits, yet they sit by and choose not to act on it until they are forced to, unless, of course, they are acting on behalf of corporate Canada. The NDP has seen this government support legislation that put millions of dollars into greedy CEOs' pockets instantly while it drags its feet on investing in pharmacare, accessible housing, employment insurance reform and the protection of indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

Almost a million people in Canada with a disability live in poverty because of the discriminatory practices and ableist government policies that exclude them. This is unacceptable. The lack of accessible homes, inaccessible infrastructure and limited inclusion in the workplace creates barriers that have resulted in poverty; legislated poverty that past and present Conservative and Liberal governments have perpetuated.

Bill C-22 is a welcomed step forward to provide Canadians living with a disability new supports. I appreciate that. However, this new benefit must be adequate and accessible in 2024.

I will wrap up by acknowledging the toll that this process has taken on those in the disability community and all the hard work they have done to get us to this point. Their work has brought results, and I look forward to the co-creation to now begin. They can rest tonight on their win and know that the New Democrats will continue to fight alongside them again tomorrow.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this evening to discuss Bill C‑22, which will be implemented. We should collectively congratulate ourselves for the work that has been done.

Of course, we could look back and talk about the pitfalls that we ran into in coming up with this bill, but I think that all the parties here in the House of Commons have always supported the many disability organizations and advocacy groups that have come out time and time again to express their desire to see this Canada disability benefit become a reality. We do not consider these people to be different. As one of my colleagues and friends would say, they are unique. I believe that the basic purpose of this bill is to lift these people out of poverty.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute the many organizations in my riding that are dedicated to this cause and that support and stand by people with disabilities. In particular, I would like to take this opportunity to salute the Mouvement Personne d'Abord de Sainte‑Thérèse, which advocates for people living with an intellectual disability. This year, it is celebrating 25 years of defending and promoting the rights of these individuals.

I also want to acknowledge the many witnesses who met with us at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities during the study of this bill. I especially want to thank Disability Without Poverty, the Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec, the Fédération des Mouvements Personne d'Abord du Québec, the Québec Intellectual Disability Society, and all the others.

There is one thing we all agree on and must make sure of: Although this has always been the stated intention and objective of the government, this new disability benefit needs to be a supplement to and not a replacement of the support that currently exists for these people in Quebec and in the provinces. We will have to be especially vigilant.

That will be a major challenge because we know that, in both Quebec and the other provinces, the programs are not necessarily standardized. As part of our work, we have focused on the objective and guarantee of ensuring that they are complementary. As we know, a higher proportion of people with disabilities live in poverty than the general population. The pandemic has once again provided a powerful illustration of that reality. We know that the current economic climate is making it harder for people with disabilities to meet their basic needs, such as food, housing and clothing. Those are basic needs.

It is very difficult for people to break out of this cycle of poverty when they do not have access to sufficient income to begin with. We want people with disabilities to be able to participate fully in life and society. They are already doing so, but we want to give them every possible means to ensure that their inclusion and participation are as active as possible. That is why the benefit must provide a minimum of resources or a decent amount of income. It is about ensuring that these people's incomes are above the poverty line and that they can live decently and with dignity.

As has already been said, there was also a consensus that the groups representing these individuals should be able to actively participate in the process, so that the process is done “by and for” persons with disabilities. That is why the consultations will be so important, and as soon as the bill is in force, I hope we will be able to get this major regulatory work under way as quickly as possible.

Quebec recently developed its basic income program, which is aimed specifically at people with severe employment restrictions and has been in effect since January 1, 2023. I think it is a good model to follow. All this to say that, if we want to implement a Canadian benefit similar to the guaranteed income supplement, we have to make sure that it complements what already exists and that it will not take anything away from the flagship social programs that are already in place in certain provinces for these individuals.

We all want this bill to pass as quickly as possible. Several amendments were proposed in committee to establish when this new benefit will be available and to set a deadline so that it does not take months and years to become a reality. We know that it will take a tremendous amount of work because agreements must be reached with the provinces and territories, which, as I mentioned, do not have the same social programs. Regulations will have to be created to cover a long list of elements.

We have some reservations about this bill. The amendment we wanted to move in committee concerned the regulatory work. We wanted to know the amount of the benefit, the eligibility criteria and the terms of payment. All of that is like a blank page because parliamentarians have no control over these terms as they will be established by regulation. We know that regulations can be rescinded at any time. If the bill had provided parliamentarians with some oversight of these terms, I believe that this would have provided more guarantees about what we want to achieve.

Unfortunately, these amendments were rejected. The amount of money going to people with disabilities will be significant, or at least that is our hope. It is quite unprecedented that such an amount cannot be approved by Parliament and is not formally enshrined in law, but rather set by regulation.

We also agree with the government's response to the Senate amendments. We had the same misgivings, particularly about the amendment concerning clawbacks for private contracts or insurance.

I even had the opportunity to speak with a few individuals. If there is one thing that people with a disability do not need, it is a constitutional debate over provincial jurisdiction. As far as private contracting and insurance plans are concerned, I think that we would only be delaying things if we had to have a legal debate about whether or not these individuals are entitled to the benefits in question. These are issues that warrant careful study. In our opinion, the response that was respectfully given to the senators who worked on this bill was more than adequate, and we are open to the other amendments.

What can we collectively hope for, not just for ourselves, but for all people with disabilities? When we look at all the organizations and individuals that make up our society, when we look at the status of women, indigenous or racialized people, we see that there are still other factors of discrimination that negatively affect them.

We can only hope that the government will be thorough and that members will exercise oversight to ensure that this bill will meet the objective of those—

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-22 today. It is always an honour to represent my community of Kelowna—Lake Country.

I know that our Conservative members are all committed to increasing support for Canadians living with a disability. More than one in five Canadians lives with a disability. It is not an insignificant number. In fact, it is not a number at all; these are people. These are family members, friends, brothers, sisters and parents. Canadians living with disabilities can have additional financial burdens with assistance, supplies or equipment that they may require. Canadians living with disabilities are underemployed, as approximately 59% of working-age adults with disabilities are employed, compared to around 80% of those without disabilities, according to Statistics Canada.

Navigating life with a disability can be a full-time job for many, with no time out and no break. While the intention to support those with disabilities remains, there are many unknowns with Bill C-22, which we are discussing today. This is because the most important details of this bill, such as eligibility, what “working age” means as mentioned in the bill, what the payment amounts will be, what the application process will be, and provincial and territorial co-operation and interaction with other benefits are all being left to be determined through regulation. These would all be determined behind closed doors, with no ability to come back to parliamentarians for debate or amendments, and no opportunity to hear from witnesses at committee in a public venue. Essentially, we have a bill with a benefit and process that are yet to be determined. Canadians living with disabilities deserve legislation that is committed to them through concrete action, not promises.

This legislation had extensive testimony at the human resources committee, including many written submissions. I will mention just one witness who testified at committee: Michelle Hewitt, chair of the board of directors for Disability Without Poverty, who is also a constituent of mine in Kelowna—Lake Country. I first met Michelle many years ago in my community, and she has been a strong advocate in many ways for persons with disabilities. I will read a couple of comments she made on record during her witness testimony at committee. She said, “Disabled people do not live in poverty because they are worthless to society. It is quite the opposite; it is because their worth is not valued. In fact, people with disabilities contribute over $47 billion to the Canadian economy.” She also stated:

We talk about lifting disabled people out of poverty, but what does that really mean? Canada's official poverty lines use the market basket measure, which fails to take disability into account.

We hear the stories of disabled people living in poverty on a daily basis, as they are our friends and family. We can tell you about the man who approached Rabia in the parking lot of a grocery store offering to swap bus tickets for food, or my friend who lives month to month with MAID approved, wondering if this month will be her last because she can't afford to live.

...Time is of the essence. Food inflation is at 11.6%, yet provincial disability payments are not index-linked. This means that in real terms, disabled people fall further behind every day.

This is why this benefit would most effectively be delivered if details were co-created with persons with disabilities. This is why Conservatives supported amendments at the human resources committee, which passed, to provide more certainty on this benefit, including indexing the benefit to inflation, ensuring the Canada disability benefit payment amount would stay proportionate to the cost of living. We also support the Senate amendments the government has brought forth.

The creation of the Canada disability benefit should consider the complex web of programs currently in place, which, for many Canadians with disabilities, including those with episodic disabilities, can result in benefit cuts and higher taxes as a consequence of taking on work. There are families that rely solely on benefits due to the nature of the disability, and people are living in poverty.

I want to be clear that I am concerned about the potential clawbacks that could affect people. These could be with interactions with provincial or territorial benefits, with interaction of benefits through insurance, or with interactions with federal benefits. While the minister has stated that potential clawback of provincial supports is a red line when negotiating the creation of the benefit with provinces, she has not been able to point to any specifics in the legislation or guarantee that this will not happen. Conservatives proposed an amendment to Bill C-22 at the human resources committee to prevent clawbacks at the federal level. This was written by the legal department of the House of Commons. Disappointingly, the Liberals voted against it and it did not get into the legislation.

There was an amendment put forth by the Senate to address clawbacks dealing with insurance, based on witness testimony at the Senate. I spoke to a constitutional lawyer about this, who pointed out that there are strong constitutional arguments in favour of this Senate amendment and that it was endorsed by all provincial trial lawyers associations in Canada. However, the Liberal government has not accepted that amendment.

I want to be very clear, on the record, that Conservatives are concerned with any form of clawbacks, and that this disability benefit act does not have anything in the legislation to give assurances to address this. We will be watching very closely over the next couple of years, once the regulations are developed and this benefit is all implemented and it plays out. Conservatives will be holding the Liberal government to account on this.

This is all at a time when the cost of rent has doubled and mortgages have doubled. Inflation has hit a 40-year high, and interest rates increased nine times in the past year. Liberal inflationary deficit spending led to high inflation, which led to high interest rates, which will lead to mortgage defaults. This is very concerning, and those with disabilities are among the hardest hit.

I want to comment on and clarify the parliamentary process and timelines the Liberal government went through with this legislation. The Liberals say that persons with disabilities are a priority; however, it took them six years to take action on this disability benefit. They finally introduced Bill C-35 in 2021, in the previous Parliament, and the Liberals then called an unnecessary election in the summer of 2021, which collapsed the legislation.

The minister said she was consulting with the disability community. However, she introduced the exact same legislation in 2022. It was a goal of mine, and of my colleagues in the Conservative official opposition, to ensure that Bill C-22 progressed through the committee process diligently and through adding needed amendments, though there are others we wished were agreed to. We managed to get the bill through the committee process quickly and passed in the House of Commons before Parliament rose at the end of 2022. On May 18, the Senate returned the bill to the House of Commons with amendments, and on May 30, at the human resources committee, the minister would not commit to a timeline on which the government would return Bill C-22 to the House of Commons. We have been waiting for weeks.

I and other Conservative colleagues were hearing from persons with disabilities that Liberal MPs were telling them that Conservatives have delayed this legislation. I want to be very clear that those comments are a fabrication and a falsehood. I would just tell people to look at the facts, the actions at committee and the parliamentary process the Liberal government has followed in bringing this forward. This debate could have been held weeks earlier than today if the Liberals had brought it forward.

As I mentioned earlier, the level of disability poverty in Canada remains a prominent issue, and we have a responsibility to do better. The Conservative members of Parliament are committed to supporting Canadians living with disabilities, and not penalizing people and families. Therefore, I can say that we are all in agreement that the Canada disability benefit must be passed, and we encourage the government to immediately get to work consulting with the disability community, as the minister has said that the regulations will, in fact, take a year to develop. We heard that today in response to my questions for the minister.

With that being said, our Conservative caucus will remain vigilant in ensuring that the government fulfills its promises to the disability community.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, while I am encouraged that the minister was so deeply involved in ensuring that Bill C-22 was going to move through the House this evening, I am deeply disappointed that the Senate amendment that would have ensured that people with disabilities do not have their benefits clawed back from the insurance industry was not supported. This is essentially going to increase the profits of private insurance companies.

Why is the minister not willing to stand up and ensure that this amendment that the Senate carefully worked through is included?

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate 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.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation 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, the House:

agrees with amendments 1, 4 and 5 made by the Senate;

agrees with the Senate proposal to make any necessary consequential changes to the numbering of provisions and cross-references resulting from the amendments to the bill;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 because it raises significant constitutional concerns by seeking to regulate the insurance industry specifically or contracting generally, both of which fall within provincial jurisdiction;

proposes that amendment 3 be amended to read as follows:

“New clause 10.1, page 4: Add the following after line 5:

“Appeals

10.1 Subject to regulations, a person, or any other person acting on their behalf, may appeal to a body identified in regulations made under paragraph 11(1)(i) in respect of any decision

(a) relating to the person’s ineligibility for a Canada disability benefit;

(b) relating to the amount of a Canada disability benefit that the person has received or will receive; or

(c) prescribed by the regulations.””.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the government's position on the proposed Senate amendments 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 do so on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

I will begin by thanking senators for their attention to this bill, especially the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for their study, which resulted in six amendments to the bill and seven observations.

Each time I have risen in the House on Bill C-22, I have begun by declaring that no person with a disability in this country should live in poverty, yet many do. Approximately 23% of working-age persons with disabilities in Canada live in poverty, and many are in deep poverty. The history of how this came to be in a country with as much promise and opportunity as Canada is one of exclusion, marginalization and discrimination. This history, and the resulting financial insecurity and poverty, which is a lived experience of many persons with disabilities in Canada, is the backdrop for Bill C-22, and it is why we are here today working together to create a new federal benefit for low-income, working-aged persons with disabilities. At its core, the Canada disability benefit is about poverty reduction and financial security.

There is a significant gap in our social safety net for persons with disabilities. The Canada child benefit disability supplement is available until age 18 and old age security and the guaranteed income supplement are available after age 65, but there is nothing in between. However, just as the guaranteed income supplement did for seniors and the Canada child benefit did for children, the Canada disability benefit would lift persons with disabilities out of poverty.

Bill C-22 is framework legislation by design. The Canada disability benefit would be established and implemented through Bill C-22, which is a legal framework to create the benefit and a subsequent regulatory process through which the specific details will be established. This reflects our commitment to the disability community and recognizes the leading role that provinces and territories play in providing supports and services to persons with disabilities.

Now I will move on to the amendments.

There were six amendments sent back from the Senate. As was said, the government agrees with amendments 1,4, 5 and 6, and proposes that the House accepts these amendments as is. These amendments enhance Bill C-22 in that they add clarity, precision and specificity. We also agree with amendment 3 with a minor amendment.

Amendment 3 would add a new clause, clause 10.1, related to appeals. While Bill C-22 provides for an appeal process to be created by regulation, this new clause gives a right to appeal in two specific areas: benefit ineligibility and amount. The government proposes that this Senate amendment be further amended to clarify that other decisions may also be appealed. This would avoid a future legal interpretation where grounds for appeal are restricted to the two specified areas of ineligibility and amount. I thank the Senate for its thoughtfulness on this important issue of administrative justice and trust that it will consider the government's proposed amendment appropriate.

Now, I will spend some time on the final amendment, Senate amendment 2, as the government's proposed response to it is to respectfully disagree.

Amendment 2 would amend clause 9 of Bill C-22, which concerns the way benefit payments are to be treated in situations such as bankruptcy or insolvency. Amendment 2 would add that benefit payments “cannot be recovered or retained, in whole or in part, under the terms of any contract, insurance plan or similar instrument”.

I understand that the intent of this amendment is to address the situation where provincial benefits or insurance payments are at risk of being clawed back or reduced as a result of a payment of the Canada disability benefit, effectively leaving the recipient no better off and potentially impacting secondary program and service entitlements. The issue of clawbacks is perhaps the most common concern raised by the disability community. We heard it here in the House as well.

The disability benefit and support landscape is incredibly complex, and varies significantly across the country. There are different eligibility criteria in every province and territory, different definitions of disability, different treatments of other sources of income, different reduction rates, etc. As a result, we have to be mindful of the potential direct and indirect impacts that additional income in the form of the CDB could have on provincial or territorial benefit and service entitlements.

Since day one, we have been clear that this is supplemental income, meant to be in addition to provincial and territorial income supports and other forms of income. It is not replacement income. It is not employment income or employment earnings.

We explored ways to address these concerns through legislation. The challenge is that both contracting generally and the insurance industry fall within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. This is why no such provision exists in any other benefit legislation in Canada, not for the Canada child benefit, OAS or GIS, CPP, or the Canada workers benefit.

While the federal spending authority allows the government to create such a benefit, it does not allow the federal government to attach conditions in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as the regulation of insurance companies. Knowing this, we have worked very closely with provinces and territories on benefit interaction.

Provinces and territories have expressed gratitude for early engagement. There is consensus that the CDB is intended to be supplemental income, not replacement income, and make people better off. They share our view that the best way of optimizing benefit interaction is by working together. We have a detailed federal-provincial-territorial work plan that all jurisdictions have agreed to. Once this bill becomes law, we will begin the formal negotiations on agreements with the provinces and territories.

We have also engaged with the private insurance industry. The feedback we have received from the industry is that they would not choose to offset or claw back income that is considered social assistance or a poverty reduction measure. Once again, the CDB is not replacement or employment income. Once this bill becomes law, we will continue to work with private insurers throughout the regulatory process.

Simply put, the government disagrees with this amendment because we believe it raises significant constitutional concerns. Both the regulation of private insurance and contracting generally fall within provincial jurisdiction. If we went ahead with this amendment, the likelihood of an individual or organization bringing forward a court challenge would be very high. This would create significant uncertainty and could impact the regulatory process, which could in turn impact benefit delivery. This could very well delay benefit payments.

Furthermore, I am concerned that there would be serious implications for federal-provincial-territorial relations. It is likely that the provinces and territories would see this provision as an encroachment on their jurisdiction. This could undermine the work that we have accomplished to date. Therefore, while I understand and share the Senate's concerns around clawbacks, the way to address this issue is to continue with the process that is already under way, not through this amendment to Bill C-22.

The Senate amendments we are proposing to accept further strengthen Bill C-22 and do not limit the government's commitment to a quick, regulatory process. The amendment we are proposing to not accept, respectfully, raises constitutional concerns and could significantly impair our relationships with provinces and territories, and ultimately delay benefit delivery.

I thank the senators for responding to the disability community's concerns. Both the House and the Senate have improved this bill.

The Canada disability benefit is the result of decades of relentless advocacy on the part of the disability community. This benefit is the culmination of the work of every self-advocate, every activist, every parent, every ally, every organization, everyone who has fought to have disability rights recognized.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that we are here, working together, on this. We have come together on this bill already, and today we did it again. We are on the cusp of doing what every single one of us in this place came to Ottawa to do, which is to help people, make their lives better and right historic wrongs. Today, we are literally making history.

Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, no person with a disability should live in poverty. That is why we are creating the Canada disability benefit and income supplement, which has the potential to seriously reduce poverty and increase financial security for hundreds of thousands of working-age persons with disabilities.

In February, this House unanimously adopted Bill C-22, and Bill C-22 is now on the calendar for debate tomorrow. We are looking forward to getting this legislation past the finish line.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her collaboration and her advocacy on this critically important issue.

In Canada, no person with a disability should live in poverty, period. That is why we are creating the Canada disability benefit, an income supplement with the potential to seriously reduce poverty and improve financial security for hundreds of thousands of working-age persons with disabilities.

In February, the House unanimously adopted Bill C-22. Bill C-22 is now on the calendar for debate in the House on June 14. We are looking forward to getting this legislation past the finish line as quickly as possible.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, inflation is a global phenomenon. It is good that Canada is below the OECD average. It is also below the G7 average, the G20 average, the U.S., the U.K., Spain, Germany and many other countries. Of course, that is not good enough. We have to continue to lead and do everything we can. That is why I am so proud that this House just adopted a budget with critical measures to help Canadians in every corner of this country with affordability, because we are not going to fix the problem of global inflation by slashing support to the most vulnerable.

After passing the budget, this House has important work to do over the next two weeks.

It will start this evening as we resume debate on Bill C-35, on early learning and child care, at report stage. Once that debate is done, we will resume debate on Bill C-33, on railway safety. Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-41, on humanitarian aid. On Monday at noon, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-48 concerning bail reform, and then we will go to Bill C-35 at third reading after question period. On Tuesday we will call Bill S-8, on sanctions, at report stage and third reading.

On top of this, priority will be given to Bill C-22, the disability benefit, and Bill C-40 regarding miscarriage of justice reviews, as well as our proposal to implement changes to the Standing Orders, which were tabled earlier today, to render provisions with respect to hybrid Parliament permanent in this House.

Furthermore, I have a unanimous consent motion that I would like to propose in relation to the debate tomorrow.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts:

(a) the amendment in Clause 1 adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which reads as follows:

“(a) by adding after line 26 on page 1 the following:

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who carries out any of the acts referred to in those subsections for the sole purpose of carrying out humanitarian assistance activities conducted under the auspices of impartial humanitarian organizations in accordance with international law while using reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups.

“(b) by deleting lines 15 to 19 on page 2.”

be deemed within the principle of the bill; and

(b) when the bill is taken up at report stage:

(i) it be deemed concurred in, as amended, on division, after which the bill shall be immediately ordered for consideration at the third reading stage,

(ii) not more than one sitting day or five hours of debate, whichever is the shortest, shall be allotted for consideration at the third reading stage,

(iii) five minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders that day, at the conclusion of the five hours allocated for the debate, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult question. For the CERB program to have integrity, there need to be checks at the end of the day to determine eligibility. It is my firm belief that the CRA should be acting with compassion with respect to collection efforts. It is my understanding that it is.

The record of this government, particularly with the onset of Bill C-22, is one where people with disabilities have made and will continue to make better progress than they have under any other government. However, compassion in collection efforts is absolutely critical. I do not think they should be wiped out.

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Persons with Disabilities

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for this important question.

In the spirit of “Nothing Without Us”, we are continuing to move forward with historic investments and actions that will improve the social and economic inclusion of millions of Canadians with disabilities.

In February, Bill C-22, the act to establish the Canada disability benefit, was unanimously adopted by this House. On May 18, Bill C-22 was adopted with amendments in the Senate and has now been sent back to this House for consideration.

This bill remains a top priority for us, and we have every intention of dealing with it as quickly as possible. We are working with all parties to get this important legislation passed.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been two weeks now since the Senate strengthened and passed Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act, yet the governing party has prioritized six or seven government bills ahead of it. Canadians with disabilities continue to disproportionately live in poverty across the country. They need to see action.

When will the Liberals bring Bill C-22 back to the floor of the House so it can be urgently passed into law?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

It's a minute and a half. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ministers. I was going to ask about Bill C-22. I don't understand why we've had an entire constituency week to study the amendments from the Senate, and we're waiting for them to come back.

My question for Minister O'Regan is on climate. You were talking about sustainable jobs. Newfoundland and Labrador is a wind energy powerhouse. We could be creating thousands of good-paying wind energy jobs. The UN Secretary-General has called new fossil fuel infrastructure “moral and economic madness”.

I'm curious if your position on Bay du Nord has changed in light of the huge potential of wind energy in that province and the ability to be investing in the jobs of tomorrow there.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister Qualtrough, I have a couple of questions for you.

During some of the questioning here today, you mentioned that there are ongoing consultations regarding working on the regulations for Bill C-22. What I'm hearing from a lot of disability advocacy groups is that the consultations aren't taking place at this point because the legislation hasn't passed. I have had some say that they have reached out to your office, wanting to engage, and they are being put on hold until that happens.

Can you speak to that? What is the timeline, and whom you are consulting with?

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

Thank you.

I'll just close out, Minister Qualtrough, on Bill C-22. We are all anxiously waiting for that to come to the House. I know that on the NDP side we're ready to see that come through. We'd like to see it all happen before we rise for the summer.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Thank you for the question.

There's a lot of work to be done, but we've already done a lot.

We have new laws and policies, including the Accessible Canada Act, which establishes a system to create accessibility standards. We've created the new position of chief accessibility officer within the Government of Canada. We also have Canada's disability inclusion action plan, which has four pillars: financial security, employment, accessible and inclusive communities and a modern approach to disability.

We're now focused on making things happen. The pillar of financial security is reflected in the Canada disability benefit, which will change the lives of hundreds of thousands of people by lifting them out of poverty. Of course, we need to pass Bill C‑22 first. That's what we talked about earlier. We'll also have a lot of work to do throughout the regulatory process. We'll continue to work with the disability community and we will get there.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Minister Qualtrough, we have people with disabilities in my family who commend the work this government has done for those with disabilities.

I know that you're not only a dedicated minister, but you've also launched many other initiatives. In addition to Bill C‑22, you have several other initiatives in your portfolio, such as the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities, the ready, willing and able initiative, financial assistance for the visually impaired and print-disabled, and capacity-building measures.

I'd like you to tell us a little more about Bill C‑22, but also about all the other action you're taking to improve the situation for people with disabilities.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the ministers for being here today.

My questions will be for Minister Qualtrough.

Recently, the Senate returned Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act, with several amendments. Canadians want to see this legislation come into force quickly.

Minister, are you accepting all of the Senate amendments?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to start with Ms. Brayton.

There's some good news. We just got word that Bill C-22, the national disability benefit, passed the Senate today. You mentioned that in your testimony, so I'm pleased to have seen in the middle of this committee meeting that it was posted.

I want to say to Ms. Brayton that I am very happy you are here speaking to this committee because of everything you described about women and girls with disabilities being invisible, and particularly that those who are intersectional with disabilities being invisible. You're the first one who's testified before this committee who has specifically talked about that. I'm very pleased you're here.

We know what the problems are, and.... I'll give you a few minutes, and then I do have another question. Can you tell us really quickly what the solutions are? When we're doing our recommendations as a committee, what should we be recommending?

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

Thank you for having me here today.

My name is Neil Hetherington, and I have the awesome privilege of representing the Daily Bread Food Bank—Canada's largest food bank. We are based in Toronto and have a mission to ensure that everyone's right to food is realized.

I'm here today to speak about the grocery rebate included in the 2023-24 budget. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to share what we are seeing on the ground at our food banks across the city and why you, our elected representatives, should be gravely concerned about the state of food insecurity in Canada right now.

Before the pandemic, we used to see about 60,000 client visits every single month. During the pandemic, that doubled to 120,000 client visits per month. This past March, we were horrified that there were 270,000 client visits recorded. We can do better.

Where we used to see some 2,000 individuals make use of the food bank for the very first time, we are now seeing some 12,000, every single month, come to the Daily Bread Food Bank. The underlying reasons for this are complex, but I can summarize them in one sentence: People do not have enough income to afford the rapidly rising cost of living.

With unemployment being at record lows, it begs the question. Why are we seeing such historic increases in food bank usage? Food bank usage has always had a correlation between its use and unemployment. As a result, I have sleepless nights—and a few newly found grey hairs—thinking about what will happen if unemployment begins to rise.

Many of the people who are coming to our food banks in Toronto are relying on fixed incomes, particularly social assistance. I worry very much about those receiving income from disability. Those funds in Ontario total about $1,200 per month for an individual to survive on. It is a full $900 below the poverty line. In the past year, we have seen the proportion of people with income derived from employment as the primary source double from 15% to 33%. No longer is there a promise that, if you get an education and you work hard, you will not need food charity.

Seventy per cent of our clients at food banks are paying more than half of their incomes on housing, which is putting them at a high risk of homelessness. Almost one in five food bank clients is putting 100% of their income toward housing, leaving nothing for food and for other expenses. They are totally relying on charity, friends and family.

Every household in Canada feels the impact of food inflation, which remains at 9.6%. However, for those accessing food banks, this is simply the tip of the iceberg. These households were already living with precarity before skyrocketing inflation.

Let's turn to the question at hand: Will the grocery rebate make a difference?

Any money in the pockets of low-income Canadians is generally a good thing. Using the GST credit as a vehicle makes sense since this is an income-tested benefit that will target low-income Canadians. It does not require somebody to be working to receive it, which means that people living with disabilities, who are unable to work, will still receive the benefit. We also appreciate this approach, which is grounded in dignity and in low-barrier access. Rather than having to apply for the benefit, Canadians who have filed their income tax will automatically receive the benefit.

However, none of this answers the question of whether it will make a difference. Ultimately, while the benefit is helpful, our analysis is that the temporary grocery rebate will not shorten the lineups outside of food banks across Canada. The good news is that we know exactly what will.

Our colleagues at PROOF, a research institute housed at the University of Toronto, have published extensively on this matter. They found that the Canada child benefit and the guaranteed income supplement have both had significant impacts on reducing the severity of food insecurity, and these programs should be celebrated and replicated.

I've had the opportunity to testify at the Senate about Bill C-22, and I expressed my strong support for the Canada disability benefit. Depending on its design, this benefit has the potential to reduce and even to eliminate poverty and food insecurity among Canadians with disabilities. We hope this bill will continue to receive all-party support.

Despite these important steps forward, significant gaps in our social safety net remain. In particular, single working-age individuals represent close to half of the food bank clients across the country and also make up half of those living in deep poverty in Canada. Another gap is around those who have recently become unemployed. The government announced a process to reform EI, but we have not yet seen the outcomes. As a result, thousands of Canadians continue not to qualify because the program does not reflect modern realities such as gig work and self-employment.

Poverty reduction requires long-term sustained investment. We are grateful that the government has signalled a strong commitment to supporting low-income Canadians through the grocery rebate and through the Canada disability benefit, EI reform and ongoing investments in the Canada child benefit and guaranteed income supplement.

We have the tools to tackle food insecurity. We at the Daily Bread are here to push you and to support you as we work collectively to reduce poverty nationally.

Thank you.

Inclusion of Students with Disabilities

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

Madam Speaker, just before I begin this debate on educational support and inclusion for persons with disabilities, I start by reminding the government that it has outstanding disability commitments. I am referring specifically to Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit bill.

The government promised this income support bill years ago and one million Canadians who need it are still waiting. With the rising costs of living, the situation is past dire and the government should immediately enact a disability emergency response benefit to offset the rising costs of food and housing for persons with disabilities living in poverty in Canada. Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act, will be coming back from the Senate soon and the government needs to get it on the House agenda immediately after it arrives from the Senate; there is no time to waste.

Let me talk about the motion in front of us, Motion No. 78, brought forward by the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. I thank him for carrying on this conversation in this House. The motion states the following:

...where the federal government spends money on education, domestically or internationally, clear consideration must be given to the maximum inclusion of people with disabilities, including people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Today, the member talked about why that wording is so important. Of course, the NDP supports this. Where we are disappointed is that it is not already a reality in Canada.

Canada, like other signatories to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, has an obligation to uphold the right to education for persons with disabilities outlined in article 24, but currently it is not doing that.

In my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra school boards and teachers are doing that work without a federal partner to ensure the adequate funding, education and supports to fully meet article 24. I was at our school board meeting recently applauding the work that the school board is doing, along with its staff, teachers, EAs and administration. They are doing that work to try to optimize their limited resources and supports to address the needs of students with disabilities, including those with learning disabilities.

The number of students with disabilities who are not getting their needs met in Canada's education system is growing and parents and guardians are coming to me, at my office in my riding, asking for help.

Another reason I rise today is to stand up with the voices of students, parents and guardians in Canada who are telling me that it is imperative that Canada adhere to this article.

Education is a fundamental human right and is essential for the full inclusion and participation of persons with disabilities in society. Adhering to article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities means that Canada must ensure that persons with disabilities have access to inclusive and quality education at all levels of their life learning journey, without discrimination and on an equal basis with others. This includes removing barriers to education, providing reasonable accommodations, and ensuring that teachers and other educational staff are trained to support the needs of persons with disabilities.

In Canada, it has been said tonight that education is primarily funded and administered by the provincial and territorial governments. What has the Liberal government done to ensure it is supporting provinces and territories to adhere to article 24? I can say right now that they are not doing enough.

With the provincial and territorial governments responsible for funding and administering public elementary and secondary schools, as well as public colleges and universities, they need a federal partner so they can set curriculum standards, and oversee certifications and professional development that supports our commitments to article 24. Right now, they are on their own doing all this work and not getting the financial support, administration or education support they need from the federal government to meet the convention.

The federal government does provide some funding for education through transfer payments to the provinces and territories, as well as through specific programs and initiatives. However, there is not a specific focus on funding to ensure provinces and territories have the financial capacity to meet the obligations that Canada makes on the international stage.

This is especially true for indigenous students. The federal government provides funding for research and development in higher education, and supports programs aimed at improving outcomes for indigenous students. This is their obligation, yet even for indigenous students, the funding for disability supports in on-reserve education does not align with provincial standards, and that is unacceptable. It must be corrected.

In Canada, every student is entitled to a barrier-free education. It sets them on their path for life. Furthermore, ensuring that persons with disabilities have access to inclusive education that meets their needs is not only a matter of human rights, but also has significant health, social and economic benefits. Education leads to better employment opportunities, better health outcomes, increased social participation, and enhanced self-esteem and confidence.

We know that investing in education for persons with disabilities promotes inclusivity by ensuring that everyone has access to the same opportunities for learning and personal growth.

I just want to make a note here, because the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin mentioned field trips. In my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, there are times when field trips are not accessible to everyone because of the funding limitations, because of the fact that they do not have the supports that are required. We can imagine kids having to go to school and seeing all their friends go on the field trip while they do not. That needs to be corrected.

Investing in education for persons with disability promotes inclusivity by ensuring that everyone has access to the same opportunities. It helps to break down barriers and promotes a more equitable and diverse society. It also promotes independence and self-determination by providing education and training opportunities. I know that the Liberal government is investing right now in those education and training opportunities. How about starting earlier? How about supporting the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, article 24, in provinces and territories? How about doing that?

We know that it promotes independence and self-determination by providing education and training opportunities. With supportive education, persons with disabilities could acquire the skills and knowledge they need to live more independently.

Education is also linked to improved employment outcomes. Investing in education for persons with disabilities could help to improve their employment prospects and reduce their risk of living in poverty. Right now, a million Canadians with a disability are living in poverty because they live in an ableist country that does not allow them full access to employment. How about the Liberal government fixes that? Education is an important driver of economic growth, and investing in education for persons with disabilities can contribute to the overall economic prosperity of the country.

For all the reasons above, the government needs to support provinces and territories with the funding and the education required to uphold article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. UN Conventions are not pieces of paper. They are rights, human rights, and they need to be adhered to.

I am surprised to see, for the second year that I am here as the NDP critic for persons with disabilities, that the government does not have a Canadian delegation going to the United Nations in June. For the second time, I am standing here and not seeing any coordinated Canadian effort to have a delegation at the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is unacceptable. Why are we not there?

In closing, as we look outside of Canada, we see that the federal government provides funding to Canadian organizations that apply for international assistance, which could include educational projects. The Liberal government says those projects must align with the feminist international assistance policy, advance human rights and advance sustainable development goals. Yes, that is good. However, there are insufficient directives to ensure that people with disabilities are included in Canadian international assistance projects, so the government must restore the international assistance funding it cut and do better to meet its international commitments to human rights.

Persons with Disabilities

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary correctly pointed out that the disability community will be involved in the design of the disability benefit because they called for it. Throughout the process of Bill C-22, they made clear the importance of that, so I brought forward an amendment that would require the government to meaningfully engage the disability community in the regulation.

What remains true today is that if the government really was serious, it would not wait for this whole process of regulations and everything else. Just like child care the government would have started by funding it and then moving forward with the rest. Why not do the same here?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for Kitchener Centre for his advocacy on behalf of Canadians with disabilities.

Furthermore, I would like to thank him for his excellent work in getting Bill C-22 through committee and improving that bill along the way. My thanks again for his tremendous advocacy and great teamwork.

I want to especially acknowledge the advocacy and work of the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. The minister has been working tirelessly throughout her career to promote the rights of persons with disabilities.

The minister understands the challenges that so many persons with disabilities face each and every day. She understands that many working-age persons with disabilities face a challenging income gap. That is why she has been working tirelessly to create a groundbreaking Canada disability benefit, which the member referenced, an income supplement with the potential to seriously reduce poverty and improve financial security for hundreds of thousands of working-age persons with disabilities.

Like my colleague, the minister wants to see Canadians with disabilities receive the new Canada disability benefit as quickly as possible. I remind the hon. member that, as set out in the legislation, details of the Canada disability benefit will be addressed in further regulations including the benefit amount, eligible criteria and other features. We will work out all of these details in consultation with our partners, including the disability community. We will continue to work closely with the provinces and territories to ensure that the Canada disability benefit will align with and complement services, benefits and supports. I am pleased to report that conversations in this regard are going very well. There is a shared commitment to improving the lives of persons with disabilities across this country.

The Canada disability benefit has the potential to make a profound difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities. For that to happen we need to take the time to do things the right way. That is exactly what we are doing.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, my friend, for her question, advocacy on behalf of Canadians with disabilities and, furthermore, her excellent teamwork in getting Bill C-22 through committee and improving that bill at committee. I wanted to thank the hon. member for her tremendous advocacy and her great teamwork.

I want to especially acknowledge the advocacy of the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. She has been working tirelessly throughout her career to promote the rights of persons with disabilities. The minister understands the challenges that so many persons with disabilities face each and every day. She understands that many working-age persons with disabilities face a challenging income gap. That is why the minister has been working tirelessly to create the historic Canada disability benefit, an income supplement that has the potential to seriously reduce poverty and improve financial security for hundreds of thousands of working-age persons with disabilities.

Like my colleague, I too want nothing more than to see Canadians with disabilities receive the new Canada disability benefit as quickly as possible. I remind my colleague that, as set out in the legislation, the details of the proposed Canada disability benefit will be addressed in future regulations. These details include the benefit amount, eligibility criteria and other features such as the treatment of employment income. We will work out all of those details in consultation with our partners, including persons with disabilities and disability stakeholders, as well as with provinces and the territories. In the spirit of “nothing without us”, we will continue engaging the disability community at every turn to ensure that the benefit is designed with their voices at the table.

I am pleased to say that engagement activities began in the summer of 2021 and that work has not stopped. We have also been working closely with provincial and territorial governments because they play a key role in providing benefits and supports to many Canadians with disabilities. This will help us ensure that every person who receives the Canada disability benefit will be better off. It will also help us harmonize delivery of the CDB and ensure that there are no clawbacks to other benefits.

The Canada disability benefit has the potential to make a profound difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadian with disabilities. For that to happen we need to take the time to do things the right way. That is exactly what we are doing.

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

Madam Speaker, I am here in the House again to ask for financial support for persons with disabilities. I want to start with a story so that the government can understand how this is actually impacting people in my community.

Last week, a mother in her 70s came in to talk about her adult son who lives on his own and is about to be demovicted from an apartment he has lived in for almost 17 years. He cannot afford the new rent on the income he has at this point in time. This is what is really happening to people in this market-driven housing frenzy that the Liberal government has fed.

Once again, I rise in the House to shine a light on the urgency for persons with disabilities to have immediate income support as they continue to wait for a Canada disability benefit. While provincial and territorial income support programs have been virtually stagnant for years, the community is facing an ever-shrinking income while struggling to cope with the rising cost of food and the skyrocketing price of housing.

Through the course of the HUMA committee study on Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act, we heard that about one million Canadians living with a disability are in poverty. We heard from the minister and her ESDC officials that the average gap between provincial and territorial support and the poverty line for persons with disabilities is $9,000, and there is no way to fill that gap. Overwhelmingly, we heard that these one million people are not eating enough meals daily and that their housing can be unacceptable and often inaccessible.

It is essential that the federal government step up immediately with an emergency benefit. Therefore, I ask again for the Minister of Disability Inclusion to provide this emergency response benefit for persons with disabilities while Canadians wait for the currently unfunded Canada disability benefit.

Canadians with disabilities face exclusion from society on a daily basis. The recent Auditor General's report on accessible transportation found that, in 2019 and 2020, nearly two-thirds of the 2.2 million persons with disabilities who travelled on planes, trains and other federally regulated modes of transportation faced barriers. Even worse, the risk of damage to their essential assistive devices is beyond unacceptable. Transportation is essential to people's daily lives, including for people with disabilities. The government should understand that. Persons with disabilities are more likely to rely on public transportation as they navigate this incredibly ableist world.

Education is another place where people with disabilities are facing barriers and exclusion every day, whether in the aging infrastructure that years of out-of-date schools have put in front of people; insufficient funding for school boards to fully include children with disabilities; or challenges related to accessing and applying for student loans, grants, tax credits and other programs that are supposed to give access to better education. It is just not working. Even in seeking employment, people with disabilities are excluded, with inaccessible workplaces, biases of employers and the stresses of coping with too many other challenges on top of employment.

The NDP knows that people with disabilities need assistance today. This includes better access to income supports, publicly funded pharmacare and dental care as part of improving the lives of persons with disabilities.

With the Canada disability benefit at least a year away, I implore the Liberal government to help persons with disabilities now with an emergency relief benefit. The disability community deserves it.

[Michael Wernick]

When I was the clerk, I contributed to three bills, C‑22, C‑59 and C‑76. The investments provided in the 2018 budget are among the priorities I advocated. This is the budget that made it possible to establish the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, the CCCS. It also provided for significant investments in the Communications Security Establishment, the CSE.

I worked on the elections protocol announced in January 2019. Interference was still a concern. And yet the government had tabled Bill C‑59 in June 2017.

Food Day in Canada Act

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

Madam Speaker, I hope that the government heard the speech by the member from the Bloc Québécois today.

As people living in Canada are faced with the highest food prices they have ever experienced, it is time for the government to increase food security in this country. The NDP acknowledges that this bill could play a small part in that, yet there is still work to do so no one in Canada is going to bed hungry.

My colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has been a champion in addressing the immediate food insecurity problem in this country, which is the price gouging for corporate profits at the grocery store. The leader of the NDP has been holding grocery chain CEOs accountable for this price gouging. The truth is that, while the grocery oligarchs in this country are making billions in profit, more children are going to bed hungry. This cannot stand because it is driving up food insecurity and hurting Canadians.

I recently asked the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development to explain how food insecurity in this country could be trending up when poverty rates are going down. The minister responded that the government realizes this disconnect and is now linking their poverty reduction council and their food policy council to talk about this. She admitted that, for too long, food was not included when talking about poverty, and this is something that is now being addressed. Food, a fundamental need, was not part of the considerations when the government was dealing with poverty. It seems unbelievable.

However, there is hope. The minister admitted that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food cannot do this work alone, and that the current shared mandate between those two ministries is needed to solve food insecurity. I agree and say to both of these ministers that they need to advance the solutions faster People are going hungry, especially those living in poverty.

Almost one million people living in poverty in this country are persons with disabilities, and they are still waiting for financial support to come through the Canada disability benefit. The cost of groceries means they are skipping meals, as well as eliminating fresh fruits and vegetables from their diets. The Canada disability benefit, which would be established with the passing of Bill C-22, is needed now to offset this reality. Throughout the course of the committee study on Bill C-22, we heard about the suffering of people with disabilities living in poverty. Overwhelmingly, we heard that they are not eating enough meals daily and cannot keep up with the rising cost of food.

It is essential that the federal government step up with an emergency benefit immediately, so I again ask the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion to provide a disability emergency response benefit while Canadians wait for the currently unfunded Canada disability benefit.

Today, with the increasing cost of food, a growing number of households are becoming food insecure. People are relying now more than ever on charities, not-for-profits and places of worship in their communities to put a meal on the table. I want to take a moment to highlight some of those invaluable community partners in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam. These are the organizations that are feeding the families that are unable to make ends meet: Share Food Bank, Immigrant Link Centre Society, The People’s Pantry, Coquitlam Alliance, Tapestry and Hillside churches, Soroptimist International of TriCities, Tri-Cities Moms Group, Coquitlam farmers' market, Fresh Roots, School District No. 43, and the city of Coquitlam, which stepped up to quickly adapt their city kitchens during the pandemic and have sustained an affordable meal delivery program for vulnerable seniors in Coquitlam.

I thank them all for what they do to offset food insecurity and improve lives in our community. Thank goodness for these community groups. Strong local food systems are crucial to ensuring food security for all Canadians, and so too is a caring community that does the work to leave no one behind when government has not done its work to protect the most vulnerable. There is still much work to do in the House to enact laws and programs that protect Canadians from food insecurity.

As my NDP colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has said, the NDP supports this bill and knows it can raise other key areas too, to encourage the government to establish more food security initiatives in Canada. Farming is one of those areas. My colleague has said that farmers can be one of our greatest tools in effectively combatting climate change, alongside feeding the world, and that with the enactment of this bill, farmers will become part of our national discourse.

In Canada, we have extensive arable land where food can be grown. We produce far more food than our population consumes. We are net exporters. We are one of the top agricultural producers in the world, and that is something we should definitely talk about more.

For example, do members know that Canada is the largest producer of lentils in the world? We produce almost twice as much as India. Between our two countries, we produce more than 50% of world's lentils, yet per capita, Canadians eat very few. That is a shame because lentils are high in protein and fibre and low in fat and calories. They are naturally gluten-free and have an exceptionally low glycemic index, making them suitable for a diabetic diet. The majority of Canadians do not know this.

From coast to coast to coast, Canada has local food that needs to be shared and eaten. We are a country with the ability to produce food locally for everyone, not just to give the bare minimum amount but to achieve the good, high-quality food we all need. We need that high level of nutrition. It is a very strong factor in the social determinants of health.

As New Democrats, a strong food system has been a central issue for us. In 2011, we ran on a commitment to introduce a Canadian food strategy that would combine health and environmental goals. We created a strategy called “Everybody eats: Our vision for a pan-Canadian food strategy”, which focused on how food travels from the farm to the factory to the fork. It was comprehensive, and it forced the Liberals to act. It is now time for the Liberal government to do more to protect Canadian food systems in the new reality of increasing climate disasters.

I think about the recent devastating flood in B.C. that wiped out roads and limited supply chains for weeks, as food could not get in and out of the Lower Mainland. Realities like that are why this government needs to understand how and where food is grown and produced in Canada.

This bill has the potential to direct the Liberals to look at the concept of food miles and how far food goes to reach a table. Today our food is travelling long distances to make it to our plates. That is not food resiliency. In B.C., we have the ability to grow a lot of seasonal produce, and we need to understand those opportunities and build resiliency around them.

In closing, it is important that this bill be part of the journey, not the end of it. We have much work to do to build and rebuild resilient food infrastructure in this country. We have relied too much on imports for decades while letting our own food production dwindle, and we need to bring more food closer to home. We also need to reduce the amount of food we waste. That is why, in November 2022, I moved to introduce Bill C-304, an act to establish national food waste awareness day. I thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for seconding that bill.

Having a day to recognize the impacts of wasted food on food insecurity and climate change will raise awareness, inspire change and contribute to a meaningful solution to make Canada's food system more secure. Each year, 60% of the food produced in Canada is thrown out, and half of it is fresh, edible and nutritious food that could help feed four million Canadians, one million of whom are children, who are struggling daily with access to healthy food. It would be one more tool we have in our policy tool box to remind Canadians of how important local food is, celebrate the farmers who produce it and start a conversation on how we, as parliamentarians, can better support food security so everybody has access to high-quality food and no one goes to bed hungry.

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

That's right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we're talking about this date, just to clarify for the witnesses we have here today, at the very beginning of the meeting, the government side put together a motion to amend when they wanted amendments from the committee. Basically, what it did was.... Conversation happened, and we realized that we would not have all the written testimony before we were able to write whatever amendments we wanted. We heard from the clerk that we've received only half the written submissions. They didn't have a timeline as to how long that was going to take.

The motion was dropped at the very beginning of the committee. There was no written notice, as is the usual precedent, and there were no conversations with us. It was literally dropped. We heard that we wouldn't even have the written submissions, yet we as members of Parliament were then to go away and potentially write up amendments.

The government wanted to move that deadline closer. We would actually be writing amendments without having all the information from Canadians who have written in submissions. They're sitting with the clerk's office right now. They do great work, but it takes time to translate. We put in an amendment to say let's discuss this when we had the committee time scheduled to do this.

Just so you're aware, the NDP and the Liberals voted against that, which is why we're here. We actually wanted to push it ahead for when we had time allocated. Now we're dealing with a situation where we have another amendment, when we're looking at our timelines here, in order to be able to do what's called clause-by-clause. We think we've made a very reasonable request by giving a little bit of extra time so that we can properly review things. That's where the discussion is.

This is all just so that our witnesses who are here are aware of what's going on. It's the reason we're in this place here.

Talking about the timeline, I know that the government representatives made comments about missing days. I just want to note that one of the reasons we missed some committee time was that the government tabled their budget. That's all in the government's timeline. That was their choice when they tabled the budget. That is why we had a committee meeting cancelled.

Here we are now, sort of pushing everything ahead, but still, with the original motion we had, there were no specific dates given. There were discussions, but there were no specific dates as to when, specifically, we would be doing the amendments and then the clause-by-clause. Having this new information is why we're discussing the amendment. It's in order to have proper time to review all the potential amendments that might come from different parties, to be able to have the time to review them and to then start the clause-by-clause within a more reasonable time period.

As I mentioned earlier, but it is applicable now, when we were doing Bill C-22, we had members not on this committee who put forth amendments. All of that takes time. We need time to go through them and prioritize them. The clerk needs time to prioritize them and see what similarities there are or if there are duplications.

Moving ahead, based on the amendment my colleague moved, to literally just give us a few more days is very reasonable. In terms of the amount of time it takes to potentially go through whatever amendments might be presented, we don't know. There could be one or there could be a hundred. We need time to do that. I think the request to just give a little bit more time is very reasonable.

I think the date my colleague gave was very reasonable. It's not like she gave a date that was at the end of May. It was literally just a few extra days so that we would have time to go through whatever amendments might come forward.

The date that she's—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is really all about giving members enough time to listen to the witnesses.

When we're looking at the timeline right now, moving the clause-by-clause and actually pushing it further ahead is reasonable because the actual motion that we're debating here today talks about independent members. They're listed right in the motion. In fact, that gives the members who aren't sitting on this committee very little time.

In fact, moving the clause-by-clause forward a bit more does give members, other than the people sitting on this committee, time to look at this. I think that is reasonable for the motion that Ms. Ferreri put forth. This is really allowing us enough time to have proper scrutiny, not only for the people on this committee but also the independent members who don't sit here every day.

We heard from some other members that they sit on two or three committees, plus there's all the other work that we have to do. This would really allow everyone...because all members do have an opportunity to put in amendments.

I know that when we were doing Bill C-22, a member who doesn't sit on this committee brought forth numerous amendments. A number of those were debated. There was—I can't remember the exact number; I know for sure there was one that everyone voted on—an amendment that was actually then put into the legislation. That's why it's really important to allow all members, including independent members, to have the proper time to really scrutinize what this is and be able to put their amendments in.

We also know, Mr. Chair, that it takes time. You can't just write amendments overnight. It has to go to legal. It's really important that we get it right—for us at this committee and also for independent members. Moving that date ahead, to look at clause....

Then of course the clerk has to.... We don't know how many amendments are coming forth. It could be one. It could be a hundred. We really don't know. We see that with other legislation. The clerk's office has to be able to put everything together and categorize it. When we had it for Bill C-22, they were kind of looking at amendments from different people, parties and individuals that were similar. It all gets categorized. You can't just do that in a couple of hours. We really do need the time to do this.

The other thing is that the clerk does have to prioritize amendments. They really look at where there are duplications and which ones would come up before others because of who submits an amendment first.

There's a lot to consider, so to try to rush this all into a couple of days for an important piece of legislation like this.... It's not just a private member's bill with a couple of lines. We're talking about a substantive piece of legislation, so it's really important that we do this properly.

I'm in support of extending the timeline on this so at least we can have time to go through the amendments. Again, we don't know how many there will be. There could be a substantial number of amendments. Also, it's talking to other members here. I know that on Bill C-22.... We have different people on the committee here, but I had a great working relationship with my counterpart on the Liberal side. We would look at what some ideas were...of course without disclosing confidences, but just looking at ideas. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened here so far with this piece of legislation.

We had this dropped on us today without any type of conversation, so to hear members talking about working collaboratively and good intentions.... There were no preconversations here.

However, that's an aside. Going back to the amendment that we're discussing here, I think it's very reasonable to look at the timeline.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Having just arrived on the committee specifically for Bill C-35, I don't really have a point of reference on Bill C-22. I have noticed that chunks of testimonies and submissions are coming in. I'd like to ask the clerk if these submissions in translation were after the March 17 deadline date, the ones that are being submitted now.

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

That in itself means that we are asked to come up with amendments, potentially, on this very important piece of legislation without having all of the submissions from stakeholders across the country: from individual people, from organizations or from anyone who wants to speak on this.

Normally when we're dealing with this type of situation, we would wait until we have all of those submissions in. We've just heard that we don't know when we'll be getting all of those, so to bump up the timeline even sooner for potential amendments.... Those take time. We have to send them in. They have to be properly worded. That work takes time. We do have a timeline here that we're working towards.

This is a little bit of of déjà vu, like when we had Bill C-22. We had all of those people who were sending in submissions, and we didn't even have all of them by the time we were working on it. We didn't get all of them by the deadline for when we had to come up with potential amendments, and then we were working on the clause-by-clause. That was really unreasonable.

Here we are again. It's déjà vu. We're in a situation where we're being asked to rush things along. We don't want to delay this at all, but out of respect for all of the people who have sent in submissions, it's not appropriate and it's not respectful to them to not even have all of their information to us before we can come up with potential amendments here. That's just a really unreasonable request. I question why we're here.

We have a timeline that we're working towards. If anything, we should be bumping ahead on the clause-by-clause, because even the timeline itself is really tight for when we need to have the amendments in and then we're doing the clause-by-clause. It's really only a couple of days. Right now, we have to have the amendments in, and then the clerks have to do their work, get to us and then look at clause-by-clause. It's just really unreasonable that we don't even have all of the testimony in, and we're being asked to start making those decisions that do take time.

That just seems really unreasonable, and the clerk doesn't even have an idea, as we just heard. A few days so we can properly do this, so we can properly have all the information, would be appropriate. As well, we have to remember that the agreements with the provinces are signed, so it's not like there's a delay in anything. The agreements are already signed. It's not like they're waiting for this legislation to then have the government go and start negotiating agreements with the provinces. Here we are solidifying things, and we have our due diligence to do.

I'll leave it there. I might come back, but I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair.

Persons with Disabilities

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

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

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

Historic Places of Canada Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Neil Hetherington]

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We said we were going to build back better—

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Economy

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

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

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

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

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

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

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

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

[Jean-François Tremblay]

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Minister.

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to my colleagues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

[Susan Bisaillon]

Thank you.

I think a lot of the work you're doing with Bill C-22 is very exciting. I really encourage you to embrace that new legislation and see what we can do with it.

What I really want to emphasize today is that being born with a disability and a complexity should not mean that you are living below the poverty level. It's really addressing the poverty, and also making sure that as these children age out of childhood, when they reach 18 they have a successful transition and affordable place to live.

That would be my request to leave with you today. Thank you.

[Susan Bisaillon, Chief Executive Officer, Safehaven Project for Community Living]

Thank you for inviting me here today.

Safehaven is an organization that provides community-based care—respite and residential—to children, youth and adults who live with complex medical needs and disability. We've been around for over 35 years. We have six locations in the greater Toronto area.

We believe our clients have the right to belong in all aspects of society. We're continually striving to advance our work towards inclusiveness with our #WeBelong movement.

Today I would like to highlight how investments into community-based care models for children with disabilities can liberate capacity in our struggling hospitals, provide choice and enhance the system of care. As well, I would like to identify the need for providing enhanced funding to support individuals directly, along with the need for creative housing solutions to ensure that individuals with disability are able to transition into adulthood with dignity and respect when they turn 18.

While our organization operates in Ontario, I know I speak for my colleagues across the country, as our funding and systems of support for vulnerable individuals in Canada aren't adequate.

Safehaven is a unique provider in the province and across the country. We care for children with incredibly complex needs and rare conditions. We are a critical part of the care continuum with our children's hospitals, which are continually under siege with capacity limitations and challenges with health human resources. Many of our clients come from SickKids and Holland Bloorview after very lengthy hospital stays.

Our current system is failing our kids, but we have the opportunity to make it right. Safehaven cares for the most vulnerable children, the ones who were never expected to make it. However, thanks to medical advancements, innovations in care and some of the best pediatric hospitals in the world, these children's lives are being saved, and many are now living into adulthood.

The physical, emotional and financial burden on families who care for a child with complex special needs is enormous. If they are able to care for their child at home, almost always one of the parents is required to quit their job and stay at home as a full-time care provider. Some families cannot cope and resort to giving their children over to government care. It's an act of desperation, but they have no other option to access help, support and services because of the long wait-lists. I'm sure many of you here today are parents and see this as being unconscionable, yet this is happening in our country.

Ontario's Financial Accountability Office detailed that the wait-lists for children's services grew from 1,600 in 2012 to 27,600 in 2020.

Safehaven regularly hears first-hand from families in need of services for their children with developmental disabilities. We are met with requests weekly from families across the province for respite care. We were able to accommodate only half of the families who requested care, due to capacity and eligibility restrictions.

There's a particular challenge with transitioning from children's services to adult services, because these children were never supposed to make it to age 18. An integrated system of care was never developed for the duration of their lives. Parents describe going from childhood into adulthood as being like falling off a cliff. Instead of celebrating their 18th birthday, this is a dreaded milestone. As well, individual funding supports are extremely low for these children who age into young adulthood, if they survive, and this forces them to live below the poverty limits.

As Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act, progresses towards the Senate, I want to emphasize the importance of supporting programs like Safehaven, which promote inclusionary care for the most vulnerable. Specifically, children and those who transition into adulthood need a stable income and affordable housing.

These individuals deserve a right to life as much as anybody else or any other healthy child. A young adult should not be sent or even considered for long-term care.

Our proposed solutions focus on investments that need to be made now to make available spaces and programs for children, youth and adults and address gaps in our current system, enhance support for families who want to keep their children at home, and provide good respite programs and residential programs for parents as they age and can no longer care for their children.

Also, medically complex individuals need financial support to ensure that they escape poverty. The very complex children I'm speaking about today need a lifetime of care, from infancy to adulthood.

These are considered medical miracles. We need to ensure they are living longer and we have a system in place that can care for them.

They will never outgrow their disease. They will never recover or get better. They have the right to a safe and secure home and a system of care while they are alive. If we do not address the needs, the gap will only continue to get wider. These vulnerable children and their families deserve better.

The mantras of Safehaven and #WeBelong align with the four pillars of Bill C-22, the new legislation being proposed, with financial security, employment, accessibility, inclusive communities and a modern approach to disability.

We should all aspire to achieve a world where our kids belong to and are part of inclusive environments and communities. Thank you.

Persons with Disabilities

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her tireless advocacy.

In Canada, no person with a disability should live in poverty. That is why we are committed to creating the Canada disability benefit, a thoughtfully designed income supplement with the potential to seriously reduce poverty and improve financial security for hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities from coast to coast to coast.

I am pleased to say that yesterday Bill C-22 passed unanimously in the House. We look forward to seeing it move through the Senate.

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑22.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from February 1 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 third time and passed.

Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated working with the member throughout the whole process of Bill C-22 since Parliament began to sit.

Right now, the cost of living is limiting persons with disabilities who are living in poverty the opportunity to eat a meal. I am asking the member if the Liberal government is willing to consider an emergency interim benefit as we wait for the Canada disability benefit to get into their bank accounts. I want to know from the member if it is on the Liberals' radar to make sure that people living with a disability in this country are having their human rights upheld and can afford to live in a home, eat a decent meal, and buy fresh fruits and vegetables.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here again to ask about the urgency for persons with disabilities for immediate income support as they continue to wait for the Canada disability benefit.

There was news today that there will be a vote tomorrow, and the House wants to push this through quickly, but we still have to wait for those regulations to be made. We know that persons with disabilities face too many challenges, which are only increasing with the rising costs of living, such as food and skyrocketing home and rent prices.

Throughout the course of the committee study on Bill C-22, we heard about the suffering of those living in poverty. We heard from the minister that ESDC had supplied information that the average gap for persons with disabilities between their income and the Canada poverty line is $9,000. That is $9,000 below the poverty line.

Overwhelmingly, we heard that almost one million persons with disabilities living in poverty are not eating enough meals daily and cannot keep up with the rising costs. They are making impossible choices between housing, food, heating and transportation, and the provincial support programs have remained stagnant.

As we know, no single province is even close to the poverty line. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick show the highest gaps, in excess of $12,000 a year, while two of the most affluent provinces, Ontario and B.C., have gaps nearing $10,000. I have no doubt that the gaps have only grown worse. It is essential that the federal government step up with some interim benefit immediately.

The government has international obligations, including the UN’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to ensure dignity and full equality for all. This includes necessary and adequate income, but it is not happening right now. Dire financial circumstances are the reality for too many people with disabilities, and the longer they must wait for the promised Canada disability benefit, the more they are left feeling abandoned by the government.

Another common theme from witness testimony in committee for Bill C-22 was that income supports are needed now. With the rising hopes and expectations of a Canada disability benefit, persons with disabilities are calling for assistance to get them through until the disability benefit is a reality. In the last several months, we have been hearing a growing call for an emergency response benefit to offset the cost of living.

Will the Liberal government acknowledge the dire financial situation for one million persons with disabilities in this country? What is the plan to protect their human rights? Will the Liberals explore an interim benefit as we wait for the Canada disability benefit?

Canada Disability Benefit Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak once again to this very important Bill C-22 around establishing the Canada disability benefit at third reading.

I would be remiss to not first take a moment to acknowledge the continuous work of my NDP colleague, the MP for Port Moody—Coquitlam, as well as so many in the disability community for their dedication to bringing the voices of those living with disabilities forward. Most of all, I want to acknowledge and thank all those living with disabilities for their endless perseverance to demand better.

I am in awe daily of the bravery shown by so many living with disabilities to share their stories and to push for their basic human rights, not only for today but also for generations to come. It is clear we need the government to act now and to implement this much overdue benefit.

While I am happy to be here today at third reading, I am beyond disheartened that people with disabilities still do not have the support they so desperately need and deserve. I feel it is worth reiterating that the supports those living with disabilities are asking for are those to meet the most basic needs, such as food on the table, a place to call home and heat to keep warm through the winter.

I would like to pose the question to all members of Parliament in the House, which is “how long is too long to wait for supports to meet basic needs? How long is too long to go hungry? How long is too long to go without a home?” I am sure all those in the House can appreciate that even one day going hungry, without a safe place to sleep at night, without heat to keep warm is too long.

We live in Canada, a country that prides itself on taking care of one another, yet the government continues to delay vital and life-saving supports for those living with disabilities. It has been seven years, to be exact, of delays. The Liberals have been in power for seven years and have taken no concrete action to date to lift people with disabilities out of poverty. My hope is that today this sad history will change.

I have said it in the House before and I will say it again that some of the strongest people I know are living with disabilities, exhibiting incredible strength despite being kicked down over and over again. People with disabilities are contributing members of our communities, like I have also heard in the House today, with their own unique stories, talents and skills. People living with disabilities have loved ones and hobbies and goals they are working on, just like all of us.

We know that more than 5.3 million Canadians live with disabilities, and of those 5.3 million, one million live in poverty. One million. Disability Without Poverty, a Canadian grassroots disability-led movement, stated that “We have a crisis of poverty in this country. Over 41% of people impacted are people with disabilities. This cannot be ignored anymore in a country like ours.”

Constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across the country who are living with disabilities are reaching out, pleading for support. Will the government listen and ensure that those living with disabilities get the supports in place today? There is no more time to wait. Without action, we will continue to see people living with disabilities being legislated into poverty. This is a fact. For example, for someone living with a disability who is unable to work as a result, the support they receive at a time when they need it most does not provide the minimal supports required to make ends meet. It is shameful.

The words of Catherine, who is living with a disability, really summarize the experiences I have been hearing from so many, both on Vancouver Island at home, and across Canada. Her words are, “It has been truly dehumanizing living in Canada as a Disabled individual. I'd never wish my disease on anyone. The chronic pain and suffering that comes with my disease is awful enough on its own. But to then suffer extreme poverty adds a new level to the suffering for people with disabilities. Our basic needs are not met and yet we are told to be grateful for the pocket change we are forced to live off of.”

She goes on to say, “Bill C-22 has a mission to pass 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 hope this bill properly serves my community and saves lives. Please provide the help my community has been begging for. This issue is life and death. I hope it is rolled out urgently and with care.”

So many like Catherine are asking for supports to be implemented now for those who need them most and for us to ensure that the voices of those who are living with disabilities are part of the entire decision-making process from beginning to end.

Who better to identify the needs and challenges of those living with disabilities than those living with disabilities? How many times does the government need to repeat the cycle of a top-down approach before realizing that this does not work for anybody?

The Accessible Canada Act specifically recognizes the importance for those living with disabilities to be involved in the development and design of laws, policies, programs, services and structures in the spirit of “nothing without us”. “Nothing without us” means more than checking a box saying that consultation to the most superficial degree has been completed; it means having those with lived experience as an integral part of the development, design and implementation of these supports.

The current minimal disability supports have been further eroded by the affordability crisis and growing inflation, leading to increasingly dire situations every day for those living with disabilities and their families. I have spoken before about Jocelyn, a constituent in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Her story and experience are similar to those of far too many people living with disabilities whom I speak with day after day.

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 reliant on the minimal disability income provided to make ends meet. She 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 was the certainty that 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.

Legislating Jocelyn into poverty also means legislating her children into poverty. Despite her perseverance and incredible resiliency, she is set up for failure. At a time when her children need the best start to life, Jocelyn is struggling to provide the basics for them. It is clear that without the leadership required by the Liberal government, the impacts on those living with disabilities will continue to be felt for generations to come.

Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, also shared with us her concerns about barriers to accessing necessary supports for those living with disabilities. Bea said:

From barriers to employment to affordable housing to access to care, so many people living with disabilities face unacceptable barriers to economic security.... With rising costs making life even harder, we must make sure the bill is well designed and is a meaningful addition to existing federal, provincial and territorial supports, so help gets to those who need it.... People living with disabilities deserve to live in dignity.

Let me be clear. This is not the bill an NDP government would have put forward. As of today, we are looking at an empty bill without the specificity required to see real change. However, it is not too late for the government to make these changes. There is still time for the government, with the support of all members in the House, to move forward with a bill that provides an income that pulls individuals living with disabilities, at minimum, out of poverty. It can create a bill that clearly articulates who is eligible for the supports, what the benefit amount will be and when such supports will be made available and placed in the bank accounts of those with most need.

An issue compounding the struggles to make ends meet experienced by those living with disabilities is not knowing if there is any hope in sight. It is devastating to hear many people living with disabilities sharing that they are hopeless and that the only option left for them is to consider medical assistance in dying. When choosing to die is easier than trying to live, we know there is a deep-rooted problem with the decisions being made.

It is time for the Liberal government to step up to provide hope and move forward with a bill that contains the substance required to ensure those living with disabilities can live with dignity and respect. The first step is moving Bill C-22 forward to the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for all the work he has done on this bill since Parliament began to sit. This is a key area of the budget.

The NDP has been talking for a long time about supports for persons with disabilities, and not just on Bill C-22. It was because of the NDP that there were supports for persons with disabilities with CERB, so I can say NDP members have always been strong advocates for persons with disabilities, all the way back to Jack Layton. We will be pushing, like we have been for decades.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam's powerful speech and her strong support of strengthening Bill C-22 throughout the committee process.

My question is similar to a question I asked of a Conservative member earlier. As the member has also shared many times, it is not good enough to move this legislation ahead. The governing party needs to fund the Canada disability benefit. Could the member speak more to the ways that she and the rest of her party will continue to put pressure on the governing party to fund the Canada disability benefit?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by thanking every disability organization, individual and ally for keeping up the pressure on the Liberal government to get Bill C-22 here today. Their work is invaluable and their ongoing collaboration in making regulations is key.

Let us take a minute to reflect on the process that has brought us to today.

In 2019, the Liberal platform included a promise for the Canada disability benefit. The government has been elected with a minority government twice over the past three-plus years, 1,200 days ago, yet there is still no Canada disability benefit. The Liberal government, 589 days ago, tabled the first iteration of the Canada disability benefit act, Bill C-35, and then called an unnecessary election, cancelling this legislation. After 232 days, the Liberals had still not tabled a bill for the Canada disability benefit in this session of Parliament, so the NDP used its power to force the Liberals to act.

On May 10, 2022, the NDP brought a unanimous consent motion for the Liberal government to introduce, without delay, a Canada disability benefit act to get this important legislation moving. It was only under that pressure that this bill finally came to the table.

The NDP is ready to move forward with this bill, even though it contains very few details, as many of my colleagues have stated, details like who will get this benefit, how much the benefit will be and when people living with a disability will start receiving it.

In the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, we studied Bill C-22, and there were frustrations around the lack of details expressed. Throughout the study, witnesses informed us that because the need for income support was so acute, they wanted this bill to get into law and wanted us to work on the details later.

The message was so clear: Income support is needed now. Too many persons with disabilities are living in poverty, and with skyrocketing costs of living, persons with disabilities are making impossible choices between food, medication, housing, transportation and more. The difficult conditions are even leading some to consider MAID.

That is why today, even with the lack of details in this bill, the NDP supports moving it forward quickly so that the Liberals can finally live up to their promise of realizing the needed Canada disability benefit and relieve unnecessary suffering, if they would just bring the supports forward.

One of the details the committee received from ESDC was a comparison between the highest poverty line per province and the standard amount of provincial disability supports. Not a single province provides income supports to persons with disabilities that are even close to the poverty line. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick show the highest gaps, at more than $12,000 a year, while two of the most affluent provinces, Ontario and B.C., have gaps of nearly $10,000 a year. Across Canada, the average annual gap for income support for person with disabilities is nearly $9,000 in comparison to the poverty line.

These numbers were from 2020, and the gaps are surely higher now with inflation. Those gaps do not even include the additional costs of living with a disability in this ableist country. This is unacceptable.

Canada has an obligation to uphold the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to ensure dignity and full equality for all. Under this convention, we must adhere to article 28, which declares an adequate standard of living and social protection for persons with disabilities. That, along with other international and national obligations, is not being met in Canada. The government has other binding obligations, including the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to ensure that persons with disabilities have an adequate standard of living. The Liberal government must live up to these commitments.

As human rights lawyer Vince Calderhead said during HUMA testimony on Bill C-22:

...the government could very quickly ensure that its human rights obligations are met in a way that is not compromising and that meets those obligations.

No one should have to compromise with trade-offs to their human rights entitlements in order to ensure quick passage of the bill.

However, that is exactly what we are doing here.

With the Liberals' 1,200 days of delay and the declining standard of living for the almost one million Canadians with disabilities living in poverty in this country, the House feels the critical urgency to fast-track this empty bill, on the hope that the Liberals will collaborate with the disability community and do the right thing to ensure this new Canada disability benefit would be adequate and would ensure that no person with disabilities lives in poverty. The Liberals must do better.

Members can imagine closing that gap between provincial and territorial supports and the official poverty line and what a difference that would make for persons with disabilities. We can also consider the need to supplement that poverty line to truly accommodate the cost of a disability in this country, including accessibility aids, medication costs and transportation. The list goes on.

The NDP fought to get adequacy enshrined in legislation here, but the Liberals would not support it for consideration at committee. That is a real red flag, and it gives me great concern that the Liberals will not provide an adequate benefit.

For some protection, the NDP introduced an amendment in regulations that outlined a minimum benefit amount and that the benefit must consider the official poverty line. The NDP expects the benefit to be even greater than that. The NDP has also achieved some other transparency amendments in the process of developing the bill's regulations at committee. The minister would now be required to table in the House a progress report, within six months of royal assent, on the engagement and collaboration with the disability community in relation to the development of future regulations. The NDP was also able to reflect the urgency of this benefit, ensuring it would come into force no later than the first anniversary of the day on which it receives royal assent.

During the HUMA committee's study on Bill C-22, we heard testimony from the Québec Intellectual Disability Society that it had taken four years to develop the regulations and framework for Quebec's new income project. This cannot happen with the disability benefit, so protections are now in place to limit the time the government can spend making these regulations.

However, even with those amendments out of committee, Bill C-22 would still rely on regulations to determine who would get the benefit, how much it would be and when they would get it. The Liberals have delivered just a framework that leaves those key decisions to be finalized behind the closed doors of cabinet.

Let me reiterate for the cabinet that persons with disabilities living in poverty in this country are relying on this new income support, and they need more than a framework to pay their bills. In good faith, the disability community believes in the Liberal promise of “Nothing Without Us” from the preamble of this bill. Do not disappoint them. Do not deny them their human rights. Canadians have heard a lot of promises from this minister and his government. This needs to be more than a promise.

I will close by saying that the NDP supports fast-tracking this framework and looks forward to its quick movement through the Senate. We expect the government to show a commitment to the urgency and an investment of significant funds in the upcoming budget for the Canada disability benefit.

To really solidify the House's commitment on the urgency of this bill, because we have heard it today in this House, if you seek it, Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, later today, at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary for the disposal of the third reading stage 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 and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague that there are as many cases as there are people with disabilities. Every case is unique, and a flexible, adaptable law that is sensitive to the needs of individuals could help those individuals to grow in their own way and to get what they need to grow and to integrate into and succeed in society. Bill C‑22 is not a law that will do that. We need to do better.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging the invaluable and important work of my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville. She cares a lot about the future of the people of Quebec and the entire community. She has done a tremendous amount of work on this committee. I think that all of our colleagues here and in committee have seen how competent she is. She has a lot of experience and has contributed a great deal to this committee, particularly during the study of Bill C‑22. I want to sincerely thank her for that.

The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of Bill C‑22, but we are not very optimistic about it, and understandably so. The bill is still a blank page that gives the Governor in Council the power to adopt any new regulations they deem proper. None of the amendments that were made change the fact that the benefit will be established solely by regulation. That is what we take issue with. Parliamentarians will have little or no control over the final product, despite the testimony, the opinions of advocacy groups and the time spent in committee. We are basically at square one. Of course, everyone agrees that we need to move as quickly as possible. However, it is not a good idea to move quickly just for the sake of doing so. We need to move quickly but still do things right.

We are once again seeing a great partnership between the NDP and the Liberals. That warms the heart, but it leaves us with mixed feelings about this approach, which is hasty and devoid of content.

Quebec having created its own social safety net that is the envy of many nations, it goes without saying that we support any effort to improve the lives of people with disabilities. However, it should be noted that the bill is still very short on details and could very likely be an intrusion into Quebec's jurisdiction. Our desire to support persons with disabilities is what drives us to support the bill in principle, but we are left with many concerns.

Our hopes fade, however, when we see the legal void in the legislation. There are many requirements that need to be met, especially in Quebec. Many people do not identify as having a disability and do not claim the help provided to persons with disabilities. There are many reasons for that.

Some people go through life without ever having any health problems and then suddenly end up sick overnight. They do not know where to turn to get help or do not want any help. Some people do not know that their condition is recognized as a disability. Others find the process too complicated.

Tax credits are non-refundable and some people do not even have enough income to claim them. Then we have the terms “handicap”, or disability, and “invalidity”, which do not mean exactly the same thing. Among francophones, there is confusion about what constitutes a disability. People are confused.

In a single year, 193,000 people in Quebec received the disability tax credit compared to 1,380,000 in all of Canada. These figures may seem high, but the reality is that only 60% of Canadians claim this credit. In Quebec, only 2.2% of the population claim it, even though 16% of Quebeckers live with a disability and are eligible. The confusion is detrimental for Quebeckers.

The federal government plans to conduct consultations over three years to establish the terms and conditions for the benefits. For individuals living with a disability, the needs are immediate and such lengthy consultations are not necessary. What are they going to do during the three years that discussions are being held?

I would like to talk about my friend Daniel. Daniel has been disabled most of his life. An artist at heart, Daniel left his hometown of Sept-Îles for Montreal before the summer of 1994. He studied to be a drama teacher at UQAM and did theatre studies at the Conservatoire Lassalle.

Daniel had plans.

In the summer of 1994, Daniel was in his early twenties when a tragic dive left him quadriplegic and put him in a wheelchair. It took a year of rehabilitation in Quebec City. He was not eligible for a disability pension because in the months before his accident he was a part-time student and worked part-time in a health care centre. Since he was partially self-employed, he had not contributed enough to qualify for a pension. As a result, he had to rely on social assistance for two years while he completed his rehabilitation.

Does everyone see how complex this can be? When someone is going through the worst experience of their life, these torments should not exist.

He then returned to Sept-Îles to regain some autonomy and return to his theatre projects. This was followed by years of volunteer work and involvement in schools in several regions, from Quebec City to Natashquan. He set up coaching workshops as a self-employed worker. He shares his skills with many artists in Quebec, including Simon Gauthier and Les contes de Petite souris. He founded the resto-bar Le Crapet-Soleil with his fabulous wife, Carol-Anne Pedneault. Over eight years, they presented more than 300 performances, including live music, theatre productions, improvisation and cultural events. He has an instinct for discovering emerging talent. Many such artists are now very successful because they first appeared on our friend Daniel's stage.

I would like to point out that he was the brilliant director of a musical called La vie du Temps, of which I was the humble author. Thanks to his talent, skills and dedication, it has charmed the likes of Jean Besré, Gilles Pelletier, Paul Buissonneau, Louisette Dussault, Johanne Fontaine and numerous others who have praised his exceptional work. I say this because Daniel did this while in a wheelchair and with no income.

Despite three bouts of cancer and a stem cell transplant, Daniel always wanted to be independent, to work to support his family. In 2008, he founded Noé productions, gave lectures and published a first book.

These new creative realms led him to a year-long tour of western Canada, where he offered theatre workshops in French-immersion schools. With the success of his performances, he used his time out west to direct Saint-Exupéry's Le Petit Prince, touring major cities in British Columbia.

Now more than ever, his health is a major issue and his survival a priority. He was richly rewarded. He and his partner brought a beautiful daughter into the world. Her name is Mika, and she is now 15 years old. She is living proof that Daniel's disability did not put an end to his ability, his plans and his dream of having a family. Two years ago, he applied for a disability pension and, for the first time since his two years of rehab, he began to collect an income. That whole time, he got by without government help.

I wanted to share this because people with disabilities, whatever their disability, just want one thing. They want to live as authentically as possible in this world.

For people who lose their autonomy, a normal life is crucial. Daniel just made it through several weeks in intensive care, once again defying the gloomiest prognosis. He battled double pneumonia and resulting complications and prevailed. He dreams of wandering through the island forest and hopes to complete his writing projects, including a history of St. Lawrence schooners, an autobiographical novel, and a children's series illustrated by his partner, Carol-Anne, also known as Carococo.

Even with his disability, in his working life, Daniel was able to achieve what many able-bodied people have not. Without specific, adapted support, he was unable to benefit from the financial support that would likely have taken his career even further. Let us give everyone the chance to shine no matter what their circumstances.

Bill C‑22 does not really do anything tangible for people with disabilities. The Bloc Québécois thinks that is unfortunate and will continue to ensure, thanks to my colleague, that things are the best they can be given the circumstances.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I really enjoy working with her at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

I think we all have the same goal when it comes to Bill C‑22, and that is to give it more teeth. Groups came to tell us how important it is to them to participate in this benefit. Yes, I think that the principle of “us” is there.

However, it is also important that we, as parliamentarians, become guardians of what the groups are looking for. There is an urgent need to act, and we could easily have combined the regulatory route with the parliamentary route.

When has the amount of the guaranteed income supplement for retirees ever been decided by regulation? Never.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc believes that the government must ensure that every citizen has a decent social safety net. That safety net is currently torn and we have to fix it. We will support the bill, but allow me to share some of my reservations. These are the same reservations that I shared here in the House at second reading of this bill, as well as in the committee of which I am a member.

We are all concerned about the convoluted way in which the government went about this. We fear that the minister is taking absolutely all the power by deciding on every single detail of the benefit by regulation. We are concerned that parliamentarians are being called to vote on a bill that presents good intentions, that is a major step forward, but is nonetheless a blank page. We are especially concerned that the regulations are being developed without any transparency and that at the end of the day, the benefit will not satisfy the need, which, let us not forget, is to lift persons with disabilities out of poverty.

Yes, we will support the bill because there is an urgent need for action. People with disabilities are in a precarious position, and we need to help them. Do not forget that people with disabilities also face additional costs related to their disability, such as home adaptations, food delivery, and medication. Being disabled costs more. On top of that, there is the pandemic and inflation, which have further impoverished this segment of the population.

Here is an example from the Journal de Québec:

...Paul Awad, a 57-year-old man struggling to make ends meet and get the basic services he needs to live with dignity. The livable income in Sherbrooke, the city where he lives, is $26,299 per year. With his [income] of approximately $1,200 a month, he often has nothing left at the end of the month. “I want to be free of the stress of having to choose between food and rent every month. I want to live a dignified life on my own terms,” he says.

This benefit is of vital importance to him. Mr. Awad is one of many people with disabilities in the same situation.

That is why it is important to the Bloc Québécois to support creating this benefit. We believe the government's job is to redistribute wealth to level the playing field by creating a proper social safety net. However, as I said earlier, we have concerns. For one thing, we do not know a thing about what the government actually plans to put in the benefit.

Let us not forget that, in June 2021, during the 43rd Parliament, the government passed Bill C‑35, which was essentially an empty shell. One election later, the government was back at it with Bill C‑22, which is an exact copy of its predecessor and another blank slate.

For example, we have no information about the eligibility criteria. There is very little information about the amounts. Who is eligible? The government is failing to provide a clear definition of who will qualify for the benefit. People with motor, sensory or mental disabilities? People with a debilitating disease or permanent or temporary disability? All types of disability? We have no idea.

As for eligibility criteria, we have no idea how people with disabilities are supposed to apply. Will the government set up the simple, efficient process that many groups have asked for? There are no details about this.

We also have no idea how the federal government plans to coordinate with the provinces. Even the officials who appeared before the committee had a hard time explaining how the provinces handle this. What we do know is that no two provinces do the same thing. There is clearly a lot of work to do on that.

In her public statements and in committee, the minister has given a few hints about her intentions. For example, she said that the benefit would be similar to the guaranteed income supplement, that it would align with the provincial programs and that the process would be simple.

Those are fine words, but there is nothing in the bill to that effect. Basically, what she is telling us is to trust her and to vote for a blank page. That is a very worrisome and rather unheard of approach.

That brings me to another concern, which is the government's lack of consistency. Because the creation of this benefit is so important, we believe that it should go through the proper legislative process.

However, the government decided to call all the shots by doing everything through regulation. It is justifying its decision by saying that this is an urgent matter, but the Prime Minister did not seem to think it was too urgent when he decided to trigger an election in 2021 and let former Bill C-35 die on the Order Paper. We could have easily passed this law a year sooner, as advocacy groups wanted us to do. The government's argument does not hold water.

The right thing to do would have been to consult the groups, reorient the form and content of the bill, and submit it to parliamentarians. The other details could have been worked out later in the regulations. That is how the government would have proceeded if it had the least amount of respect for the work of parliamentarians.

Under the circumstances, in committee, I asked that the regulations, once drafted, at least be sent back to the House to be voted on. The governing party rejected my proposal. I think that is outrageous.

Under the circumstances, the Bloc Québécois will be on guard and closely monitor the development of this benefit. Certain things are non-negotiable. First, we are asking that the benefit meet the needs expressed by the advocacy groups. It will need to substantially improve the financial situation of persons with disabilities. We cannot accept a half measure that has no impact. We are also asking that during the development of its regulations, the government invite every relevant stakeholder to the table and that the process be open and transparent.

In committee, we received dozens of witnesses who all had important information to contribute to the debate. We need to listen to them. That is not to mention the hundreds of written submissions and briefs we were sent.

Let me share an example. As of January 2023, Quebec has introduced a basic income program, increasing the social assistance benefit for people with severe disabilities by 40%, as well as allowing for additional income.

Since there will be a virtually exemplary safety net, even if it is not perfect yet, how can we ensure that Quebec's superior social safety net does not get dragged down by the new benefit? How can we ensure that no one loses out on the benefits they are entitled to with the guaranteed income supplement? That is our concern.

That said, I think the majority of groups have said this is an urgent matter. People with disabilities need this support. We encourage everyone to move quickly on this and, most importantly, we ask that parliamentarians be updated on the progress and reality of this work.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑22, which seeks to establish a disability benefit.

I want to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. We will support it because we strongly believe that urgent action must be taken. Many people with disabilities and their advocacy groups, whom I have met with personally on several occasions, have stated unequivocally that the situation is serious for them.

If there is one thing we should remember, it is that people with disabilities have the right to be recognized, they are full-fledged members of our society and their rights and dignity should not be compromised because of their differences.

I am sorry that I did not think of it sooner, but I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with our beautiful and beloved artist, the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, just before Christmas, I started receiving phone calls on Bill C-22, with people asking me to please vote for Bill C-22. I thought I better look and make sure I know what I am calling them about. When I looked at the bill and started scrolling through it, I thought my iPad was frozen because there was nothing there. I looked at it and it said “coming into force”, but what was coming into force?

I can already hear the grumbling across the aisle. Those members will claim they care about Canadians living with disabilities, but how many of them were in the House eight years ago when we passed the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act unanimously? I know the member for Papineau was there. He, too, supported the legislation to help Canadians living with disabilities, but then when he became Prime Minister, it took seven years to pass one regulation. I pray that is not the case with the Canada disability benefit. Given the greasy slope this country seems to be on, we do not have another seven years to wait.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.

Although I have a completely different point of view, there is one thing we agree on, and I would like to ask her a question. I, too, am a member of the committee that did an in-depth study of Bill C‑22.

What seems to be unique about this bill is that the amount of the benefit and the eligibility criteria will be established by regulations, without any parliamentary oversight on what the benefit level will be. Will this amount truly complement what is being provided in Quebec and the provinces? Will it meet its objective of reducing poverty? We moved an amendment in that regard in committee proposing that the eligibility criteria and the amount of the benefit be studied in Parliament and a decision be made. The amendment was not successful.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that? Would it have been a good idea?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of Canadians living with disabilities in the Ontario Winter Games-hosting riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Bill C-22, the false hope bill, meets the Liberals' net-zero goal. There is net-zero benefit to Canadians living with disabilities. After eight years of incompetence and corruption, the Liberal approach is to deny, delay and deflect. If dragging their feet were an Olympic sport, the Liberals would sweep the podium.

In 2015, with unanimous support, the House passed my private member's bill to protect Canadians living with disabilities from predatory vulture companies. These vultures offered to help Canadians living with disabilities complete the disability tax credit form. After completing a one-page form, these companies charged up to 30% of the tax credit intended for Canadians facing additional living costs due to disabilities. Thousands of Canadians lost millions of dollars to these vultures.

Sadly, for Canadians living with disabilities, my bill was passed shortly before the Liberals took power. Whether out of partisan spite or just Liberal indifference to Canadians living with disabilities, this gang took seven years to pass one page of regulations required to make the law actually work, seven years of predatory vulture companies taking a 30% cut of the disability tax credit. It took them seven years to pass regulations that can be printed on a single sheet of paper. It took them seven years to help Canadians living with disabilities. Now they are at it again.

Bill C-22 was originally Bill C-35. It had to be reintroduced after the Prime Minister called his superspreader pandemic election campaign. Canadians living with disabilities need to remember that the political interests of the Liberal Party always come first.

It has been three years since this bill was introduced, but even if I could snap my fingers and pass the bill right now, Canadians living with disabilities would still not see any help from the government. That is because the bill is TBD, “to be determined”. How much will the benefit be? That is TBD. Will the benefits be clawed back? That is TBD. Who is even eligible to receive it? That is, again, T bleeping D.

At committee, the minister said that it would be at least a year before Canadians living with disabilities would have the answers to those basic questions. My private member's bill to protect Canadians living with disabilities from vulture companies required just one regulation, and the regulation was to set a maximum amount these vultures could charge. It took seven years to set the maximum at $100.

Canadians living with disabilities waited seven years for one regulation from the Liberals, and now the Liberals are claiming they will pass the dozens of required regulations in one year. It would actually be a great relief to Canadians living with disabilities if the government admitted the delay in regulating vulture companies was out of partisan spite. If that was not the reason for the delay, it means the government is incompetent. It means Canadians living with disabilities could be waiting years for financial assistance, and that is unacceptable.

It is why Conservatives pushed for and successfully secured an amendment requiring the minister to report back in six months of this bill passing on the progress to pass the required regulations. The challenge is that this type of accountability measure only works in governments with the capacity to feel shame. Unfortunately, shamelessness is a defining feature of the Prime Minister and his government. I am not the first one to say the Prime Minister cares more about style over substance. Former finance minister Morneau literally wrote a book about it.

This disability benefit act might just be the purest form of the Liberals' style-over-substance problem. There are no dollars budgeted for this bill, yet to hear the government members speak, Canadians might think this bill has already passed and completely solved poverty. However, a press release is not policy, and the devil is always in the details. In the case of this proposed disability benefit, the devil is the clawback, and the details are the provinces.

My colleagues on the committee proposed an amendment to prevent the benefit from being clawed back. The Liberals voted against it. The minister claims a clawback is a red line when negotiating the creation of a benefit with the provinces, yet the Liberals voted against putting that into legislation. How can the minister claim a red line exists for the government when the Liberals voted against it?

If Canadians living with disabilities are worried about the government's track record on passing regulations, that should be doubly true with any required negotiations with the provinces. I know some Liberals will point to the speed at which they “negotiated” with the provinces on $10-a-day day care. That was some negotiating: “Here is some money. Go spend it on day care.” Negotiating the disability benefit will be much harder. In this case, the provinces have some actual leverage. How many Liberals will appreciate this leverage will depend more on the electoral fortunes of the Liberal Party in that particular province.

Inevitably, this will leave Canadians living with disabilities facing a patchwork of policies, depending on the province. Sorry, Madam Speaker, I misspoke. “Inevitable” means it is certain to happen, but when it comes to the government, nothing is certain except the pursuit of its own political interests. Canadians living with disabilities do not deserve to experience more uncertainty. They need our support to live full lives and participate fully in society, including in the workforce.

This was an urgent bill when it was first introduced three years ago. As Liberal spending fuelled the cost-of-living crisis, that urgency has only increased, yet for the Prime Minister, the most urgent matter was not passing the original legislation; it was calling his superspreader election.

After eight years of this corrupt Liberal government, Canadians living with disabilities are even worse off. Just as inflation has made it more expensive to live, the government is making it easier to die. We have heard testimony at committee of Canadians living with disabilities considering assisted suicide because the government spending is driving up inflation. It is only more chilling when the director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba said, “I was rather proud that Canada has done so well in terms of organ donation by MAID patients.”

Then we have the Minister of Justice claiming, “Remember that suicide generally is available to people. This is a group within the population who, for physical reasons and possibly mental reasons, can’t make that choice themselves to do it themselves.”

When Canadians hear those quotes, they are right to think Canada is broken. We have a so-called ethicist celebrating organ harvesting, and a justice minister claiming a right to be killed through the help of the state. We have a Liberal government that will take seven years to pass one regulation to protect Canadians living with disabilities.

The urgency to pass legislation that delivers tangible benefits is real. Every minute the Liberals delay getting this money back into bank accounts puts lives at risk. The members across the aisle might roll their eyes, but 35% of Canadians who died by assisted suicide in 2021 felt they were a burden to their family, friends or caregivers.

The government was warned repeatedly of the danger that expanding assisted suicide posed, and the loudest warnings came from those living with disabilities. It is not because we live in a structurally ableist society. It is because the rhetoric from the government about helping Canadians living with disabilities never matches the money actually spent. What money we do provide will be clawed back the very minute they try to improve their financial situations, and that is why it is truly immiserating for Canadians living with disabilities. Structural impoverishment by government policy is a kind of hopelessness that drives people to commit suicide. It is a kind of despair that can only be fuelled by promises of benefits that never actually arrive.

We need to put ourselves in the shoes of someone who had reached that breaking point in late 2020. They are encouraged to hold on. They are told a benefit that will make a material improvement in their lives is on the way. They watch for any sign that relief is near. Their hope grows when they hear legislation is being introduced with all-party support. However, then there is the Prime Minister's urgent superspreader election.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-22 as the official opposition shadow minister for employment, future workforce development and disability inclusion.

Conservatives are committed to increasing support for Canadians living with disabilities. More than one in five Canadians live with a disability. This is not an insignificant number. In fact, this is not a number; these are people.

Disabled Canadians are underemployed. In 2017, Statistics Canada reported that approximately 59% of working-age adults with disabilities were employed, compared with around 80% of those without disabilities.

I have always believed in going to where people are. This is why I door knocked for the year leading up to the 2019 election, reaching more than 30,000 doorsteps in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country. One thing I will always remember is how many people I came across in their homes were people with disabilities. A family member would often tell me the story of their family. Truly, a disability is often a family journey.

Canadians living with disabilities may face high costs for assisted devices, equipment or prescriptions. One of the most onerous costs remains accessibility renovations and modifications to a home. This is especially onerous considering that the government’s age well initiative fund did not include the home and vehicle modification program. These are not optional expenses. We are talking about life-saving items, necessities or items that can exponentially improve someone's standard of living. If someone is fortunate enough to have family support, this is often how they can manoeuvre as a family to try to get services and have the best quality of life.

While some challenges are beyond the immediate scope of this House, as parliamentarians, we owe it to Canadians living with disabilities to put forward legislation that will allow them to continue to survive, succeed and hopefully thrive.

While the intention to support the disability community remains, Bill C-22, the disability benefit act, will not ensure on its own that Canadians living with disabilities are not living in poverty. This is because the most important details of this bill, such as eligibility, payment amount, application process, provincial co-operation and how it will interact with other programs, which could potentially create clawbacks, are left to be determined by regulation.

Essentially, we are debating a benefit that has not been determined yet. Canadians living with disabilities deserve legislation that is committed to them through concrete action, not promises. I want to make sure this legislation moves forward, but I want to be very clear and on record that the government has been lazy and taken the easy way out; getting disability benefits to people who need them has not been a priority.

Regardless of what the minister and the other Liberal MPs announce and say, the facts speak for themselves. The Liberals have been in government for eight years, and they had all that time to consult and come up with legislation. Although the Liberals have said they consulted with affected persons and advocacy groups, they tabled the exact same piece of legislation in the previous Parliament. It died when the Liberals called the unnecessary, expensive snap election in the summer of 2021. Moreover, this is Bill C-22. That means there were 21 bills before this one in this Parliament, even though this bill is exactly the same as it was in the last Parliament. A disability benefit act has not been their priority. This is how the Liberals govern: make big announcements with photo ops but with no substance, action or results. They have a track record of governing through regulations.

There are few assurances of what this legislation will achieve. The regulations will be drafted behind closed doors. There will be no debate in Parliament; there will be no voting in Parliament. There will be no scrutiny at committees. This is the Liberal way of governing by regulations.

The only policy decision this bill does clearly define is that more than one-third of Canadians living with disabilities over the age of 15 will not receive this benefit, regardless of how poor they are. It is estimated that more than half a million Canadians have invisible disabilities. Just because someone appears to be in good health does not mean that they may not face hardships. We do not know if people with invisible disabilities or those with episodic disabilities will be eligible under this disability benefit act. It is one of the many questions.

People living with a disability do not always fit the traditional mould. We know that there will be an appeals process for Canadians living with disabilities who have been denied supports and benefits. The amount of the benefit remains unclear.

I am very concerned about potential clawbacks. Conservatives attempted to put an amendment in this legislation at the committee stage to potentially address federal benefit clawbacks. However, the Liberals did not support our amendment. The minister told us that she is trying to negotiate agreements with provinces so that there will be no clawbacks. The problem is that these agreements may not be enforceable, and since there is nothing in Bill C-22 to confirm this, in its current form, it would not provide any safeguards against clawbacks.

This is the opposite process to what the Liberals are championing with their child care bill. There, they negotiated with the provinces and signed deals and then came to Parliament with legislation. With this disability benefit, there are literally no details in the legislation, and the Liberals are going to the provinces to work out the agreements. The cost of living is not the same across Canada, and this legislation on its own would not provide the assurance that there would be no provincial or regional disparity.

Some questions remain. How would the benefit be impacted if there were provincial changes to disability supports? Who would qualify? What would the amounts be? Who would deliver the benefit? Would the benefit count as income? How would the benefit be paid? Would it disqualify people from provincial supports? Would it disqualify people from federal supports? These are all questions that the government has failed to answer.

I have seen disability affect my family, like many people. My mom had one week of respite in 30 years of looking after my dad, who had MS. She is the strongest person I know, and there are many people in Canada living through these types of situations in their families.

At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, we heard from individuals and organizations, both testifying in person and writing in. They represented thousands of persons with disabilities across the country. One of the most heartbreaking things I heard was that people were considering MAID because they could not access services or afford to live. People said they could not afford to buy healthy food and follow the Canada food guide, which the Liberals announced with great fanfare in 2019. The current Liberal government does not realize the desperate situation many people are in because of the 40-year high in inflation.

To conclude, as I mentioned earlier, the level of disability poverty in Canada remains a prominent issue, and we have a responsibility to do better. Conservatives are committed to increasing support for Canadians living with disabilities. Therefore, I can say that we are all in agreement that the Canada disability benefit act must be passed, although there are so many unanswered questions. The Liberals have set this up such that they are doing everything in a non-transparent way behind closed doors, and neither parliamentarians nor the greater public through committee will have a say as to what the final regulations will be. Conservatives will remain vigilant in holding the government to account on promises it has made to persons with disabilities.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying how proud I am to stand next to the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. Her inspiring, collaborative leadership to usher this bill forward will be life-changing for so many Canadians in this country, and it certainly has been an honour of my life to be able to work alongside the minister on this incredibly important initiative for Canadians.

I am pleased to rise to participate in this debate on Bill C-22. I will use my time today to speak to the urgency of the situation that has led to the need for this bill.

Here we are. The fact is that the issue of the deep poverty experienced by persons with disabilities in Canada and the issue of MAID have become intertwined. It has been well established in this place and at the HUMA committee that persons with disabilities face higher levels of poverty than other Canadians. Living with dignity is a far-off hope for many in these circumstances, and some persons with disabilities have, unfortunately and tragically, chosen to apply for MAID in the past year, with poverty being the key driver. The sad fact is that eligibility for MAID has expanded faster than have the social supports that would lift persons with disabilities out of poverty and allow them to live with dignity.

This thought is shared by stakeholders. For example, Amit Arya, a palliative care physician on faculty at the University of Toronto and McMaster University, mentions in his urgent plea that, given the critical impact on persons with disabilities, we need to prioritize Bill C-22.

There is a dire need for the Canada disability benefit, and it has strong public support. In fact, the public is applying pressure for us to act quickly. During and after the study of the bill at the HUMA committee, stakeholders had the opportunity to testify, submit briefs and share their opinions in the media. There was a consensus on the need to try to determine all the details of the proposed benefit in the legislation but not to perfect it, as the key objective is to move quickly to respond to the urgent need now. Allow me to amplify some of those testimonies.

Rabia Khedr, from Disability Without Poverty, underscores the urgency. In an article she said, “justice delayed is justice denied” and that if we wait for this legislative process to determine “all of the details of a perfect benefit, its arrival will be too late...”.

Tom Jackman, also from Disability Without Poverty, echoes her words, saying, “Canadians with disabilities desperately need the bill to pass third reading and move through the Senate quickly [in 2023] so it can become law...”.

Disability Without Poverty is supported in its view by numerous organizations like Community Food Centres Canada, Inclusion Canada, March of Dimes, Plan Institute and Finautonome, alongside philanthropists, unions and corporations like Maple Leaf Foods that are all asking us to do the right thing and hurry up.

During his testimony at HUMA, Gary Gladstone, head of stakeholder relations at Reena, underlined the point that amendments would slow down the bill. He said, “From what I understand, regulation at this point would be faster in making any changes... and the bottom line is that if they can be done appropriately and quickly, that's most important.”

This was echoed by Neil Belanger, the chief executive officer of Indigenous Disability Canada. He said he has confidence in the process that will involve persons with disabilities at the regulatory stage, and his clients are urging us to move forward with the bill as it is.

Krista Carr, the executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, affirms this point of view as well. She has heard about the requests by members for the bill to contain more details regarding the design of the proposed benefit, as well as other technical elements. While she says she understands the motivations behind this, she does not believe this is the best course of action. Her biggest fear is that we will get bogged down in the details and greatly delay the passage of the bill.

Allow me to quote directly from her testimony to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development on November 16, 2022. She stated:

With all due respect to the parliamentarians on this committee and beyond, in the spirit of “nothing without us”, we feel really strongly that it is persons with disabilities, their families and representative organizations who should be working arm in arm with government to design this benefit through the regulatory process....

My final plea to you as members of this committee is that if you truly want to make a historic impact on the lives of people with disabilities in this country, and I know you all do, you will do everything in your power to ensure that this bill passes as quickly as possible so that we can get...this benefit into the hands of people who desperately need it.

That is why certain amendments did not make it into the bill. Some were even dropped by the members who put them forward after they had heard the arguments from witnesses. For example, it is much better to have the disability community involved in shaping the regulations rather than have Parliament review each regulation as it is drafted.

That being said, certain amendments did make it into the bill, and I am happy to say the bill is stronger for it. For example, we have included the definition of “disability” from the Accessible Canada Act. In the interest of transparency, we have made it a requirement that the minister would publicize any agreements made with federal or provincial or territorial departments and agencies. New reporting requirements to Parliament on how persons with disabilities have been engaged on the regulations, as well as increased frequency of reporting to Parliament on the bill, would respond to some concerns members had around the role of Parliament. These amendments, along with other provisions of the bill, would provide Parliament with an ongoing check and balance on the proposed benefit going forward.

We have enshrined in the bill that the application process would have to be barrier-free, consistent with the vision of the Accessible Canada Act. A timeline is also enshrined in the bill. The act would have to come into force no later than one year after royal assent.

Bill C-22 has been on a journey through the HUMA committee. I thank the members for their diligence. The bill is stronger for their work, their input and their collaboration. However, as members of the disability community and their allies say, it is now time to act.

The bill before us today would establish the proposed benefit and start the clock on the creation of the regulations that would implement it. We would do this with the members of the disability community. As the minister of disability inclusion says, let us get it done.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today for third 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 acknowledge that I am standing on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples. I would like to begin by paying tribute to the late Hon. David C. Onley. David was many things, a journalist, an author, the 28th Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, a husband and a father. David was also a person with a disability and was a lifelong advocate for accessibility and disability inclusion.

To me and to so many of us in the disability community, he was a trailblazer. He was one of us. He showed us that we, too, could lead and make change happen. He showed us that we not only deserved a seat at the table, but that we had a right to be there. Our opinions and perspectives were not only valuable but they were necessary. Canada is a better place because of the late Hon. David C. Onley, and we miss him.

When I stood in the House to debate this bill at second reading, I declared that in Canada no person with a disability should live in poverty. There are more than 6.2 million people who identify as having a disability in Canada. That is one in five Canadians. The disability community is diverse, talented and innovative. We are family members, friends, neighbours and co-workers.

However, despite everything that the disability community has to offer our great country, the hard truth is that working-age persons with disability in Canada are two times more likely to live in poverty than persons without disabilities. The situation is even more precarious for persons with severe disabilities, women, indigenous people, LGBTQ2S+ and racialized Canadians with disabilities. This is compounded by the fact that persons with disabilities face higher costs of living to begin with. These are costs that make it harder for any person with a disability to save for their future.

This poverty has its roots in the historic and ongoing discrimination, bias and exclusion faced by persons with disabilities in our country. Another hard truth is that our systems, laws, policies and programs were not built with persons with disabilities in mind, nor were they built with persons with disabilities.

For many persons with disabilities, the first time they experience financial security is when they turn age 65. Why? At age 65 they start receiving OAS and GIS benefits. This is unacceptable, especially in Canada. This is the backdrop for Bill C-22. Bill C-22 is about poverty reduction. It is about financial security.

Bill C‑22 gives us an opportunity to close the income gap for working-age people with disabilities in Canada. Financial security brings with it independence, dignity, autonomy and choice. The Canada disability benefit would build on the work we have done to make Canada more inclusive for all people with disabilities.

In 2016, we started a national conversation that led to the creation of the Accessible Canada Act. It is historic legislation with a goal of creating a barrier-free Canada by 2040. The Accessible Canada Act, or ACA, enshrined accessibility and disability inclusion in law.

ACA principles are finding their way into other laws, including Bill C-22. These principles include equality of opportunity and barrier-free access. They also include the principle of “nothing without us”, that persons with disabilities must be involved in the development and design of laws, policies, programs, services and structures.

The Accessible Canada Act also created significant elements of a new system of disability inclusion in Canada. These include Accessibility Standards Canada, the accessibility commissioner at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the chief accessibility officer for Canada.

After laying the groundwork with the Accessible Canada Act, we then launched the first-ever disability inclusion action plan. Developed in partnership with the disability community, it includes a series of current and future initiatives to improve the lives of people with disabilities in Canada.

The action plan has four pillars, which were identified by the disability community as key priorities. These are financial security, employment, accessible and inclusive communities, and a modern approach to disabilities.

Bill C-22 is a foundational component of the first pillar. It would provide financial security for persons with disabilities, like the GIS does for seniors and the Canada child benefit does for children.

Bill C-22 would create the legal framework for the Canada disability benefit. The specifics of the benefit would be regulated in collaboration with the disability community and the provinces and territories.

This approach ensures more opportunities for the disability community to actively participate in the design and implementation of benefits, consistent with the principle of the Accessible Canada Act.

This approach also recognizes the jurisdiction of provinces and territories in the area of disability supports as well as the complexity and uniqueness of each provincial and territorial system. We have been working collaboratively with the provinces and territories on how this benefit would align with and complement their existing services and supports, and to ensure that benefit interaction would not result in unintended consequences, like clawbacks or disentitlement to existing services or benefits.

The Canada disability benefit is meant to be supplemental income, not replacement income. It is meant to lift people out of poverty and make them better off. I know that my provincial and territorial colleagues share a commitment to improving the lives of persons with disabilities across this country.

I reflected a lot on Bill C-22 and the Accessible Canada Act. The Accessible Canada Act received unanimous support from all parties in the House. Bill C-22 received unanimous support at second reading, and colleagues from all parties on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities worked together to improve this bill thoughtfully and considerately. I am grateful for their collaboration, and I believe this bill is stronger as a result of their work. I am confident that there will be unanimous consent in the House at third reading as well.

Both the Accessible Canada Act and Bill C-22 are examples of us, as parliamentarians, at our very best. We rose above partisanship and came together to make generational change. I know that this same spirit will infuse consideration of this bill by the Senate. I know that senators are eager to begin their work on this bill. More than half of the Senate's members wrote an open letter calling for the urgent adoption of Bill C-22.

Canadians are also calling for the swift adoption of Bill C-22. Nearly nine in 10 Canadians support the creation of the Canada disability benefit. In an open letter to the Prime Minister and me, more than 200 Canadians, former parliamentarians, academics, business people, union leaders, economists, health care workers and disability advocates, expressed their support for the creation of this benefit. More than 18,000 Canadians signed an e-petition asking us to fast-track the design and implementation of this benefit.

All members of the House unanimously supported a motion from the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam to implement the Canada disability benefit without delay. I hear regularly from constituents, as I believe so many of us do, about the importance of this benefit, how it will be life changing for individuals and bring peace of mind to families.

In closing, I want to thank those from the disability community. This is their victory. They have had to fight every step of the way and nothing was handed to them. As much as we all know that there remains so much more work to do, they should take time to celebrate. Their advocacy and their unwavering determination are what got us here.

I will also end where I began, with reflection on the life and advocacy of the Hon. David C. Onley. David challenged us as leaders and policy-makers to address disability discrimination and to allow each and every one of us to reach our full potential. He was among the many who have called for the swift passage of Bill C-22. As I vote in favour of this bill, I will be thinking about David, and I know that many here will as well.

The House proceeded to the consideration 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 and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Government Priorities

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, we will soon, in this House, have an opportunity to come together once again and make life better for hundreds of thousands of Canadians with disabilities. We are about to embark on a third reading of Bill C-22. I expect and hope that everyone here will understand the severe levels of poverty of our Canadians with disabilities, and we will work together to make life better for them.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on 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 would like to thank the staff of the committee and all the committee members from all parties who sat on the committee to review this important and historic piece of legislation.

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

I'm not opposed.

Whether we adopt the report on the labour shortage now or when we come back in January, the world will keep on turning. This report won't solve any health care issues.

The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development was scheduled to appear before the committee tomorrow. Yesterday, work was cancelled. The schedule had already been changed, and we were supposed to move on to Bill C‑22. What we did today was on the agenda for yesterday's meeting.

I want to make sure that what we have scheduled for tomorrow, the appearance of the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, is still a go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Is there any further discussion or debate on the motion put to the committee by Madam Zarrillo? Does everybody have that? If there's no further discussion, I will call a vote on the motion by Madam Zarrillo.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 2)

I just want to advise the witnesses that you're okay to go. I'm sorry; I should have done that a little earlier. I could see you were totally captured by the drama going on in the committee. Again, thank you for coming and providing answers to the committee members as we were doing the clause-by-clause of Bill C-22. It's most appreciated. Thank you.

Do you have your hand up, Madam Zarrillo?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That concludes the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-22, a very important piece of legislation.

Thank you, committee members, for your contributions from all sides, and thank you to the departmental staff and the legislative counsel for navigating me correctly through this process.

We still have time in the committee.

I'll go to Madam Zarrillo, who has her hand up.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is the third and last attempt to improve the preamble. Specifically, it says that Bill C-22, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 2 the following:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that persons with disabilities must be given meaningful opportunities to collaborate in the development and design of regulations made under this Act;

What this would do is go further than the existing text, specifically naming that the opportunities must be meaningful and specifying that collaboration must be in the design of regulations. This follows and aligns with a previous amendment, PV-9, that puts this into the bill. This would better align the preamble with the amended bill.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, organizations like the March of Dimes and Disability Without Poverty and many others called for this level of engagement specifically in the regulations.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move the following amendment. I'll read it here.

That Bill C-22, in clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 6 with the following:

12 As soon as feasible after the first anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force, after the third anniversary of that day and after each

This is tightening up the timeline for reviews to be had, so that we can see what is working. It also allows parliamentarians to be involved in that process. It's reducing the timelines from what is already in the legislation.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alexis Conrad]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is in regard to transparency.

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

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

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

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

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

Tabling of Regulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

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

Then it continues on with the rest.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

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

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

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

Go ahead, Ms. Zarrillo.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

We have an amendment that says:

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

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

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 3)

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

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

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

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

Shall clause 3 carry?

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

I will call the meeting to order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would ask them to introduce themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's valid. Thank you, Madam Zarrillo.

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

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

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

The meeting is adjourned.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motions in Amendment

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

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

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

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

Persons with Disabilities

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, we must address the long-standing financial insecurity that is the lived reality of far too many working-age Canadians with disabilities.

Bill C-22 would help us do just that by creating the groundbreaking Canada disability benefit. The CDB has the potential to lift hundreds of thousands of Canadians with disabilities out of poverty. The CDB would be a supplement to existing benefits like the guaranteed income supplement, and it would be paid to people who need it most. Bill C-22 passed second reading with 328 votes to zero and is being studied at committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mark the 30th anniversary of the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. Our government is proud to support this year’s theme: “Transformative solutions for inclusive development: the role of innovation in fuelling an accessible and equitable world”.

Since 2015, we have taken bold action to advance the rights of persons with disabilities. We recently launched Canada’s first-ever disability inclusion action plan to remove barriers that persons with disabilities face and to build a more inclusive Canada. Also, with Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit, we have the potential to lift hundreds of thousands of working-age persons with disabilities out of poverty.

In the spirit of “nothing without us”, we will continue working with the disability community on the design and delivery of these programs.

I encourage every member of the House to spend December 3 in celebration of the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

International Day of Persons with Disabilities

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

Madam Speaker, Saturday, December 3 is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, a day to mobilize support for their dignity, rights and well-being, and to promote an understanding of disability issues, and mobilize we must on Bill C-22.

In the 30 years since this day was proclaimed, the disability community have had to do much heavy lifting for their basic human rights. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have not done enough to remove discriminatory barriers, allowing Canadians with disabilities to fall into poverty.

Canada aspires to be a world leader in the eradication of poverty, and the Canada disability benefit is our chance to make that a reality for persons with disabilities. This is an historic opportunity for the opposition parties to hold the government to account by amending and enacting Canada's first federal law to legislate people out of poverty with Bill C-22.

Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I have a number of petitions to present to the House.

The first petition comes from Canadians living with disabilities who have a number of asks regarding policies within the ambit of the federal government and Parliament that relate to Canadians with disabilities.

The petitioners note that inflation has increased the cost of living and is having the greatest impact on Canadians with fixed incomes, including Canadians living with disabilities. They note disturbing reports of people accessing euthanasia in Canada due to a lack of access to care and support. They also note that Canada's leading disability advocacy organizations had warned that Bill C-7 would threaten the lives and security of Canadians living with disabilities and that a choice to access euthanasia can never be truly free if those who suffer do not have access to the support they require.

The petitioners urge the House of Commons to pass Bill C-22, ensuring that the new Canada disability benefit is accessible to all Canadians who live with disabilities and does not take away existing benefits. They also ask for us to repeal Bill C-7 so that Canadians who live with disabilities are not coerced into accepting euthanasia because they do not have access to adequate support.

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

Mr. Speaker, almost a million Canadians with disabilities are living in poverty. The government has an opportunity to fix that by improving the Canada disability benefit. That is why the NDP proposes to include a minimum income in Bill C-22. This would ensure people living with disabilities could make ends meet and live in dignity.

Will the minister accept the NDP amendment to provide an adequate income for people living with disabilities to lift them out of poverty, yes or no?

Criminal Code

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to rise today to join in the debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

As has been mentioned during the course of this debate, we have heard the government speak about the urgency of the passage of this legislation, but some of the measures in here, certainly, were required long before the COVID pandemic. There are others that raise some concerns about justice, particularly when it comes to respect for victims of crime. I will include victims and their families in that.

In Bill S-4 the consent of the offender is mentioned 10 times. Let us contrast that. How many times does Bill S-4 mention the consent of a victim, the consent of a victim's family in proceeding by way other than an in-person meeting? The answer, not surprisingly, is zero. Not once does this bill mention the consent of the victim or their family, all the while speaking about the consent of an offender.

I would love to say I am surprised, or that maybe there is something we are missing here, but the fact is that this is in line with the overall agenda of the government when it comes to our criminal justice system.

We only have to look at the bills that have come before the House. We only have to look at the selective response to certain Supreme Court of Canada decisions to realize that this is a government that does not put the rights of victims first.

To use an example, we saw yesterday, in the public safety committee, a grand expansion of the law when it comes to going after law-abiding citizens, duck hunters, hunters, our constituents, all of our collective constituents who are law-abiding firearms owners. They do this in the name of combatting crime. We are targeting non-criminals in an effort to combat crime.

If we speak to the experts, if we speak to police, if we speak to big-city mayors, they will tell us that the source of illegal firearms, the source of firearms being used by gangs, is our border, our porous border, and the illegal importation of firearms.

Knowing that the illegal trafficking and importation of firearms is the cause of the firearms being on the street, that law-abiding citizens are not the cause, it would lead us to a logical conclusion that we should target that illegal importation, in direct contrast to what the government is doing in Bill C-22, which is targeting duck hunters, farmers and sports shooters, people who are not criminals and people who are not a threat.

What are we doing about the real threat? What are we doing about the importers, the traffickers?

There is another bill that was just passed through the Senate, Bill C-5. What that bill does is say that if someone has trafficked in a firearm, has used a firearm in the commission of an offence or in extortion, or if someone has fired a firearm with intent, they no longer, as the case has been for years, have to serve time in jail. They can go back onto the street. They can go back into the community where they committed the offence.

Where did this law come from that said a person has to serve time in jail if they commit these offences? Did it come from the previous Conservative government?

The government would love us to believe that this tough-on-crime measure came from the previous Conservative government, but if we bother to look at the facts and the evidence, the evidence says all of those mandatory penalties were in place since the 1970s, since the time of the Prime Minister's father being prime minister. Some of them were introduced when the Prime Minister's father was both prime minister and justice minister.

The Liberals love to say these are unconstitutional mandatory penalties.

What does the Supreme Court have to say about this? There was a recent case from just a couple of weeks ago involving a mandatory penalty for drug trafficking, and the Supreme Court considered that and considered the seriousness in our communities of the crisis, whether it is fentanyl, cocaine or heroin.

The government of the day was a Conservative government, and I am proud to say, in an effort to combat those crimes, we said that if someone were going to traffic, produce or import these serious drugs, they were going to have to serve actual time in jail. The current government has said, in Bill C-5, that it does not believe that, and it believes those people should be able to be back on the street.

What did the Supreme Court of Canada say? The Supreme Court of Canada upheld those provisions. It said they are constitutional and that the seriousness of these offences, when weighed with Parliament's legislative prerogative, means that Parliament was entitled, and that it was indeed constitutional, to have brought in that measure that says if someone imports, traffics or produces cocaine, fentanyl or heroin, they are going to go to jail and be taken off the street.

Does being soft on crime work? We have heard it called “hug a thug”, “soft on crime” or “a revolving door justice system”, in which, if someone commits a crime, there are no consequences and they go back on the street. Does that approach work? Why do we not look at the evidence? The evidence was just released this week, not by the Conservative Party but by Statistics Canada. The evidence says that the homicide rate in Canada has increased for three consecutive years.

The homicide rate in Canada is at the highest rate it has been since 2005. Why is 2005 significant? That was the last year of the previous Liberal government. The Conservative government came to power in 2006, and we had an agenda to straighten out our justice system, to respect victims, to put victims at the forefront and to say to serious offenders, “recidivist”.

What is a recidivist? A recidivist is someone who commits a crime; gets caught; gets tried in a court of law; gets sentenced, whether to jail time or house arrest; goes back on the street and does the same thing again and again. That is recidivism. The courts have said, and we have said, that we have to focus on criminals, and we did that.

Over the last seven years we have seen a Liberal government. The percentage I am about to say should shock all of us in the room and should shock all Canadians. The violent crime rate in Canada, since 2015, has increased 32%. That is not acceptable. That is in our rural communities—

Persons with Disabilities

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-22 and the Canada disability benefit, we have an opportunity in the House to bring about a once-in-a-generation change and lift hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities out of poverty. That is exactly the work that is just wrapping up at committee.

I look forward to having it back in the House for third reading. I look forward to once again having all-party support. This could be transformative for our country.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair.

I appreciate the testimony from all of our witnesses today.

When this motion was passed in the House of Commons, this committee was tasked with exploring five different themes. Yes, it's within the context of medical assistance in dying, but I also think that our committee has a bit of leeway and freedom to consider many things that are also related to MAID.

I know that when we talked about the protection of persons with disabilities, we looked at this theme earlier in the year, so we already have some great testimony on record, but I think it's important in this committee's study of this particular theme to understand that it is taking place in the context of the federal government's disability inclusion plan. Also, of course, there's another House committee that's now examining Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act.

Maybe, Ms. Carr, I'll change tack a bit. Do you have anything you can add to...? Has your group been consulted on or involved in those other areas, in the disability inclusion plan and the Canada disability benefit act?

I know that when it comes to economic security, that's just one small part of it, but I've spoken with a lot of constituents of mine out in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who've been real advocates on trying to get a federal disability benefit of about $2,200 a month. They think that.... Well, I think it's a fact that when you look at the disability rates in each province, you see that there's a state of “legislated poverty”, as they put it.

Do you have any thoughts on the Canada disability benefit act and the disability inclusion plan that you would like to see our committee concentrate on when it issues its final report and recommendations?

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

I could agree on this idea of taking time to discuss it on Monday.

One thing concerns me, though. We conducted our study on people with disabilities, for which we had scheduled four meetings. We didn't know if we were going to get the bill, but we still wanted to hear from witnesses, which we did during those four meetings. Today, the clerk tells us that the committee has received about 100 submissions, which is no small number.

Here's my wish. As all committees do with all motions under consideration, I would welcome a formal report of our study and highlight the recommendations that have been submitted. I think we need to leave a paper trail of all of this and give it to the minister, in addition to passing Bill C‑22. Otherwise, all of this will go to waste.

We don't need to debate this today, but I submit it for your consideration. Is this at least the way it was intended to be done?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Danielle Widmer]

Yes, the chair is correct. It's the fourth meeting to receive testimony from witnesses. Moving forward, we're looking for direction from the committee in terms of the timeline for clause-by-clause for Bill C-22.

I'm just going to put this into consideration in terms of the bill, and just roll it back a bit. The deadline for briefs is tonight at midnight. We have received over 100 briefs so far. Approximately 10 of them are on the website, and 90 of them are in translation right now. You will be receiving correspondence on a weekly basis. You will receive your first package of correspondence from the first week. There are a lot in translation right now, and we expect to receive them all at end of the month, by early December.

In terms of the timeline, it will be good to understand where the committee would like to go in terms of clause-by-clause dates—either today or Monday to decide the date for the clause-by-clause and the deadline for amendments. To respect the routine motions, we ask that the deadline for amendments be 48 hours before the date of clause-by-clause. It's one of those things of understanding when the committee would like to consider clause-by-clause, so we can set up some timelines for that.

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

Mr. Prince, I'd like to clarify your comments.

You said that in Bill C‑22, some guidelines were unclear, including the principle that nothing should be done without the involvement of people with disabilities. In your view, there is merit in clarifying these aspects, particularly with respect to the income threshold for the Canada disability benefit. That's our dilemma, and the testimony is important.

Should we clarify this upfront or should we wait to clarify all these things in the regulations?

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

It does. Thank you very much.

My next question is for Mr. Prince.

When testifying before the committee on October 26, an official from Employment and Social Development Canada told the committee that most of the parameters of the benefit will need to be fixed in regulations because the approach “recognizes disability as an evolving social construct” and a regulatory approach “will allow for more flexibility as our understanding of disability evolves.”

As a professor and as a researcher on these issues, what do you think disability as an “evolving social construct” means in the specific context of Bill C-22? Do you agree that an evolving understanding of disability should be reflected in the legislation, and if so, how should that be done?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I have to disagree with Madame Chabot. The Minister for Children and Families answers to this committee. Minister Qualtrough answers to this committee. We have heard time and time again in the short study that we have done so far on Bill C-22 that we have people with disabilities choosing to end their lives not because they want to, but because they can't afford to eat or shelter themselves.

I think it is imperative that we stand with the community and reaffirm their value to Canada.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Carr.

I guess I just have some hesitations. In my experience, when I look at consultations with provinces with regard to other pieces of legislation, I haven't seen that happen, and the provinces haven't had that either. I just really hope that the government isn't misleading disability organizations and persons with disabilities, because it is so critical that we get this right. I just really want to make sure, especially when we have advocates like yourself and Rosemarie, who have been at the table now. I'm just hoping that continues afterwards.

Bill C-22 has the stated intent “to support the financial security of persons with disabilities”, but the overall driving force of conversations around this bill is inclusion and the need to break down economic and social barriers that are limiting full and equal participation within society.

The Quebec college of physicians recently recommended to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying that it would be appropriate to expand access to MAID to infants up to the age of one who are born with severe or grave syndromes. This recommendation is not only unethical but also flies in the face of the work that we are trying to do here today.

I'd like to take this opportunity to move the following motion:

That the Committee report to the House that it is of the opinion that it rejects the Quebec College of Physicians assertion on October 7, 2022, that the expansion of medical assistance in dying (MAID) is appropriate for infants up to age one who are born with severe and grave syndromes.

I know that we're all very eager to get back to our panellists. I hope that my colleagues around this table would be prepared to support this motion fully, reinforcing this important message that all Canadians, no matter their ability, should be able to fully participate in society and that our collective goal is to remove existing barriers.

[Krista Carr, Executive Vice-President, Inclusion Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and the rest of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak about Bill C-22.

I'm joining you today from Victoria, B.C., the traditional territory of the Lekwungen, Songhees and Esquimalt peoples.

I'm very happy to be part of this critical discussion and the advancement of this foundational legislation to create Canada's first ever national disability benefit.

The organization I represent, Inclusion Canada, was founded over 60 years ago. We are a national federation of 13 provincial/territorial member associations, over 300 local associations and more than 40,000 members across the country supporting people with an intellectual disability and their families.

Financial security for individuals with intellectual disabilities and their families has been a priority issue for our organization for many years. The creation of a Canada disability benefit has been a long time coming, but we're happy we are here now.

We need to move quickly to pass this framework legislation, get the regulations developed and get this benefit into the hands of people with disabilities. The people we support every day and many others with disabilities simply cannot wait.

Bill C-22 is a historic opportunity to address the income security of people with disabilities in Canada. It is important to get it right. Past governments have prioritized the reduction of poverty for seniors and children, with old age security and the Canada child benefit. It is well overdue that our government prioritizes the reduction of poverty for working-age people with disabilities with the Canada disability benefit.

Canadians with disabilities and their families face staggering rates of poverty that are inexcusable in a country like Canada. In Canada 22% of people have a disability, with more than 40% of those living in poverty. When we pull back the layers on this data and specifically look at people with intellectual disabilities, the rates are far worse, in that 73% of working-age adults with an intellectual disability who live outside their family home live in poverty, as compared with 23% of those in the same age cohorts among the general population. This is truly unacceptable.

With inflation at its highest level in decades, people with disabilities are falling deeper and deeper into poverty. Unfortunately, in Canada poverty is the most likely outcome for someone with a disability. People are choosing between paying their rent and buying their food. They're taking risks with their health and safety. They're unable to access adequate health care and personal support. Pervasive ableism, discrimination and legislated poverty are very real issues that people with disabilities battle every day. They can't get ahead and they remain far below the poverty line.

There are gaping holes in Canada's social safety net. The Canada disability benefit will begin to close some of those gaps. Bill C-22 sends a clear message to people with disabilities that this country will no longer allow them to struggle to live a life with dignity. How we treat people with disabilities in our society reflects our values as a nation, and we have an opportunity to do better.

We know that Bill C-22 is framework legislation that will enshrine the benefit in law. I know that some have suggested that Bill C-22 should contain more details regarding the design of the benefit and that it should be amended. Furthermore, legislators might be tempted to make amendments to clarify more technical elements of the benefit.

Although I clearly understand the motivations behind this, we do not think it is the best course of action. Indeed, some of these elements are extremely technical, and it is likely that the discussion on these elements in committee would greatly slow down the adoption of Bill C-22.

With all due respect to the parliamentarians on this committee and beyond, in the spirit of “nothing without us”, we feel really strongly that it is persons with disabilities, their families and representative organizations who should be working arm in arm with government to design this benefit through the regulatory process.

Our view is that we have an opportunity before us now to get this foundational legislation enacted into law. Getting this bill passed as quickly as possible will allow government to start the formal process of negotiating with provinces and territories on how the benefit will interact with other provincial/territorial supports, which we know is a very complex system in this country.

My final plea to you as members of this committee is that if you truly want to make a historic impact on the lives of people with disabilities in this country, and I know you all do, you will do everything in your power to ensure that this bill passes as quickly as possible so that we can get on to the design work, the negotiations with the PTs, and get this benefit into the hands of people who desperately need it.

No one in Canada should have to live a life in poverty, especially as a result of having a disability. Let's please get this done.

Thank you.

[Michael J. Prince, Lansdowne Professor of Social Policy, Faculty of Human and Social Development, University of Victoria, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee today. You have my submission. It's entitled “Improving Bill C-22 in a Prompt and Principled Manner”.

My remarks will focus on two topics: the preamble to the bill and the continuing role of this parliamentary committee as you move forward.

As it is, the preamble in the draft bill does several important things. It identifies the intended target population group, the working-age persons with disabilities. It remarks briefly on some of the barriers faced by people living with disabilities in this country. It outlines the relevant policy context of international, constitutional and federal legislative measures in place. It commits to the principle of “nothing without us”, the involvement of the disability community and individuals and families in the policy and program design process. It recognizes the essential role of provinces and territories in delivering and in managing the multitude of interactions between programs and families, and between federal programs and provincial and territorial programs.

As you know, Bill C-22 does not contain a section on guiding principles. However, there are some included in the preamble and in other parts of the bill. Nonetheless, certain important principles and values are either absent or unclear as contained in the current preamble. These uncertainties and lack of clarity include the intersectional nature of people's lives, the concept of a disability, the principle of the inherent dignity of all people, the concept of an adequate standard of living, and the question of whether “nothing without us” means that persons with disabilities must be involved in the making of regulations and in the evaluation of program delivery and results.

I would suggest, as is listed in my submission to you today, that the bill requires a limited number of modest changes to strengthen the bill to better reflect public values and the parliamentary intentions. These are listed in my submission. I'm happy to talk about them in the question and answer period. What I'd just like to say at this point is that most of these recommended additions and the textual changes are familiar. They already exist in the Accessible Canada Act, in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or in federal regulatory management policies at Treasury Board.

Recommendations like the ones I am suggesting enable you as parliamentarians to clarify and bolster the underlying values and principles of this much-needed legislative initiative. These recommendations also could be thought of as helping to set the table for this committee's ongoing role.

For decades, parliamentary committees in Canada provided an essential place for the dialogue and the advancement of the status of persons with disabilities and their families. I have been appearing before this committee since 1994. I'm glad to be here yet again, after a span of 10 governments, to continue to advance the rights and dignity of Canadians with disabilities.

I see three important roles for you going forward, Mr. Chair. One is to examine closely the implementation of “nothing without us” as a principle, as carried out by Employment and Social Development Canada and the department's actions, to make sure it both recognizes and proactively supports the ongoing engagement of the disability community during the regulatory process.

The second role is to consider the administration and the delivery mechanisms of the benefit to ensure that they are carried out in accordance with the principles that all persons have barrier-free access to the application processes of income programs, and that all persons must be treated with dignity regardless of their disabilities.

The third role I see for your committee going forward is to monitor the progress of this benefit's effects in relation to poverty reduction targets and the Poverty Reduction Act, to look at and to consider that we see a 50% reduction in the poverty rate among working-age persons with disabilities, as it was measured in 2015, so to have that cut in half by 2030. These are noble goals.

I would just like to add that in light of that, you may wish to look at clause 12 of Bill C-22, regarding the parliamentary review cycle. As it stands, the bill suggests a review after three years of the bill's being enacted and put into place, and then subsequent reviews every five years thereafter.

I would suggest, perhaps, cycling it more frequently so that you review the bill one or two years after it's been enacted and you continue to review it every three years rather than every five years. That will enable the Canadian disability community to be assured that this will not be put off for several years for review and consideration, that we will learn a lot in the implementation in the first two or three years, and that flexibility and learning will be there and possible. It will allow this committee to do its job of thoughtful scrutiny and upholding accountability for the delivery of this bill, so that it makes a difference in the lives of people across the country.

Thank you very much.

[Rosemarie Hemmelgarn]

For a disabled person, it would be the most historic time in history to see Bill C-22 passed and have disabled persons removed from poverty. Even more historic would be the intention of Bill C-22 not getting lost in the future.

Thank you.

[Rosemarie Hemmelgarn, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

My name is Rosemarie Hemmelgarn. I live in St. Walburg, Saskatchewan. I am a retired office administrator, but more importantly, I am a wife and mother of three beautiful daughters, two having an intellectual disability.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of our family and other parents of disabled persons.

Our family's vision for our disabled daughters is a lifetime of inclusion in all aspects of life. Examples include education, owning their own home, being employed and involved in community, having valuable relationships and friendships, financial security, transportation, access to health care and being valued and participating members of society. Essentially, it's the same life as their older sister, a life they can look back on and know that it was worth living.

What follows is the reality I have experienced being a parent of disabled persons in Saskatchewan.

First is advocating. I am a full-time advocate for my daughters. I have had to advocate ridiculously hard for their supports as preschoolers, in the education system, and now in the social services system through SAID and CLSD.

The system is making it so hard to get supports that it seems to me they're hoping you'll just give up. Documents are lengthy, cumbersome and repetitious. Policies aren't flexible. Programs are complicated to access. If you don't have an advocate, you will be at a disadvantage and more than likely won't get any support until you are in crisis.

We as parents are tired physically and mentally. We are forever caregivers. Many are scared to speak up because they might lose supports.

Second is meeting criteria: assessments, testing and medical. I have had to watch my daughters go through numerous humiliating psych-ed assessments so that they could qualify for funding to get supports. We've had to share what I refer to as our “dirty laundry” over and over again to remind us of how much we cannot do instead of focusing on what we can do.

Third are the effects on the entire family. Our entire family is affected daily by having disabled persons in it. They are my responsibility for the rest of my life. Relationships between husband and wife and all siblings are tested. I worry about who will take over once I'm gone.

Fourth is financial security. Families are expected to risk their current and future financial security to care for their disabled loved ones. Adult siblings are expected to take on added responsibilities. The income support disabled persons are currently receiving is already inadequate, and financial support is being stretched. Disability support amounts haven't risen with inflation and are lagging behind. Disabled persons should be able to save money and receive an inheritance or gifted money without having their benefit reduced.

Fifth is being an employed disabled person and having their provincial disability benefit clawed back—for example, SAID in Saskatchewan. My daughter is employed, and she can only keep $6,000 per year of her employment income. After the $6,000 exemption, she loses a dollar from her provincial disability benefit for every dollar earned through employment income. This is clearly a disincentive to work if you are disabled. To top it off, the method the Saskatchewan government uses to calculate the monthly SAID benefit and employment income benefit puts her at risk of getting cut off SAID and having to reapply, and results in her income being unevenly distributed monthly. Saskatchewan Social Services expects employed SAID clients to budget their income.

I'll just leave it at that.

This is my recommendation: Pass the Bill C-22 legislation immediately. Work on the regulations and framework after legislation. Disability organizations, disabled individuals and family members expect to be at the table in the regulation planning.

The CDB must be a generous supplement in addition to provincial benefits. The CDB cannot be clawed back and must be a supplement to enhance provincial benefits, not replace provincial disability benefits.

I want to see the federal government administer the benefit federally and not pass the CDB funding on to the provincial governments to administer. The CDB must be fair, equitable and easy to access with no red tape, and have no barriers for being employed.

In closing, I'm going to pray that Bill C-22 gets passed in legislation immediately, and that the regulations are developed later, in conjunction with the disability community. For a disabled person, it would be the most historic time in history to see Bill C-22 passed and have disabled persons removed from poverty. Even more historic would be the intention of Bill C-22 not getting lost in the future—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Welcome back, committee members. We'll resume the study on Bill C-22.

To assist the interpreters in their work, I would kindly remind all members and witnesses appearing today to introduce themselves when speaking, and to speak slowly.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses, especially those appearing virtually. You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available for the meeting. You can choose either French or English by choosing the icon at the bottom of your screen. Please wait until I recognize you before speaking.

For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon. Remember to activate your mike when you're speaking and to silence it whenever you've concluded.

All comments must be addressed through the chair. I would remind all members and those appearing virtually that if there is a disruption in interpretation services, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it's corrected. For the benefit of our translators, please speak slowly so that they can follow the process. If there is a sound quality breakdown from those appearing virtually, then I will not be able to recognize you.

For the second hour, in the committee room we have Rosemarie Hemmelgarn, the parent of a disabled individual; and Michael J. Prince, Lansdowne professor of social policy in the faculty of human and social development at the University of Victoria, appearing virtually. Both are appearing as individuals. We also have Krista Carr, who is appearing as executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada.

I would ask those presenting to respect the five minutes for opening comments so that our committee members will have the chance to question you.

We'll start with Ms. Hemmelgarn for five minutes, please.

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

This is a question for Mr. Adair.

I know my colleague raised a question about accountability. It is written in this legislation that it will be reviewed by Parliament three years post-implementation and five years after that. Can you speak about the adequacy of those accountability measures that are built into the legislation, the review and accountability measures that are built into Bill C-22?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Lupien. I've heard your colleague beautifully describe the need to pass Bill C-22 through this committee and through the House, without amendment, as quickly as possible. He described it as a beautiful gift to persons with disabilities in Canada. I thought that was a beautiful statement to make.

We've just seen a release signed by a number of Quebec organizations, including your own, that supports persons with disabilities and again calls on the House of Commons to pass Bill C-22 without delay. Perhaps you can talk a little bit about the urgency to pass Bill C-22 in this committee and in the House. Why is that so important?

Can you also talk a little bit about the willingness of your organization to participate in the process, that regulatory process, that co-creation of Bill C-22, and, again, talk about what that would look like?

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

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thanks so much to the witnesses for joining us. Bill C‑22, which is before us, is a major piece of legislation. As parliamentarians, we had to pass it in principle before we could consider it here in committee. Today's testimony and all the testimony that's come before will be very helpful to us as we move forward.

I want to begin by acknowledging all the work that's been done in Quebec. I know that it took a huge amount of consultation work to get to this point. We can therefore say that the basic income program, which will be introduced on January 1, 2023, is a first for Quebec.

Mr. Prévost, you know it, you told us so: things will get awkward if we proceed by regulation. For us, as parliamentarians, there is a legal vacuum as to how and to whom this new benefit will apply and how much it will be. The government believes that the guaranteed income supplement model, which we all know through our pension plans, will apply here. It provides an income supplement below a certain threshold.

Mr. Prévost, why do you feel it's crucial that regulations be developed in tandem with government, by and for organizations and groups of people with disabilities? I understand that this is how Quebec has seen it, but we need to look at the situation on a Canada-wide scale.

How can we be sure that the regulations will apply to all groups? Will all groups making up this disability community have the opportunity to be consulted?

What are your thoughts on the timeline for consultation, if people with disabilities want to be able to receive their benefit as soon as possible?

[Karen Wood, The Local Community Food Centre]

My name is Karen Wood.

I would first like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you and for listening to me. I am a resident of Stratford, Ontario, and a recipient of the Ontario disability support program because of a spinal-related disability along with severe fibromyalgia.

I am not here to give you my hard-luck story. I'm not a professional lobbyist. I'm here to share my own experience with you so that you can make this potentially transformative bill the best it can possibly be and deliver it to folks like me who so desperately need it now.

Here with me is Matthew Maynard, who is an adviser and advocate at the Local Community Food Centre here in Stratford. The Local is part of a national network of 15 community food centres across the country, with two more on the way. In addition, we work with over 300 Good Food organizations to advocate for policy changes that will increase people's income so they can afford adequate, quality food accessible to all as a matter of human right.

When I heard about the Local, I came to help others who need it. I learned how to weave sleeping mats out of plastic milk bags and began making them for the growing number of Stratfordites who live unsheltered and are waiting for permanent housing. It's a small comfort, but I'm committed to doing whatever I can, because I believe strongly that, as neighbours, we need to stick together and take care of each other, especially during times as hard as these.

In that spirit, we stand united with local organizations like L'Arche, Community Living, and Facile Independent Living that support community members with disabilities in urging this committee to pass Bill C-22 with all possible haste and then co-create the Canada disability benefit along with the disability community as equal partners at the regulatory stage and have the resources allocated in the spring budget for distribution in the fall of 2023.

When fewer than half of the working folks in my county make a living wage, what hope do those of us who depend on shamefully inadequate social assistance have in accessing the basic necessities of life?

I recently saw the dietitian at the hospital. She spoke to me about following the recommended Canada food guide. She told me that a quarter of a cup of greens such as asparagus and broccoli were best. I told her to stop right there. As much as I'd like to, I could not afford to eat this way. It's not because I don't know how. I live below the poverty line, so how am I expected to follow Canada's food guide? There is very little choice in the matter for those of us who rely on food banks and community meal programs to get by.

When quality, nutritious food is out of reach, you can probably imagine that getting a haircut or sharing a cup of coffee with a friend at a neighbourhood café is a luxury that I can very rarely afford. In fact, sometimes even medical necessities and things that my doctor has recommended like a walker, a shower chair or safety bars around my tub and toilet come out of my already impossibly stretched budget. In July, for example, I broke my foot, and I had to purchase an Aircast boot. This was an extra $86 that I had to pay that caused me serious financial strain.

Even without these unexpected expenses, I struggle every month to make ends meet, and I battle with myself to determine what is more important. Do I buy what I need for my health and safety, buy a loaf of bread, or do a load of laundry? My day-to-day concern is on money, not my wellness. I live on $600 a month. Could you?

Something so simple should not be so hard. I do not remember when I bought a clothing article brand new, as I can only afford to shop at thrift stores. Why do I have to struggle and suffer so much because of my disabilities?

When we heard about the proposed Canada disability benefit, we reached out to our MP in Perth—Wellington, John Nater, to provide him with our thoughts, share our stories with him and, most importantly, show him that our community is fully behind the spirit of this potentially life-changing legislation. Many community members at this meeting expressed some doubt about getting involved in the political process after decades of being ignored, disregarded and let down by the system, but, following our meeting, there was a feeling of hope that our voices were heard.

Three days later, at our Monday night community dinner, we sat and watched a livestream of the House of Commons debate at which MP Nater described his meeting with us and voted along with his colleagues to move this bill to committee for debate. Our hope grew again.

We then held a rally of support at MP Nater's office on the day the bill unanimously passed at second reading. Again, our hope grew.

Please continue to seek out spaces like The Local in your communities and talk to those of us with lived experience. We are here—community members with disabilities—to help you, to advocate on our own behalf and to bring hope to everyone living with disabilities in Canada.

Too many of us have experienced the indignity of having to prove our disabilities to administrators of benefits after being denied several times. Too many of us have experienced how demoralizing it is to have one benefit clawed back when another is introduced, or to be penalized for even getting a part-time job.

We need this benefit to avoid those pitfalls. We need the Canada disability benefit to work in harmony with existing supports to lift every Canadian with a disability above the poverty line so that we can fully participate in the communities we live in to reach our full potential and to live in dignity.

Before the pandemic, one in eight Canadians and one in four Canadians with disabilities were food-insecure. It got significantly worse during the pandemic, and now there's also the rapidly rising cost of living, especially for those living at or below the poverty line because of their disabilities.

We have a real chance to end disability poverty. Please, let's not waste it. Ensure that this bill doesn't get bogged down in the committee stage and that it passes quickly; support calls for the government to co-create the Canada disability benefit with the disability community as equal partners at the regulatory stage; push for resources to be allocated in the spring budget for distribution in the fall of 2023; and ensure there are no clawbacks when the Canada disability benefit finally rolls out.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[William Adair, Executive Director, Spinal Cord Injury Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Bill Adair. I would like to acknowledge that I am presenting from Toronto. I am on the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinabe, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples. Toronto is now home to many diverse first nation, Inuit and Métis peoples. These are the traditional custodians of this land, and I pay my respects to their elders, past and present.

I am speaking to you today as the executive director of Spinal Cord Injury Canada. Our federation of organizations was founded in 1945 by World War II veterans. We support people from the onset of injury and throughout the rest of their lives. We help people adjust, adapt and thrive in communities across Canada.

Thank you for inviting me to address HUMA. My comments represent the opinion of Spinal Cord Injury Canada. Additionally, what I have to say has been influenced by my personal lived experience with disability, my 50-year career promoting the inclusion of people with disabilities and a shared position on Bill C-22 formed with nine other disability organizations.

I will begin by declaring the urgent need for the proposed Canada disability benefit. We first heard about the benefit in the 2020 throne speech. We're nearing the end of 2022. People with disabilities living in poverty have waited long enough. During the recent pandemic, it was evident that people with disabilities faced widespread social and economic deprivation. General costs soared. People had extra expenses for things like masks and gloves. Sometimes they even had to cover the cost of masks and gloves for their support workers who might have shown up without any. Food banks that once might have provided support were unsafe because of the lack of transportation to get there and because other people could be carrying COVID. If your immune system is weak, your risk is more significant.

Sadly, expenses and risks have not eased up for people with disabilities. Many people live in excruciating poverty without access to support, services and other necessities of life. Some people with disabilities have now chosen to access medical assistance in dying as the only answer to end their suffering, even when their end of life is not evident.

This reality is not my Canada. In this regard, I am not proud to say that I am a Canadian. After reflecting on what I just said, are you?

The Canada disability benefit must ensure a minimum standard of good living and lift people out of poverty. It must be a catalyst to help people find opportunities to participate in society.

We appreciate that Bill C-22 is a framework bill, leaving the government to determine many details through regulations. Without a doubt, we need a rapid approval of Bill C-22.

We request that you strengthen the bill with the following two principles. Number one, there must be a robust and meaningful engagement of people with disabilities when developing the regulations. Number two, the Government of Canada must accelerate the regulation development process so that payments to people with disabilities can begin within a year of passing the bill.

Once the bill has passed, Spinal Cord Injury Canada will be ready to, and expects to, work with the government on the regulations, but for now, please be quick with your decisions. Pass Bill C-22. People's lives are at stake.

Thank you.

[André Prévost, Executive Director, Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Lupien and Mr. Chair.

The Confédération is of the opinion that passing Bill C‑22 without amendment before the holiday season would be a beautiful gift for many people with disabilities. Involving these individuals as equal partners in the process of co‑creating regulations, in the spirit of “for us, by us”, would certainly be a great way to go.

Therefore, payment of the benefit by fall 2023 strikes us as a realistic and necessary target for all political parties in the House of Commons to achieve. We recognize the discomfort legislators feel in voting on a framework bill that contains few details. Nonetheless, consultations with people with disabilities are still ongoing and they will provide insightful advice.

The Canada disability benefit must complement and enhance programs already in place in the provinces and territories. This will require significant alignment, because the benefit must not run counter to local programs. If that were to happen, the powerful negative impact would be felt by people with disabilities. Nonetheless, we're confident that good alignment is possible without any significant delays, given the many experiences and consultations currently under way and what's already available to date.

Particularly in Quebec's case, the experience of developing regulations in conjunction with the basic income program framework legislation has so far been a success. This provincial program, which the Canada disability benefit is intended to complement, represents a major step forward in the fight against poverty for people with disabilities in Quebec. If that's true, then it should also allow the program to address needs that are still unmet. Achieving that will require major efforts to intertwine the two initiatives, in our view.

We will have to find a way to index the Canada disability benefit with Quebec's one-time payment program to avoid having the income of people with disabilities indexed annually in Quebec at a certain rate, but quarterly at the federal level at other rates. Considering the costs, or additional costs, of disability, we obviously subscribe to full indexation based on the cost of health rather than the cost of living.

Finally, the individualized benefit combining the federal benefit and the Quebec program should completely and unequivocally lift people out of poverty. It should take into account the costs of disability and accessibility constraints, in terms of education, employment or transportation, among others. We believe that this combined individualized benefit should not take into account spousal income or employment income, which should provide clear income progressivity for eligible individuals.

It's important that I bring up the need to avoid the harmful effects of bureaucracy. If the federal government were to introduce the Canada disability benefit without consulting the provinces and territories, it would expose people with disabilities to the harmful effects of red tape.

In Quebec in particular, if the benefit comes into force regardless of what the provinces decide, it should not replace any existing financial assistance programs, such as the social assistance program, the social solidarity program or the basic income program. Recipients of last resort financial assistance in Quebec should not be exempted from the federal program until they have reached the low-income threshold, as measured by Statistics Canada. If they are allowed to reach or exceed the low-income threshold, it will be imperative to maintain provincial program measures such as the health care claim booklet, employability services and other compensation for people with disabilities.

If money is transferred to the province, it must go directly into the basic income program to benefit individuals, not other financial items. It will also have to be used to meet and follow the low-income threshold defined by Statistics Canada, and redistributed by Quebec under the basic income program with the same eligibility criteria as the federal government, that is, one cheque per person, regardless of spousal income.

Finally, should the Canada disability benefit be transferred to Quebec, the surplus not paid out to people with disabilities should be reinvested in other disability-related programs, be it home support, adapted transportation or home adaptation, among others. The surplus should also be earmarked for inclusion and poverty reduction.

Thank you.

[Paul Lupien, Chair, Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Paul Lupien, and I am chair of the Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec. With me is our executive director, André Prévost. On behalf of the Confédération and all the organizations we represent, I'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak today and present our recommendations on Bill C‑22 to the committee.

The Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec is a nonprofit organization founded in 1985 by and for people with functional limitations. It is an independent community action self-advocacy group whose mission is to make Quebec inclusive in order to ensure the full social participation of people with functional limitations and their families.

The Confédération is a francophone umbrella organization that brings together and supports more than 40 national and regional organizations of people with functional limitations and their families. These individuals may have motor, organic, intellectual, visual, auditory, or neurological functional limitations, or autism spectrum, speech and language learning or mental health disorders.

The Confédération is active on the Quebec, Canadian and international scenes in all areas that have an impact on the living conditions and social participation of people with functional limitations and their families. The Confédération is also the largest “multiple disabilities” group of francophone organizations dedicated to people with disabilities in Quebec.

Six major principles guide all action the Confédération takes: full inclusion, the rule of law, the right to equality, universal accessibility, accommodation and compensation for the additional costs associated with functional limitations. That last principle is highly pertinent to the Canada disability benefit. The Confédération believes that compensation measures must be put in place to meet the various needs of people with functional limitations. These measures aim to address the consequences and additional costs associated with disability situations, and compensation can come in different forms: goods, direct services, allowances, tax measures and others.

I will now turn the floor over to our executive director André Prévost, who will present the Confédération's recommendations for Bill C‑22.

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

Committee members, the clerk has advised me that we have a quorum and that all the witnesses have been tested and cleared with their sound checks, so I will call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 44 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022, and therefore members are attending in person and remotely by using Zoom.

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

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” function before speaking, and please check to ensure you unmute yourself before you begin to speak. When you are done speaking, put your mike on mute again to minimize interference. For those in the room who wish to speak, the microphone is controlled by the verification officer. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order. We appreciate your patience.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available for the meeting. For those participating by video conference, you have the choice of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use an earpiece to select the desired channel. I would remind you again that the testing has been done with the witnesses, and the interpretation services are fine.

I would like to remind all participants that taking screenshots is not permitted.

Should any technical issues arise or we lose interpretation services, please advise me. We'll suspend while they're corrected.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 18, 2022, the committee will resume its study 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 and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

I would like to take a moment to remind those participating in today's meeting, as well as those observing the proceedings in person and on video, that the committee adopted a motion on Monday, October 24, and instructed the clerk to explore options to allow for the participation of all witnesses and members of the public in the context of the consideration of Bill C-22, which included planning for inclusive and accessible meetings. The committee made arrangements for sign language interpretation in both American Sign Language and Quebec Sign Language for those witnesses appearing in person and by Zoom.

For those individuals in our audience, the sign language interpreters are being video-recorded to be incorporated into a video recording of the proceedings that will be made available at a later date on ParlVU, via the committee's website.

To assist interpreters in their work, I kindly ask all members and witnesses appearing today to introduce themselves when speaking, and to speak slowly.

Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance, please notify me.

I would like to inform all members that the witnesses appearing, as I've stated, have completed the technical connectivity and equipment tests. I would like to remind those appearing virtually, including members of the committee, that if you do not have an approved parliamentary or House of Commons headset, I will not recognize you to speak.

I would like to welcome the following witnesses. From the Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec, we have Paul Lupien, the chair; and André Prévost, executive director. From Spinal Cord Injury Canada, we have William Adair, executive director. From The Local Community Food Centre, we have Matthew Maynard, community connector; and Karen Wood.

We'll start with Mr. Lupien for five minutes, please.

Mr. Lupien, you have the floor.

Government Business No. 22

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in this debate. It has been quite a fruitful conversation that has taken place today, and clearly there are a variety of opinions.

Following on the last commentary, I think it is really important that we have more time to debate. I know that when I was elected in the 2015 election, I committed to the constituents of the riding of Waterloo that I would listen to the diversity of their perspectives and have them represented in this place. There are many different ways to do that, and participating in the debate on the floor of the House of Commons is one such way.

In this chamber we have demonstrated time and again that we can work together; we can find ways forward. We saw that when the member for Fundy Royal moved a motion to ban conversion therapy in Canada and we were able to see it pass swiftly through this chamber and send it to the other place.

We saw just recently the advancement of Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which received unanimous support.

Bill C-22 was referred to, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities. It establishes a disability tax credit, which has been long fought for, wanted and desired. We were able to get that legislation through second reading, and it is now at committee.

To show goodwill would mean seeing legislation move at a pace that delivers for more Canadians. I know it is important that we get to this vote, so I will not stop this House and this chamber from calling the question and making sure we can vote. However, I think something we have seen time and again is that most parties know where they stand on legislation, and they want to talk about it rather than call the question. This motion will provide them the opportunity to keep talking about it, but also to call the question.

With that, Madam Speaker, I hope you call the question really quickly, and if the opposition members want, they can save us the 30 minutes of bells and maybe see us walk in and get to a vote faster with the voting application, so we can all get to doing our constituency work and so forth. The Conservatives have options, should they wish to use them.

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

Madam Speaker, right now we are looking at Bill C-22 at committee. That is the bill around the Canada disability benefit. We know that many persons with disabilities and many people in Canada are struggling right now with the price of goods.

Can the member share if her party believes there is time, right now, to be able to get to Bill C-22 before we break for the end of the year?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the NDP-Liberal attack on parliamentary committees in the form of Government Business No. 22.

This undemocratic motion is a crass attempt at frustrating the work of committees by further limiting their resources. On the face of it, the motion allows the government House leader to extend the hours of any sitting of the House to midnight until June 2023. The Liberals say they are simply seeking more time to debate their legislation, but we must look at the broader implications of the adopting this motion.

With the persistence of virtual Parliament, workplace injuries for interpretation staff have increased ninefold. Since 2019, there has been a 25% decline in the number of interpreters employed by the translation bureau and nearly 40% fewer freelance interpreters available to the House. These unionized professionals work each day to ensure that our business is conducted in both official languages.

The Liberals and NDP dismiss the plight of these workers, demanding that our work continue in a hybrid fashion against the objections of interpretation staff. Due to the lack of interpreters, there is a strict limit on how many parliamentary activities the House administration can facilitate in any given sitting week. As a result, every time the hours are extended in the House, two committee meetings must be cancelled. Put simply, more time for the House equals less time for committees.

Let us keep in mind the government is in complete control of the House agenda. It determines the business each and every day, including which of its bills will be debated. It has tools at its disposal to cut off debate as it deems appropriate. It even designates which days will be allotted for opposition days. With the blind support of the hapless NDP, the Liberals have the votes to pass their legislation.

In other words, the Liberals are in complete control of the House, propped up by the NDP. However, they do not control committees in the same way. Conservatives have secured several committee investigations that are holding the Liberals accountable for their failures. For example, the government operations committee is digging into the $54-million ArriveCAN app, including Liberal misinformation reported to the House that contractors were paid millions when they did not receive a dime. That committee is tasked with answering two key questions: Where is the money and who got rich?

The heritage committee is investigating the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion for providing funding to known racist and anti-Semite Laith Marouf. The procedure and House affairs committee is investigating the Prime Minister who has known for over a year about foreign interference in our elections and has yet to act. The public safety committee is investigating allegations made against the Minister of Emergency Preparedness for political interference in the investigation into the mass killings in Nova Scotia. It is shameful.

The veterans affairs committee is looking into allegations that a government employee recommended medically assisted suicide for a veteran struggling with mental health. The declaration of a public order emergency committee has heard considerable testimony that contradicts the Liberal rationale for invoking the Emergencies Act. The transport committee recommended the repeal of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, a Liberal-made organization that has failed to get any infrastructure built. Conservatives on the foreign affairs committee continue to advocate for the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist entity, so that this brutal regime about to execute 15,000 of its own citizens cannot fundraise and organize in Canada anymore.

These are just some examples of how Conservatives are making parliamentary committees work for Canadians. Under Government Business No. 22, this and all work of committees would be restricted and constrained. The motivation for this motion is clear, the Liberals want Parliament to serve only their purposes. To them, Parliament is only useful when they can control it.

Canadians expect Parliament to hold the government to account, and Conservatives will fight to maintain the dignity of this institution.

There was a time, if we can believe it, when Liberals believed that committee work was essential. In the 2015 election, they made the following promise:

We will strengthen Parliamentary committees so that they can better scrutinize legislation.

Better government starts with better ideas. We will ensure that Parliamentary committees are properly resourced to bring in expert witnesses, and are sufficiently staffed to continue to provide reliable, non-partisan research.

The Liberals made that promise when they still believed they were the party of sunny ways, but after seven years of corruption and cover-ups, the mirage of an open, transparent and accountable government has been exposed.

Last week, in mainstream media, the government House leader justified his motion, claiming that Conservatives were employing tactics that amounted to “parliamentary obstruction by stealth.” The irony of this claim is not lost on me. He is the one, under the pretext of expanding debate in the House, who is attacking committees by stealth. I will address his claim directly.

Conservatives do not obstruct for the sake of obstruction. In recent weeks, we have allowed several bills to proceed in a reasonable time frame. We supported the swift passage of Bill C-30, which provided GST tax relief for low-income Canadians. The government did not need to use time allocation to shepherd that legislation through the House.

On September 29, the Conservative member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, with whom I am splitting my time, secured the unanimous consent of the House to pass the national council for reconciliation act at second reading and send it for study at the indigenous and northern affairs committee.

We allowed for Bill C-22, the disability benefit act, to be sent to the human resources committee after just two days of debate. Again, time allocation was not required.

Just before the last constituency week, Conservatives supported Bill S-5, which will strengthen environmental protection in Canada. No time allocation was required.

Conservatives can be counted on when the government brings forward proposals on which common ground can be found. The government House leader's accusation about obstruction is simply not true.

Having said that, Conservatives are openly opposed to the Liberal agenda. There is no “stealth” about it. We use every tool available in the parliamentary tool box to both expose Liberal failure and corruption and propose our ideas for Canadians to consider as an alternative.

If the government House leader had been paying attention, he would know that the new Conservative leader and our Conservative team are putting the people first: their paycheques, their savings, their homes and their country. We are against deficit-driven inflation. Instead, we demand that all new spending be matched with savings found somewhere else. We are opposed to payroll and carbon tax hikes in the middle of this cost of living crisis.

We defend energy workers against the Prime Minister's attacks on their livelihoods. We would repeal anti-energy laws like Bill C-69 and remove other Liberal-made barriers to producing our natural resources. We oppose the failed climate change plan of this government, which has not achieved a single emissions reduction target. We say no to the oppressive carbon tax and yes to technology in the fight against climate change.

We abhor $6,000-a-night hotel stays for the Prime Minister while Canadians are visiting food banks in record numbers, like 1.5 million in one month. We oppose wasteful spending and the $54-million “arrive scam” app that did not work. We did not need it, and it could have been designed over a weekend for about $250,000.

We are vocal when the Prime Minister is silent about foreign actors interfering in our elections. We reject Liberal inaction while shelves that should be stocked with children's medication sit empty. We stand with victims, not criminals, as the rates of violent crime have spiked in our cities under this government's soft-on-crime policies, and we oppose this outrageous attempt at seizing control of parliamentary committees.

There is no “stealth” about our opposition to the NDP-Liberal government. We proudly oppose the costly coalition on all these fronts, in broad daylight, for all to see.

[Leslie Yee]

Unfortunately, there hasn't been much conversation in my group around an emergency benefit. Everyone's been really concentrating on Bill C-22 and moving forward with something a lot more permanent.

As Mr. Belanger said earlier, a lot of our supports come provincially. I know a lot of people are really working hard in order to find supports in order to make up the difference. It would be really nice to not have to always be fighting for that little extra support somewhere and to know that we are getting a base amount that at least allows people to live comfortably.

An emergency is a one-time thing that can help for a moment, but it doesn't help to create systemic change for a long-term change.

Thank you.

[Neil Belanger]

I expect there will be. We've been engaged in the process since the beginning with Bill C-22.

We've informed our clients about it. We've participated in the online survey. We've had meetings. We've worked with other disability organizations that have done consultations while helping them develop an indigenous-specific survey, which we sent out to communities.

Even before, when the Accessible Canada Act was passed, we did a lot of work on that, too, although that's different legislation. A lot of the information that we gained from those consultations had to do with provincial and territorial jurisdictions. A lot of that stuff came...not a lot came from the federal side. It was mostly the barriers that people faced provincially and territorially. A lot of information has come through that too.

I fully anticipate, moving forward, that our communities will be engaged and will provide their input to let the government know how it's going, as well as changes that are needed.

[Neil Belanger]

It's like anything else. The engagement has to happen. They have to be involved in the process. With Bill C-22 they have to be at the table as well. They have to be directing how the regulations are being created and be talking about the experience they have from remote, rural and isolated communities.

The provinces and territories have a big role to play in this as well. This is a federal benefit, but in reality most of the services come from the provinces and territories. They need to step up as well, which they haven't done. I alluded to that in my comments. A lot more work needs to be done as well—work that is complementary to this benefit.

This benefit will be a great step forward, and it will alleviate poverty for many, but it won't eliminate all the difficulties that indigenous people with disabilities experience, not by any stretch of the imagination. This is only one part of many things that might happen. It's a great part and should have happened a long time ago, which is why we're saying, “Let's get it done.” Our fear is that if we don't get it done now, we won't get it done at any time. There's always work that needs to be done with the provinces and territories, and the engagement with indigenous communities and indigenous persons with disabilities has to be there as well.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I'll ask you, then, if there are any....

Actually, I'd like to go back to Mr. Belanger.

Mr. Belanger, are there any specific amendments that you think should be made to Bill C-22 that would inform the regulations process?

[Peter Zein, Chairperson, Stratford Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues]

Thank you for inviting me to speak. I'm going to talk about it a little more personally—what in the past has caused people with disabilities to be where we are. Nothing has really changed.

I'm the chair of the Stratford advisory committee on accessibility issues. We're an advisory committee that recognizes the needs of persons with disabilities in Stratford and makes recommendations to the city council. We have had many discussions about poverty, affordability and accessible housing.

I want to begin by sharing my story, as it is relevant to my views of this bill.

Forty years ago I was at Humber College studying engineer technology—a good future—but after my second year, in the summer, I dove into shallow water, broke my neck and became a quadriplegic for life.

While in rehab, a number of men had begun planning to incorporate subsidized, accessible housing units with Metro Toronto Housing so that they could move out of the rehab centre and into an apartment. Before this, there wasn't any assisted living, wheelchair-accessible housing in Toronto—or anywhere else, for that matter. This was groundbreaking. Because the board majority was over 50% persons with disabilities, it was consumer controlled. In other words, we had the decision-making in terms of what was being done in that building.

I lived on family benefits, which is now called ODSP. It was $900 a month, and the rent subsidy was $200. This left little for gas and groceries, insurance, etc. It's not much different from today.

I returned to school, but as a rehabilitation worker, and I got a job at the Centre for Independent Living. My job was to help persons with disabilities and their families find funding for equipment, housing and government grants, and to communicate their needs to the government.

The ILC is also a consumer-run organization. I had a one-year contract, and I made $20,000 to start. I threw away all my opportunities to stay on the security of government funding, and instead I went it alone. It was only a one-year contract, and after 11 years—it went on and renewed regularly—I had to go on long-term disability due to syringomyelia. The insurance company paid 70% of my long-term disability, plus CPPD, but it would not pay any benefits because there were too many people working at the organization who were at high risk to go on disability. My benefits cost thousands of dollars.

I've had a disability for 40 years. I raised my son by myself, starting when he was a teen. It was hard to make ends meet. I know a lot of persons with disabilities from work, wheelchair sports and committees. In the 1990s, it was the UN Decade of Persons with Disabilities. It was supposed to be a celebrated time. Vancouver put on a world show, and everybody was invited. It was supposed to change the world with regard to disabilities, start providing regular funds and the things we need, and recognize people with disabilities as human beings.

It was 1990 when the Americans with Disabilities Act came in. We thought for sure that Canada was going to come up with one. It didn't happen. As a matter of fact, halfway through the 1990s, the government lost money. It didn't prepare for this. It had no money left over. By 1993 or 1994, it ran out of money, and all the funding was cut. I was the one who was taking the calls and trying to tell people why they were cut. I had to do it, and I couldn't explain, other than the failure of the government. It didn't prioritize people with disabilities. It didn't care.

Now is it different? I don't know. I don't think it's much different. I know friends of mine who have gone to MAID. My best friend went to MAID. He was the first one to go to MAID. I didn't want him to do that. I know a guy who starved himself to death for two years because he couldn't stand living in the conditions: no money, nothing to do and no ability to really enjoy life whatsoever. He passed away, and I know many others who passed away. Then, when we got the one-time $500 payment for COVID, it demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the costs we incur. I get a cheque now, and it sounds good, but the problem is that I have no benefits. The benefits I need are thousands of dollars. Many others are on different conditions. The way to set this up is going to be so difficult. You have to really think about who needs it, and you're going to have to look at very diverse ways, because not everybody's the same.

People on ODSP are different from me. They get the benefits; I don't. Everything's different. Twelve hundred dollars a month is absolutely no way to live.

Bill C-22 is for the “working-age” disabled. I'm not crazy about that. I've advocated for persons with disabilities since I was 22. I'm now 61, and the projection for this bill to come into effect is approximately 2024. I'll be 64, which is one year away from retirement and being cut off from any part of this.

Why do we suddenly stop being disabled at 65? Bill C-22 needs to include those over 65. Our costs are still high, and we have no ability to save for retirement.

I'm in Stratford and I'm very happy here, but we are a rural community. There are higher transportation costs and extremely high housing costs. Very few houses are accessible, if any. There's one supportive housing unit for the physically disabled, and the building condition...is in dire need of repair.

We also have a homelessness problem due to mental health. Many in Stratford have a disability, whether physical or intellectual, or have mental health issues. It will be a challenge to achieve equity. Stratford is expensive. Many rural areas are very expensive. Toronto is expensive, but they all have different expenses and different needs.

I hope Bill C-22 will be very quickly delivered, but it has to be expanded for the age; it has to be equal to the needs of the people, and it has to not leave anybody out. More importantly, it needs to be delivered with input from persons with disabilities.

Thank you.

[Neil Belanger, Chief Executive Officer, Indigenous Disability Canada]

I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak briefly today on Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit, during this eighth anniversary of Indigenous Disability Awareness Month being celebrated across Canada.

My name is Neil Belanger and I'm a member of the Lax Seel Clan in the House of Nikateen of the Gitxsan nation. I am also the chief executive officer of Indigenous Disability Canada and executive director of the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society.

Before I begin, I'd like to acknowledge the Esquimalt and Songhees peoples, whose territories I am pleased to live and work on and where I am presenting from today.

Over 1.8 million people identify as being indigenous in Canada. Indigenous people experience a rate of disability higher than that of the general population, at over 30%, equating to approximately 600,000 indigenous people living with a disability in Canada. In addition to higher rates of disability, indigenous people and communities experience higher rates of poverty. In 2016 it was reported by Stats Canada that four out of five communities, or 80% of indigenous communities, had a median income under the poverty line.

Over the past 30 years, our organization has provided a number of direct programs and services to indigenous persons with disabilities residing within indigenous and non-indigenous communities, with the overwhelming majority living in systemic poverty.

Living in systemic poverty restricts indigenous people with disabilities in their ability to be active and included members of their communities. In addition to poverty, indigenous people with disabilities face other barriers, such as anti-indigenous racism; lack of disability and health-related programs and services; lack of safe, affordable and accessible housing; inaccessible communities; gender-based violence; jurisdictional issues; lack of transportation; inequity in employment and education, and the list continues.

The implementation and delivery of the Canada disability benefit would assist indigenous people with disabilities in their ability to begin to address some of these barriers. That being said, additional and expanded programs, services and supports, federally, provincially and territorially, are necessary for all persons with disabilities. Without their implementation, we will never achieve a fully accessible Canada by 2040.

The need for a supplement such as the Canada disability benefit has always existed for persons with disabilities living in poverty. However, the urgency has increased exponentially due to inflation coupled with a national housing crisis.

While we cannot and would not speak for all indigenous people with disabilities in Canada, we know from our work and discussions with our clients that the need for the benefit is now and with no further delays, as they have waited long enough. We can no longer expect persons with disabilities living in poverty to do more with less and survive on the kindness of others, nor can we passively sit by and feign ignorance to the inequality they endure.

It is for these reasons and others that we would urge this committee to fast-track the passing of Bill C-22 and in doing so enable the work on the regulations to begin in partnership with and directed by indigenous and non-indigenous people with disabilities. We are in agreement with the process outlined by the Government of Canada for Bill C-22 and fully expect and are confident that we and other members of the indigenous and non-indigenous disability community will be at the table as partners in all aspects.

In addition to the fast-tracking of the bill, we would recommend the following during the development of the regulations:

One, as noted by others, ensure that the benefit is not a race to the bottom but a mechanism to substantially reduce the poverty experienced by persons with disabilities.

Two, ensure that the benefit takes into consideration the additional expenses and higher costs for necessities of living that persons with disabilities incur.

Three, ensure that the eligibility criteria for the benefit for working-age Canadians with disabilities aged 18 to 64 are as broad as possible.

Further, it is essential that the federal government continues to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that once the Canada disability benefit is implemented, no clawbacks or reductions in federal, provincial or territorial benefits or supplements occur.

As well, a number of other complementary initiatives to the Canada disability benefit should be engaged by the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Some of these include development of an ongoing anti-indigenous racism and disability discrimination awareness initiative; development and implementation of federal, provincial and territorial employment strategies for indigenous people with disabilities; implementation of generous annual earning exemptions across all jurisdictions for persons with disabilities who are able to work; expansion and lessening of restrictions pertaining to the enabling accessibility fund; increased federal, provincial and territorial budget allocations to departments providing resources to disability-related organizations and initiatives; and review and modification of the disability tax credit and registered disability savings plan programs and more.

In closing, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak today and to again express the urgency of getting this bill passed and then working on the regulation development. The time is now.

Thank you.

[Leslie Yee, Vice-Chair, Board of Director Member, Council for Persons with Disabilities]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the HUMA committee.

I'm honoured to be here today. My name is Leslie Yee. I am legally blind and I have a guide dog. I'm also representing the Council for Persons with Disabilities in Peterborough, Ontario.

We're very happy to see Bill C-22 moving forward, and we applaud the government for considering a bill that is quoted as being “to reduce poverty and to support the financial security” of persons with a disability. It is a step in the right direction. However, there are a few concerns I would like to address.

For years now, a person with a disability has been living well below the poverty line. Bill C-22 is focused on bringing people out of poverty, and it has the intent of reducing poverty, but not of eliminating it. With today's inflation rates, the cost of living, increased rent and additional expenses, people are falling further and further below what is considered poverty.

If the provincial and federal governments continue to claw back benefits, we will never see an elimination of poverty. Only by eliminating the clawbacks between supports will we start to see poverty eliminated. Only then will we see people living a healthier, safer and happier life.

Twenty-two per cent of Canadians have a disability, and many cannot afford their rent, food or medications. To manage our disabilities, to purchase mobility and technology aids that are needed to navigate our surroundings, and to receive the proper and often expensive medication we need costs an average of 30% of our income.

Regarding clawbacks for persons with disabilities, individuals living on CPP disability earn approximately $1,200 per month. If they take on a part-time job and earn more than $533 per month—$6,400 per year—they are often reassessed and told they are making too much money. These individuals are told that their benefits might be reduced or taken away for working too much. This does not eliminate poverty. Instead, it creates fear and undue stress.

Another concern with Bill C-22 is the elimination of the benefit at age 65. While I understand that the benefit turns into CPP retirement, it is at a further reduced amount. Disabilities do not go away or simply disappear. Individuals with disabilities still need aids or medication and supports. In fact, these are only exacerbated by increased age.

CPD strongly believes the terminology “working age” should be eliminated from this bill. Bill C-22 should also be lifting seniors with disabilities out of poverty.

People with disabilities have the same desires, hopes and expectations as able-bodied citizens. We want to be part of our community and contribute to society by paying taxes, volunteering and supporting one another. Living a healthy and safe life is a human right, not a privilege. No one deserves to live below the poverty line, especially a poverty line that is currently below the cost of living.

I commend the committee for assessing Bill C-22, but respectfully ask that the wording of the bill be looked at carefully. All eligibility criteria, including any restrictions, should be reviewed carefully and determined through the development of the regulations. The wording of the Canada disability benefit act should not be allowed to impose any limitations or create more barriers.

On behalf of the Council for Persons with Disabilities, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak with you about Bill C-22. Our organization looks forward to a bill that will lift people out of poverty and create a better life for all persons with disabilities. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call the meeting back to order. Welcome back.

The committee is resuming its study 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 and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

To assist the interpreters in their work, I kindly remind all members and the witnesses appearing today to introduce themselves when speaking and to speak slowly. You may choose the official language of your choice to speak in. If there is a loss of translation services, please get my attention by raising your hand in the room or using the “raise hand” icon if you're appearing virtually. I will suspend and it will be corrected. Please address any comments through me, the chair.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin the discussion with five minutes of opening remarks. We have Leslie Yee, vice-chair of the Council for Persons with Disabilities; Neil Belanger, chief executive officer of Indigenous Disability Canada; and Peter Zein, chairperson of the Stratford Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues.

We will start with Ms. Yee for five minutes. You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming and bringing really important testimony here today at this committee. Absolutely, we are hearing loud and clear from all of our witnesses about the urgency of making sure we deliver the supports that Canadians with disabilities urgently require. That's something that has been repeated time and again at this committee, and it's something that is guiding our work here.

We also heard very clearly in previous testimony at this committee from witnesses who urged “urgent passage” of Bill C-22 through the House and through this committee. We heard other witnesses say that this needs to move forward “without delay”. There was even one witness who testified and said simply “get 'er done”. That seems to be the sentiment we have heard time and again as well, that there is tremendous urgency.

I want to ask Ms. Bourgeois if she can comment on how vital it is that we get this bill and this legislation passed through committee and passed through the House.

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

Thank you.

The other thing I want to ask about is co-creation.

You touched on consulting. What consultation has there been with your organization or others that you know of up to this point? We know this legislation was tabled a year ago. It was retabled without any changes.

My first question is on what type of consultation there has been up to this point, and have you been happy with that? Moving forward, is there anything you can point to in this bill that assures that co-creation will exist if Bill C-22 passes?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today. We really appreciate it.

My first questions today are for Mr. Lepofsky and the AODA Alliance.

Earlier in this committee, Minister Qualtrough called Bill C-22 “framework legislation”. What are your thoughts on this? Does this concern you?

[Louise Bourgeois, President and Member, Board of Directors, Mouvement Personne D'Abord de Sainte-Thérèse, Fédération des Mouvements Personne D’Abord du Québec]

Good afternoon, committee members.

My name is Louise Bourgeois and I am president of the Mouvement personne d'abord de Sainte‑Thérèse. I have also been president of the Fédération des mouvements personne d'abord du Québec for a number of years.

I am the spokesperson for the 700 individuals living with an intellectual disability who are members of our provincial organization. I also sit on the board of directors of People First of Canada with my colleagues from the other provinces and territories.

People First groups are community-based self-advocacy organizations. Our organizations are run by and for our members. They sit on our boards of directors and decide what to do to defend their rights and ensure they have a place in society.

I truly believe that Bill C‑22 will help People First and all people with disabilities in this country make their way out of poverty. In the current environment, many people have gone from a precarious situation to extreme poverty. In this context, the bill can be a safety net in a country like Canada, which is committed to fighting poverty.

Given the current inflation rate, Canada must take action to help these Canadians keep their dignity. Members of our organization are now having to make some tough choices to stay within their budget. I will give you some examples.

First, I know someone who lives in substandard housing. She can't move because rents are too high in her area. Second, many people miss out on learning opportunities because they have to line up at food banks every week. Finally, others will have to keep their winter boots with holes in them if they want to put food on the table this winter.

Bill C‑22 must have an inclusive definition of the term “person with a disability” to address the right to dignity and ensure that as many people as possible living in poverty will be eligible for the new Canada disability benefit.

People living with intellectual disabilities are among the poorest in our society. They are also at greater risk of experiencing economic violence. It will be important that the amount given to individuals does not depend on their spouse's income. It should be calculated and given to the person individually. After all, the bill is about strengthening people's financial security.

It's important to me and to the people I represent to know that you respect the “nothing about us without us” principle and that you will take the time to consult with the entire disability community in Canada.

You must take into account the concerns of people living with developmental disabilities and people with disabilities to provide a fair and equitable benefit.

I know that you will have questions for me. I ask that you use simple words that I can understand. If I have trouble, I will ask the person with me to answer on my behalf.

Thank you very much for hearing what I have to say.

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

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 43 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022, and therefore members are attending in person as well as remotely by using Zoom.

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

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” function. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. For those in the room, it will be controlled here by the verification officer. You may speak in the official language of your choice.

Interpretation services are available. For those participating virtually, you can choose either official language with the icon on your service. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the use of headsets with a boom microphone provided by the House of Commons is mandatory for everyone participating remotely who wishes to speak. That is for the benefit of the interpretation services, so that they can do the translation accurately.

I would like to remind all participants that screen shots or taking photos during the meeting is not permitted. Should any technical issue arise during the meeting, please get my attention. We'll suspend until it's clarified.

Bill C-22 is 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. Pursuant to order of reference of Tuesday, October 18, 2022, the committee will resume its study of Bill C-22.

I would like to take a moment to remind those participating in today's meeting, as well as those observing the proceedings in person and on video, that the committee adopted a motion on Monday, October 24, that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for the participation of all witnesses and members of the public in the context of the consideration of Bill C-22. In planning inclusive and accessible meetings, the committee has made arrangements for sign language interpretation in both American Sign Language and Quebec sign language for those witnesses appearing in person and by Zoom, and for individuals in our audience. The sign language interpreters are being video recorded to be incorporated into a video recording of the proceedings today that will be made available at a later date on ParlVU via the committee.

Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of the staff or the committee clerk.

I would like to inform all members that the witnesses appearing virtually today have completed the technical connectivity and equipment test, and adequate translation is available.

I would like to welcome our witnesses. We will begin our discussions with five minutes of opening remarks, followed by questions.

We welcome back Vincent Calderhead, legal counsel, who is appearing as an individual.

From the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, we have David Lepofsky, chair, who's with us in the room, and Shirelle Cogan, delegate.

We also welcome Danielle Gratton, director; and Louise Bourgeois, president and member, board of directors, Mouvement Personne D'Abord de Sainte-Thérèse.

We will start with Mr. Calderhead for five minutes, please.

Mr. Calderhead, you have the floor.

Fall Economic Statement

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

Madam Speaker, this is one of the big disappointments in the fall economic statement. With work being done on Bill C-22 in this place and with the unanimous support that Bill C-22 received at second reading, I would have hoped to see something of an emergency short-term fund to ensure that no Canadian in the disability community is living below the poverty line. We know that all too often people living with disabilities are, in fact, disproportionately part of the community of the lowest-income Canadians.

Yes, we need an emergency short-term support. We do not have to wait for the next budget. It can be brought forward at any time. We know we are going to see a budget implementation act at some point. A budget implementation act would be a good place to see an emergency short-term payment for people living with disabilities until Bill C-22 can come through, be enacted and be fully funded.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in a previous question, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands spoke about a guaranteed basic income. In the House, there is legislation put forward, Bill C-22, that would provide that for Canadians with disabilities who are living in legislated poverty. However, in this fall economic statement, we did not see anything with respect to funding the benefit, nor did we see anything with respect to emergency supports, like what was done with CERB, to address the conditions of those living in poverty and those living with disabilities across the country.

Can she speak more about this opportunity? If it is not in this fall economic statement, how can all parliamentarians work together to continue to advocate to ensure that, if not now, then perhaps by budget 2023 these critical supports can be put in place?

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

Thank you.

Ms. Gammad, you mentioned the gender lens, diverse genders and trans persons with disabilities. This voice is often not involved in the making of legislation and is often not at the decision-making tables. I also note that LEAF is doing some work around basic income. I'm wondering if you have any best practices or things that you can share with us about how we can get those voices included.

Right now what's in Bill C-22 doesn't necessarily regulate or ensure that those voices will be part of the co-creation. I'm wondering how we can ensure as legislators that those voices are included in the making of regulations and make sure that this voice is not missed.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much to our witnesses.

I'm very fortunate to have worked with Easter Seals over my career and have lots of personal connections to people living with intellectual disabilities as well and have been able to work with them throughout my career. I know how important the work is that you guys and Jen from LEAF are doing. Thank you for what you're doing.

I want to use this six minutes as efficiently as we can. I think we all know that this bill needs to get passed. We all know there is a crisis. I want to dig into the amendments. What things do we need to fix? I know we want to pass the bill quickly, but the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, the AODA Alliance, watched our committee on Tuesday, and they were concerned.

I'm going to go to Amélie.

One of their concerns is, “Minister Qualtrough tried to defend the Federal Government's choice to enact what they call 'framework legislation' that leaves it to future regulations to sort out all the details.” They went on to say, “What this boils down to is the Government does not want to debate and publicly vote in Parliament on any specifics about the Canada Disability Benefit...”.

What would you recommend? We want to move on it quickly and we want to make sure that it's done properly so that the people who are impacted the most.... What amendments to Bill C-22 would you recommend right now?

[Jen Gammad, Communications and Advocacy Manager, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund]

Good evening, committee members, and thank you for inviting me here today.

My name is Jen Gammad. I am the communications and advocacy manager at the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, or LEAF for short.

I am grateful to be calling in from Tkaronto, known as Toronto. This land is governed by the dish with one spoon wampum belt covenant.

LEAF is a national charity that works towards ensuring that the law guarantees substantive equality for all women, girls, trans and non-binary people in Canada.

LEAF is here today as an organization allied to disabled communities and organizations that advocate for them. Disability justice is gender justice. Our struggles cannot be separated. We recognize that it is because of the tireless advocacy of these communities that this bill exists in the first place.

I would also like to thank Dr. Sally A. Kimpson, disability scholar and advocate, who authored LEAF's report, “Basic Income, Gender & Disability.” LEAF's brief, which we have submitted to the committee, and our position are based on her work.

It is our position that Bill C-22 must be passed as quickly as possible. Disabled women, trans people and non-binary people are among the poorest people in Canada, and they cannot afford to wait any longer.

Make no mistake: Disability poverty is gendered. Reports show that as high as one in three women with disabilities lives in poverty. On average, they make less than disabled men and non-disabled women. Disabled women who are single, single parents, indigenous, racialized, working class and/or newcomers live in the deepest poverty.

Safety is an often-overlooked basic need that is threatened by both ableism and poverty. Disabled women are twice as likely as non-disabled women to be subjected to violence. They are subjected to a wider range and subtler forms of violence, such as caregiver neglect. For those financially dependent on their family, spouse or caregiver, which may often be the case, it may be impossible to leave a violent or abusive situation.

Disability poverty is a vicious structural cycle that contributes to substantive inequality. Without financial security, disabled women and trans people are deprived of and further excluded from a range of cultural, economic, educational, political and social activities and exposed to more violence. Poverty takes away choice, and policy failures create and exacerbate such conditions.

I will touch on existing disability supports in Canada and how they fail to meet the needs of disabled women and trans people.

Disabled women are three times more likely to rely on government transfers than their non-disabled counterparts and more likely than disabled men. However, this country's current provision of supports keeps women, trans and non-binary people poor. For example, the largest source of income for low-income, working-age, disabled women in Canada is from government transfers, mostly provincial or territorial disability benefits, which make up over three-quarters of their total income on average, yet all provincial and territorial support amounts are set far below the market basket measure for their region, and that's not even accounting for the extraordinary costs of being disabled.

Dr. Kimpson accurately described Canada's current range of disability supports as “a fragmented and uncoordinated patchwork of supports” with differing eligibility criteria amounts, types of benefits and definitions of disability. Many find the process of accessing existing supports confusing, which can discourage folks from applying at all.

The Canada disability benefit, if designed and implemented correctly, provides an opportunity to reach more people who need it, to be less stringent and complicated to apply for than existing benefits and to lift disabled people out of poverty— so how do we get there? The cost of living is skyrocketing, and disability supports continue to stagnate. We cannot delay action any longer.

LEAF urges this government to pass Bill C-22 without delay and ensure that disabled communities lead the design, implementation and evaluation of the benefit.

We amplify the demands of disability rights organizations such as Disability Without Poverty and say that what matters most here is that we get the CDB rolled out as soon as possible and that it's done in collaboration and co-development with disabled people and disabled women who have the expertise to ensure that people don't fall through the cracks.

Such a benefit would be dignity-enhancing. It would promote autonomy. It would reduce the substantive inequality that disabled women and trans people face. Most of all, it would give them more choice in how they want to live their lives.

Thank you.

[Samuel Ragot, Senior Policy Analyst and Advocacy Advisor, Quebec Intellectual Disability Society]

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

I would now like to address the importance of working with the provinces and territories. As you know, the provinces and territories all have financial assistance programs for persons with disabilities. It is therefore crucial the federal government works with provincial and territorial governments to avoid penalizing beneficiaries and to avoid disengagement of local governments in the social protection and financial security of persons with disabilities.

In Quebec, as of January 1, 2023, we will have a basic income program, a first in Canada and probably in the world. While this program is not perfect, and we continue to advocate with the provincial government, we must protect it and ensure that the Canadian benefit will not work against local programs in the provinces and territories and, most importantly, that it will actually help those who need it. So far, we are pleased with the approach taken.

We have news from the Quebec government. I spoke to the ministers yesterday, who told us that they were quite supportive of a complementary benefit to provincial programs. So we're satisfied with that collaborative approach, and we will obviously support all the steps taken in that direction. We are confident that such negotiations are possible. We have seen other cases where this has been successful.

In addition to working with the provinces and territories, we think it is equally important that the Canada disability benefit be fully individualized, that it be a cheque for each person and that it should not take into account the income of spouses in order to limit issues of financial dependency, that it should provide a real way out of poverty, and that it should allow people to work without any clawbacks. We think it's a matter of dignity.

In fact, the current provincial and territorial programs are mostly punitive. They are not really aimed at the well-being of individuals, but rather at the minimal maintenance of living conditions. It is imperative to move away from this vision of welfare, which has been described as

“welfarization” of disabilities.

All these fundamental, but very technical elements—emphasis on the word “technical”—should be discussed in the regulatory process and not through amendments to Bill C‑22.

[Amélie Duranleau, Executive Director, Quebec Intellectual Disability Society]

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chair, allow us to thank you for your invitation.

My name is Amélie Duranleau, and I'm the executive director of the Quebec Intellectual Disability Society. With me is Samuel Ragot, who is a policy analyst at the society and a doctoral student at McGill University's School of Social Work, working on financial security for persons with disabilities. We are very pleased to be here to share our thoughts on Bill C‑22.

First, we must emphasize that we are very much in favour of the swift passing of Bill C‑22, as it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

Of course, we are aware that legislators may find voting on a foundational bill, which contains few details, uncomfortable. However, we believe that this is the right thing to do.

On the one hand, consultations with the disability community are still ongoing and will provide key information and expertise. On the other hand, we have had successful experience in developing regulations in relation to a framework legislation in the context of the basic income program in Quebec. In this context, all the modalities of operation had been excluded from the law. We eventually worked with the provincial government for almost four years to come up with a set of regulations that were satisfactory to the majority of the parties involved. As a result, the timeline it set for itself has been met.

In the case of the Canada disability benefit, we think the timeline will be shorter, as many of the consultations with the provinces and territories are already well under way. Since it's possible to achieve success when we work together towards common good, we are confident that this approach is also achievable for the Canadian benefit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Welcome back.

The committee will resume its study of Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act.

To assist the interpreters in their work, I kindly remind all members and witnesses appearing today to introduce themselves when speaking and to speak slowly. Nobody did that in the first round.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available for the meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen if you're appearing virtually of either “floor”, “English”, or “French”. Please wait until I recognize you before speaking.

For those participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly.

I want to emphasize that we are doing interpretation and interpretation in sign language as well.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussion, with but before I do, I forgot to acknowledge Ms. Shelby Kramp-Neuman, who joins us this afternoon. Mr. Morrice is going to join us as well.

From Easter Seals Ontario, we have Alison Morse, senior manager for efficacy and family engagement.

From the Quebec Intellectual Disability Society, we have Amélie Duranleau, executive director, and Samuel Ragot, senior policy analyst and advocacy advisor.

From the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, we have Jen Gammad, communications and advocacy manager.

We will start with Ms. Morse for five minutes, please.

Go ahead, Ms. Morse.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to continue on the issue of the urgent need for action and the call for parliamentarians to pass Bill C‑22 as quickly as possible.

We hear and understand the call, because what is being sought is in the title of the bill: reducing poverty and supporting the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit.

However, I would like you to give me your opinion, because this bill is a framework bill that talks about what you are talking about, which is having an adequate income, applying the principle of complementarity with the provinces and having a benefit that does not deprive recipients who are already receiving support for their disability. None of that is provided for in the bill. For us, as parliamentarians, this part of the bill is a blank page. What's more, the bill provides that anything you want will be done by regulation. We asked Minister Qualtrough how long it might take to implement this bill, and we haven't received any indication.

Why is it important that the regulations be implemented with the participation of all the organizations representing people with disabilities? It means that there will be delays.

Do you think we'll be able to act on it with a deadline that is perhaps very tight?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you.

I was watching the news a few days ago. They were talking about Bill C-22, and someone used the word “lifesaver” in many ways. When you talk about choice and dignity, recovering independence and real choices, it just says to me as a parliamentarian that we have to ensure that this is a non-partisan issue with a non-partisan approach and that we work together on this committee to get it done as quickly as possible and support that framework that the minister believes can take us there quickest.

I want to say thank you for your time for being here today and for the work both of your organizations do and you do individually.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

That's great.

This idea of co-creation has come up before in testimony here. Again, in Bill C-22, we don't see it actually written into regulation that there needs to be a co-creation piece.

Mr. Gladstone, would you support an amendment that explicitly says this needs to be jointly fashioned with the disability community?

Mr. Neven, I would ask you that same question.

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

Thank you.

I've heard from a number of women and women living with a disability that they're concerned that it will be a household measurement or that they won't have the autonomy that they deserve in Bill C-22. Do you see any space in Bill C-22 where their autonomy would be at risk because it's not really written into the bill at this point in time?

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

Right. Was that on Bill C-22, though, or was that on a separate housing initiative?

[Gary Gladstone, Head of Stakeholder Relations, Reena]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

My name is Gary Gladstone. I am the lead of stakeholder relations at Reena as well as the convenor of the Intentional Community Consortium.

Reena, celebrating our 50th anniversary next year, promotes dignity, individuality, independence, personal growth and community inclusion for people with diverse abilities within a framework of Jewish culture and values. Open to all, Reena provides supportive housing, programming and employment services to over 1,000 individuals with developmental disabilities, including autism and those with mental health challenges.

The Intentional Community Consortium represents 26 agencies that are advocating and building not-for-profit, deeply affordable housing for the most vulnerable in society: those with developmental disabilities.

Reena is the fourth-largest developmental service provider in Ontario, currently operating 32 group homes and supporting an additional 140 individuals in supported independent living units. There are 252 community participants in our daily programming, with over 700 full- and part-time employees. Reena has an overall budget of $75 million.

On behalf of those we support with varied abilities and specifically those with developmental disabilities and severe mental health challenges, I am pleased to be present to support 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 request that this legislation be passed as soon as possible, with a tight timeline of six months to complete regulations.

As I thank Minister Carla Qualtrough for bringing this important legislation forward, I would also like to thank all members and parties in the House for expediting this bill through the House to committee to have a full discussion.

About 100,000 Ontario adults have a developmental disability. Eighteen per cent to 30% of people in homeless shelters have a developmental disability. Fifty per cent of those with developmental disabilities live with significant medical issues. Ninety per cent of those with developmental disabilities live below the poverty line and require deeply affordable rent for adequate housing, with supports that amount to about $522 in Ontario. Women with a developmental disability are 65% more likely to experience abuse than a typical female.

Honourable members of the committee, as I have said to you before, there is a waiting list of over 40 years for housing with supports for those with developmental disabilities, although things are getting a bit better, thanks to the targeted carve-out of the national housing strategy for this targeted vulnerable community.

Bill C-22 is a vital piece of legislation that will impact the lives of those we support and those with disabilities from coast to coast to coast. We need to pass this legislation as soon as possible with all-party support so that we can immediately get working on the regulations that will address critical issues about the design and structure of the benefit.

I would urge that the following be in the regulations. Number one is a safeguard against provincial and territorial government clawbacks, as we want to ensure that there is a net benefit and that there will not be a clawback from the provinces of any additional funds provided by the federal government.

Number two is indexing for inflation. As inflation and the increased cost of living are on everyone’s mind now, it's imperative that any benefit be indexed to the rate of inflation.

Number three is that we would also like to see representatives from the disabled community at the table when decisions are made with respect to Bill C-22, as well as all disability acts and regulations.

It's imperative that we enact the bill and work on the regulations immediately so that we can get the benefits out to the most vulnerable, those who need them now, as soon as possible. Reena and the Intentional Community Consortium recommend that a deadline for the recommendations and actionable items be no more than six months.

In preparation for this presentation, I have read briefs from many outstanding organizations in the disability sector. I would like it noted that Reena and the Intentional Community Consortium share some of the concerns of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. We would like them addressed—without slowing down the passage of this legislation, when possible—within six months, to ensure that the benefit gets out the door as soon as possible.

“A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members” is a quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi. Through the proposed act, you can ensure that Canada takes care of those who cannot advocate for themselves. With your support, we need to ensure that those with developmental disabilities are never left behind again.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-22 with the request that it be quickly passed into law, with unanimous all-party support, with regulations brought forth within six months.

For further information on Reena and the consortium, please visit our website, www.reena.org. Thank you very much.

[Jeffrey Neven, Chief Executive Officer, Indwell Community Homes]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you mentioned, my name is Jeff Neven and I am the CEO at Indwell.

Indwell is a Christian charity that creates affordable housing communities that support people seeking health, wellness and belonging. Our three core values are dignity, love and hope.

We serve more than 1,200 people with housing and support programs in southwestern and southern Ontario. These include places like Hamilton, London and Kitchener-Waterloo, and smaller communities like Woodstock, Norfolk County and St. Thomas.

One in five people in Canada lives with a disability, and over one million Canadians with disabilities live in poverty. As a leading provider of supportive affordable housing for people with disabilities, Indwell walks alongside many vulnerable Canadians whose income bears no resemblance to the actual costs of living.

In Ontario, for example, the current housing allowance for a person receiving the Ontario disability support benefit is $522 per month. The complete disconnection between the provided housing allowance and the actual cost of housing has produced homelessness, an impossible demand for specialized housing and an oversubscription of every housing subsidy program.

Indwell supports the immediate introduction of the Canada disability benefit act as a vital tool to promote the choice and dignity of Canadians with disabilities. We firmly believe that every Canadian deserves the opportunity to access quality housing of their choice. When Canadians have enough income to access the necessities of living, it creates a pathway for recovery and independence. Adequate income support that matches the cost of living increases opportunities for people with disabilities to make real choices about where they live.

As a supportive housing provider, we also recognize that chronically low disability benefits contribute to the increased cost of providing quality and deeply affordable housing and supports. Currently in Ontario, people with disabilities can cover only a small portion of the actual cost of their housing, requiring reliance on limited subsidy programs and resources. In terms of housing development, this severely impacts the ability of any developer to create a suitable and sustainable business case for housing geared to people with disabilities. When people have the opportunity to purchase their housing from the market, it will fuel the construction of new affordable housing stock by both the non-profit and for-profit sectors.

We strongly support the Canada disability benefit act as a high-impact opportunity to change the lives of people with disabilities in Canada. We strongly encourage the government and all members of Parliament to act and to implement this program.

We believe the impact of this program will be significant if the benefit amount is in keeping with the actual costs of the necessities of life, if the program functions as a direct increase in income with no provisions for clawbacks from any provincial income programs, if housing allowance programs are indexed to current available market rents, if individuals receiving the benefit are empowered to use their income freely and if implementation of the program does not replace existing housing subsidy programs.

In conclusion, the Canada disability benefit act has the potential to transform the lives of those living with disabilities by pulling thousands out of poverty and affirming their human dignity. In addition, it will bring the for-profit housing sector back into providing housing solutions for thousands of Canadians.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this important bill.

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

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 42 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person and remotely by using the Zoom application.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would ask you to please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” function. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. When you are done speaking, please put your mike on mute to minimize interference.

For those in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. Your microphone will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order. We appreciate your patience and understanding.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available by choosing either English or French if you're attending remotely. I would also advise that unless there are exceptional circumstances, I will recognize those appearing virtually only if they have an approved House of Commons headset.

I would also remind you that screenshots are prohibited when the meeting is in session. Should any technical issues arise, please advise me and we'll suspend for a few minutes to ensure that everyone may participate fully.

Pursuant to order of reference of Tuesday, October 18, 2022, the committee will resume its study 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 and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

I would like to take a moment to remind those participating in today's meeting as well as those observing the proceedings in person on video that the committee adopted a motion on Monday, October 24, 2022, that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for the participation of all witnesses and members of the public in the context of the consideration of Bill C-22. In planning inclusive and accessible meetings, the committee has made arrangements for sign language interpretation in both American Sign Language and Quebec sign language for those witnesses appearing in person, and by Zoom for those individuals in our audience.

The sign language interpreters are being video recorded to be incorporated into a video recording of the proceedings today. That would be made available at a later date on ParlVU via the committee's website. To assist the interpreters in their work, I kindly ask all members and witnesses appearing today to introduce themselves when speaking. When I recognize you, before you begin, introduce yourself and speak slowly.

Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of the staff or the committee clerk.

I would like to inform all members that the witnesses appearing virtually today have completed the technical test to check their connectivity and equipment.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussions with five minutes of opening remarks, followed by questions.

We will begin with Indwell Community Homes and Jeffrey Neven, chief executive officer.

From Reena, we have Gary Gladstone, head of stakeholder relations.

We have Vincent Calderhead, legal counsel, appearing as an individual, but we have not been able to connect with him at this time.

I will start with five minutes for Jeffrey Neven, chief executive officer of Indwell Community Homes.

Mr. Neven, you have the floor.

Indigenous Disability Awareness Month

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, November is Indigenous Disability Awareness Month. Many may be surprised to know that indigenous people have rates of disabilities three times higher than the average Canadian, many times without the support that many Canadians enjoy. However, they are some of the most resilient, kind and humble people in our communities.

One particular constituent comes to mind, and I would like to acknowledge Keenan Denny, fondly known in the Mi'kmaw community of Eskasoni as “Jinko”.

Despite having been diagnosed with BBS at the age of 15, Jinko has never let his disability stand in the way of his daily walk with the use of a cane to pick up the mail, or a visit with neighbours while fundraising for the National Institute for the Blind. From time to time, Jinko may fall, but he always gets up. He knows that he has a community that supports him, and so will the government that I am proud to stand with as we put forward the first-ever federal disability benefit in Canadian history with Bill C-22.

For all of the resilient indigenous people with disabilities in Canada, November is our time to recognize them, appreciate them and ensure that we take the necessary steps to help them.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

It's Chad Collins, member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, speaking.

If I could, through you, Mr. Chair, I'll start first with Mr. Simpson.

Part of Bill C-22 is to support the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities. What does financial security look like for your constituency with the CNIB?

[Julie Kelndorfer, Director, Government Relations and Advocacy, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, members of the committee.

My name is Julie Kelndorfer, and I, along with my colleague Marie-Ève Simard, are here representing the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. We are honoured to present to your committee as you study Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act.

To begin, Canada has one of the highest rates of MS in the world. With this autoimmune disorder, the body mistakenly attacks its own central nervous system, disrupting the signals coming from the brain and spinal cord. No two people experience MS in the same way. Symptoms vary from loss of vision or mobility to fatigue and incontinence. While some begin experiencing the disease as a progressive decline in ability from the outset, the majority experience MS in a cycle of relapses and remissions known as episodes, so this is an episodic disability. Unfortunately for many, the damage from these episodes accumulates over time, resulting in permanent disability progression.

Currently, we have no cure. For many like me—I was diagnosed 18 years ago, when my son was just one year old—living with MS means a life of uncertainty: the uncertainty of not knowing if a symptom like the tremors in my hands when I couldn’t even cut my own food at dinner will last a day, a month or a year, or if they will ever go away. Each day we wake up not knowing what lies ahead.

The MS Society’s goal is to ensure that Canadians living with MS and their families can participate fully in all aspects of life despite this uncertainty. Income security is fundamental to that. We’re here today to stress the urgent need for the Canada disability benefit act and to stress that it be inclusive of Canadians living with episodic disability by amending the act to include the same definition of disability as the one found in the Accessible Canada Act.

The effects of poverty for Canadians living with MS cannot be understated. Research on the disease has found that individuals with lower socio-economic status had a higher risk of disability progression and poorer prognoses, reaching physical disability milestones faster, like difficulty walking.

Research also shows that the serious economic consequences of MS begin within the first few years of diagnosis. Challenged by paying for medication, rehabilitation treatments and transportation, living with MS is compounded by the need for services and equipment to aid lost abilities. Feeding, mobility and bathing aids are just some of the items needed in a list that’s as lengthy as it is expensive. Imagine having to choose between heating your home or travelling to medical appointments, or between buying decent food or seeing a physiotherapist to help you walk.

Early intervention with life-altering, disease-modifying treatments can slow or halt irreversible disability, but the cost of treatments is significant. A 2020 Conference Board of Canada report found that in just one year, Canadians living with MS and their families paid over $39 million out of pocket.

If you or your family are unable to afford treatments, your MS can get worse, making it more difficult to work and live an independent life, putting further pressure on your financial situation and leading to even worse symptoms. It's a downward spiral.

The challenges that living with MS bring, coupled with multiple barriers in current government support systems, have only been amplified during the pandemic and by today’s rising cost of living, and there is a gender dimension, as 75% of Canadians living with MS are women.

Just as the Canada disability benefit targets working-age Canadians, so, too, does MS. Most people are diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 49, which are prime career, family-building and earning years for people.

Ray, who lives with MS, worries about his stop work day, as more than 60% of people diagnosed with MS eventually reach unemployment, which is high, given their educational and vocational histories. This HUMA committee in 2019 studied the needs of Canadians with episodic disabilities, describing the income and employment context, and produced an excellent report.

The committee has an important opportunity to align this act with the most current definition of disability found in the Accessible Canada Act.

The MS community, alongside episodic disability partners, worked hard during the Accessible Canada Act consultations to be recognized by having episodic disabilities included in the definition of disability. It was monumental for our community; we now had a definition of disability that included us. The expectation was that, moving forward, all legislation and programs would explicitly contain this inclusive definition of disability.

Each day, people with MS wake up to adversity and do everything in their power to persevere.

As they struggle to make ends meet, let’s work together to pass this legislation quickly, ease their struggle, reduce poverty, and support the financial security of working-age persons with all types of disabilities, including episodic ones.

Thank you.

[Michelle Hewitt, Chair, Board of Directors, Disability Without Poverty]

Thank you for inviting us to speak today.

My name is Michelle Hewitt, and I am the chair of Disability Without Poverty. With me is Rabia Khedr, the national director of Disability Without Poverty.

We come before you today to talk about the Canada disability benefit bill, Bill C-22, and the need for it to reach disabled people living in poverty as quickly as possible, including Black, indigenous and racialized people with disabilities, who are even further marginalized in our society.

The statistics relating to disabled people living in poverty are appalling. There are twice as many disabled people living in poverty than those who are not disabled. This is Canada in 2022. No one deserves to live in poverty, and certainly not from the lottery of life that saw them born with a disability or acquire one later on.

Disabled people do not live in poverty because they are worthless to society. It is quite the opposite; it is because their worth is not valued. In fact, people with disabilities contribute over $47 billion to the Canadian economy.

Being disabled is not cheap. Tylenol goes from being a headache pill to a daily pain control medication. Our most personal daily activities, like toileting, are not free. I have a friend who waited three years for a replacement power wheelchair through her provincial program, only to find that the only wheelchair offered does not fit her. It's way too big.

We talk about lifting disabled people out of poverty, but what does that really mean? Canada's official poverty lines use the market basket measure, which fails to take disability into account.

We hear the stories of disabled people living in poverty on a daily basis, as they are our friends and family. We can tell you about the man who approached Rabia in the parking lot of a grocery store offering to swap bus tickets for food, or my friend who lives month to month with MAID approved, wondering if this month will be her last because she can't afford to live.

Throughout these hearings, you are going to hear many unique stories about disabled people living in poverty, but there will be a common theme. We are all united on the fact that there needs to be an end to disability poverty, and that the time is now.

On October 19, we had the honour of being in the gallery when the vote for second reading of Bill C-22 took place in the House. It was very emotional for the 10 members of our delegation to see the unanimous vote unfold in front of us. We are here today to ask that you continue in that spirit of bipartisanship to move this bill along to third reading, get unanimous support there, pass it to the Senate with all speed and ultimately have it receive royal assent.

We believe that this benefit will be most effectively delivered if the details are co-created with disabled people like us. That collaboration cannot happen in this committee, in the House or the Senate. It can happen only in the development of regulations with disabled people as equals in that process of collaboration.

Take a second to reflect on that person in your life that you have crossed paths with who is disabled. Ask yourself what they need this committee to do.

Right now, they need you to move this framework legislation on. Implore your parliamentary colleagues to do the right thing for disabled people by continuing that bipartisanship and moving it through third reading unanimously, with no further debate. Tell your colleagues on the finance committee that they must put money in the spring budget of 2023 to start paying this benefit out in the fall of 2023. Urge the civil servants working on the implementation of the benefit to ask themselves if the processes they create truly benefit disabled people, or if they are caught up in the old ways of ableism that are so endemic in our systems.

Time is of the essence. Food inflation is at 11.6%, yet provincial disability payments are not index-linked. This means that in real terms, disabled people fall further behind every day.

There is yet another hard winter in front of disabled people, but you have the power to make sure it is the last one with so many living below the poverty line. Thank you.

[Thomas Simpson]

Thank you, Bryanna.

Committee members, I ask you to consider several recommended changes to help strengthen Bill C-22.

First, a Canada disability benefit must be implemented in tandem with a national employment strategy for persons with disabilities. This will ensure that the CDB does not keep people with disabilities who can work trapped on social assistance. The CDB must be designed to be a trampoline from poverty to employment rather than a net to catch people. This strategy must target employers and highlight the benefits of hiring people with disabilities, inclusive of sight loss.

While seniors are eligible for OAS and GIS, disability and poverty do not magically go away at age 65. In some provinces, once an individual reaches 65, some of their provincial supports end. For example, the guide dog benefit under the ODSP, which is an extra $84 per month to help with the cost of a guide dog, ends at age 65. Seniors with sight loss in Ontario must cover alone those costs that had been subsidized. Members of this community should remove references to age restrictions within the legislation.

As Bryanna and I work with our Come to Work program, we see first-hand how current and inadequate provincial and territorial disability support programs disincentivize people from finding employment for fear that they will lose their essential medical services or other benefits associated with provincial programs. Quite simply, this legislation needs to address this and ensure that money or other benefits are not clawed back in a way that disincentivizes people who can work and want to work.

This legislation will confirm important elements of the CDB within regulation. The CNIB recommends that the legislation be amended to require that these regulations are adopted within one year of the legislation coming into force, to ensure no delay for the millions of Canadians waiting for this program.

Finally, we believe that the Canada child benefit is a program that the CDB should mirror. The Universal Child Care Benefit Act, the legislation that governs the Canada child benefit, spells out the amount that the program must remit to Canadians. CNIB suggest that Bill C-22 be amended to identify a mandatory minimum that people with disabilities will receive from the CDB.

In conclusion, the CNIB is supportive of Bill C-22. It must be passed and implemented as quicky as possible. The CNIB would also like to publicly support the briefs provided by the AODA Alliance and the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians.

We'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

[Thomas Simpson, Executive Director, Public Affairs, Canadian National Institute for the Blind]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Thomas Simpson. I'm the executive director of public affairs and Come to Work at CNIB. Joining me today is my colleague Bryanna Regimbald, a coordinator with our Come to Work program.

For 104 years, CNIB has been the largest organization supporting Canadians who are blind or partially sighted. We offer emotional and social support programs for those with sight loss, from coast to coast to coast. CNIB is pleased to appear before HUMA today in support of Bill C-22. Our testimony represents the feedback and opinions of the sight loss community, based on extensive consultation CNIB undertook this year.

Let me be clear. People living with a disability need the Canada disability benefit, and we're pleased to see legislation introduced that removes people with disabilities from poverty. Today we will provide an overview of why people who are blind or partially sighted need this benefit, and we'll offer considerations to strengthen the legislation.

I'll turn it over to my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Welcome back.

The committee will resume its study 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 and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

To assist the interpreters in their work, I kindly remind all members and witnesses appearing today to introduce themselves when speaking and to speak slowly.

To the witnesses appearing virtually or in the room, you may choose to speak in the official language of your choice. If interpretation services are interrupted, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it's corrected.

Please wait until I recognize you before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I will now welcome our witnesses to begin the discussion. We have five minutes for opening remarks, followed by questions.

From the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, we have Thomas Simpson, executive director of public affairs and Bryanna Regimbald, program coordinator; from Disability Without Poverty, we have Michelle Hewitt, chair, board of directors and Rabia Khedr, national director; from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, we have Julie Kelndorfer, director of government relations and advocacy and Marie-Ève Simard, marketing and communications director.

We will start with Mr. Simpson for five minutes.

Mr. Simpson, you have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Again, thank you, Minister and departmental staff, Mr. Conrad and Ms. Wilcox.

This concludes the first hour of the committee's hearing on Bill C-22. We'll suspend for a few minutes while we prepare for the witnesses for the second panel.

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

The Bill C-22 wider consultation.... Why didn't that consultation make it into the bill, even around the eligibility factor, which the disability community is widely agreed on, and other...?

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

Minister, you mentioned that Bill C-22 consultations were wide and vast. I'm just wondering why that didn't make it into the bill. That's my first question. Then I have one quick question after that.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I am happy to provide this committee with a list of all the consultations for both Bill C-81 and Bill C-22, because I would suggest it was the most rigorous and fulsome consultation and conversation that any government has ever had on disability in the history of our country.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm Rosemarie Falk, member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster, in Saskatchewan.

Thank you, Minister, for taking the time to be here with us today.

We know a benefit for persons with disabilities has the potential—and you've touched on this—to significantly improve the financial and overall well-being of many Canadians. As costs continue to soar and affordability is on everyone's mind, we know there is even greater financial pressure for Canadians with a disability, who already have a higher cost of living. While there seems to be general agreement on the stated intent of Bill C-22, which is the legislation before us, it really is just a shell, which I would say is another word for a framework. All the critical details of this bill have been omitted.

It's very reminiscent of when this committee studied Bill C-22 in the 42nd Parliament. That was when your government chose, once again, to exclude any teeth from the legislation and leave it all up to the regulations.

My question, Minister, is this: Why did you decide to exclude all the critical details from the legislation and ultimately shield it from the scrutiny of Parliament?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Louise Chabot, member of Parliament for Thérèse-De Blainville, in Quebec.

Minister, thank you for being here with us today to answer the many questions that we have about the bill. You were correct in thanking all parties for supporting this bill in the House so that it could be studied here at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

You said in your opening statement that your objectives are clear. I tend to agree. The goal is to reduce poverty without creating a race to the bottom. That being said, for the parliamentarians who will have to vote on the bill, there is something awkward from a democratic standpoint. Most of the bill, except for the objectives, will be implemented through regulations.

For example, subsection 11(1) mentions eligibility criteria for a Canada disability benefit. However, we do not know what the criteria are. We also do not know the amount of the benefit or how it is calculated. Both of these elements will be implemented through regulations. Without any more details, passing this bill would be akin to giving the government a blank cheque.

You tabled Bill C‑35, and then Bill C‑22 a year later. We know why Bill C‑35 did not go any further.

It would be important for us to know two things. First, regarding the poverty line, do you have a minimum amount in mind? Second, you said in your speech that a lot of people have an annual income of $12,600 and that the poverty line ranges from $19,000 to $25,000. What is your department planning to do to actually lift people out of poverty? Surely you must have some idea.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

You know, we did a lot of thinking around how we would structure this legislation that would ultimately become law.

Very early on, in working towards what is now in front of us as Bill C-22, we recognized fundamentally that we needed to reflect in our process, as well as our outcomes, our commitment to “nothing without us” and ongoing engagement with the disability community. We needed to put ourselves in a strong position, almost strategically, in dealing with the provinces and territories, the complexity of their systems and how this benefit would interact.

We wanted to find the quickest way forward, the fastest way to put money in people's hands, and that's why we determined that framework legislation was the best vehicle to achieve those three outcomes.

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

Assuming Bill C-22 becomes law, how long will it be before persons with disabilities receive the benefit?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

That's a really important question.

As I explained, we are working, at this stage, to create the legal framework for Bill C-22. In subsequent stages, based on feedback from the disability community and working in collaboration with the community and provinces and territories, the amount will be established through the regulatory process. Our common goal, of course, is to lift people out of poverty. We know what people are getting across the country in social assistance. We're trying to fill the gap, not only between what they get in social assistance and poverty, but also in the time frame between people's getting the Canada child benefit and the OAS and GIS.

Very loosely speaking, we want the benefit to be fair. We want it to be consistent across the country. We want it to be accessible—

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, committee members.

I would like to thank the committee for its work to create a more inclusive country for persons with disabilities. I also thank all parties for supporting Bill C‑22 at second reading.

Colleagues, you have before you legislation that is very straightforward in both its objective and its format. Bill C-22 would create the new Canada disability benefit, a monthly supplemental income payment modelled after the GIS and to be paid directly to working-age, low-income persons with disabilities. The objectives of Bill C-22 are poverty reduction and financial security. The harsh reality is that working-age persons with disabilities in Canada are twice as likely to live in poverty as those without. Approximately one in four working-age persons with disabilities lives below the poverty line.

Many persons with disabilities in Canada experience a modest level of financial security for the first time in their adult lives when they turn 65 and have access to OAS and GIS. The poverty level drops by over 60% for persons with disabilities between the ages of 64 and 65—from 23% to 9%. I know you all agree that is unacceptable—not the poverty drop, but the fact that it was 23%.

The Canada disability benefit would be established and implemented through Bill C-22, which is the legal framework to create the benefit, and a subsequent public regulatory process through which the specific details of the benefit would be established. This is by design. This is intentional. This approach recognizes the important role the disability community must play in this process, as well as the complexity of existing provincial and territorial disability service and support systems.

Let me back up for a moment. From the outset, I have had two priorities in developing this benefit: first, that the disability community be involved at every stage of the process, and second, that there be rigour in dealing with provinces and territories, in order to ensure that people are better off and that existing benefits and services are not clawed back.

To my first priority, we worked very closely with the disability community. The principle of “nothing without us” is embedded in Bill C-22. The Accessible Canada Act requirement that persons with disabilities be involved in the development and design of laws, policies, programs and services is embedded in Bill C-22, and Canada's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are embedded in Bill C-22.

We invested $12 million over three years in budget 2021 to work with the disability community on the design of the proposed benefit. We did an online survey, held roundtables and other forms of consultations. We also funded national disability organizations to engage the community directly.

We will not impose upon this community, and we will not create a race to the bottom.

Stakeholders such as Inclusion Canada have made it clear they don't want decisions being made without the disability community's meaningful participation. People First of Canada raised the key principle of having people with intellectual disabilities at the table during the design stage of the benefit. Disability Without Poverty wants this legislation to pass quickly through Parliament and is eager to participate in the regulatory process, so that a range of lived experiences are heard and listened to. There are more.

We've worked with the community at every step and will continue to engage, seek input from and respond to the community through this and every subsequent phase of benefit development and delivery, including the regulatory process.

With respect to my second priority, it is through the work with the provinces and territories where the rubber hits the road on both the delivery and potential impact of this proposed benefit.

Bill C‑22 recognizes the leading role that the provinces and territories play in providing supports and services to persons with disabilities. Each jurisdiction in Canada has a unique policy environment with respect to disability benefits and supports.

Quite frankly, I cannot overstate the complexities of the systems we are working with. There are 13 different provincial and territorial systems in play, each with its own combination of supports and services. Some are grounded in legislation or regulations, while others are related to program delivery. There are different definitions of “disability” and a variety of eligibility criteria, not only across jurisdictions but also within them.

In some cases, eligibility for one disability program opens up access to another. In other cases, being enrolled in one disability program can exclude individuals from accessing others, or reduce the benefits provided. Across jurisdictions, there are differences in the treatment of other forms of income, different reduction rates and different treatment of spousal or family income and support.

For example, Alberta has a benefit structure focused on people with severe disabilities. Clients must be substantially limited in their ability to work, and their disabilities must qualify as likely to be permanent. The benefit dollar is significant, and couples can retain more than twice as much employment income as singles before they start to lose benefits.

Ontario provides broader, less targeted assistance. Qualifying disabilities need not be severe and can affect work, personal care or participation in community life. The disability must be expected to last at least one year. Benefits are calculated on a family basis. The employment income exemption is calculated separately for each member of a couple.

The Northwest Territories provides benefits that are geared to the high cost of living in the north. Eligibility is based on the ability to perform the activities of daily living. Benefit amounts cover the actual cost of low-cost shelter and utilities, with no fixed cap. Employment income exemptions are household-based.

These are just three of the 13 we're working with in here.

Bill C-22 grants the authority to enter into agreements with provinces and territories to carry out the purposes of this act. That's really important. The CDB is intended to supplement existing provincial and territorial support, not replace it.

Within this complex ecosystem I just described, we really need to harmonize our systems to ensure that there are no clawbacks and that everyone who receives the CDB is better off. This means ensuring that income supports are not negatively impacted and that eligibility for related services and programs is not negatively impacted. We need to lift people up. We need to lift people out of poverty. Across Canada, most disability programs and income benefit amounts leave recipients well below the poverty line. The average total annual income of working-age persons with disabilities who receive social assistance is $12,600. This comes nowhere close to the national poverty line, which ranges from $19,000 to $25,000 per year, depending on where you live.

I'm pleased to report that work with the provinces and territories is going well. There's an FTP work plan that all jurisdictions have agreed to. PTs are very supportive of the framework legislation approach. They appreciate and understand that there's no one-size-fits-all that will optimize the impact of this new federal benefit within the complex array of provincial-territorial systems, and they share our commitment to making people better off and lifting people out of poverty. This is really important. We absolutely need flexibility in working with the provinces and territories. I'll note quickly that we're also working across the Government of Canada on federal benefit interaction.

Colleagues, we have the opportunity for a once-in-a-generation change here. With Bill C-22, we are doing things differently on purpose. Bill C-22 will allow us to work collaboratively with the disability community, as well as with the provinces and territories, to ensure that the benefit achieves its objective of reducing poverty among working-age persons with disabilities.

I'd be happy now to take your questions.

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

The clerk has advised me that we have quorum. I will call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 41 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is again taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. People are attending in person and remotely using the Zoom application.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” icon. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. For those in the room, it will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. If translation is interrupted, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it is being corrected. I would remind all participants that when the meeting is in progress, no screenshots shall be taken.

Pursuant to the order of Tuesday, October 18, 2022, the committee will commence its study 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 and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

I would like to take a moment to remind those participating in today's meeting, as well as those observing the proceedings in person and on video, that the committee adopted a motion on October 24 that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for the full participation of all witnesses and members of the public in the context of consideration of Bill C-22. In planning inclusive and accessible meetings, the committee has made arrangements for sign language interpretation in both American Sign Language and Quebec Sign Language for those witnesses appearing in person and by Zoom, and for those in our audience. The sign language interpreters are being videorecorded to be incorporated into the archived video recording of the proceedings, which will be made available at a later date on ParlVU via the committee's website. To assist the interpreters in their work, I kindly ask all members and witnesses appearing today to introduce themselves when speaking, and to speak slowly.

Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of the staff or the committee clerk.

I would like to inform all members that the witnesses appearing virtually today have completed the technical test to check their connectivity, equipment and verification for interpretation in both official languages.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussion with five minutes of opening remarks.

It is our pleasure to have with us in the room today the Honourable Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, and from the departmental staff, Alexis Conrad, senior assistant deputy minister, income security and social development branch and Policy Horizons Canada. Appearing virtually is Krista Wilcox, director general at the office for disability issues.

We'll start with Minister Qualtrough for five minutes, at which time I will open the floor for questions from the members.

Yes, Madam Gray.

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to speak to this piece of legislation.

In my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country, the impacts of crime and increasing crime rates are things that I have heard more and more about from my constituents. According to a release from Statistics Canada earlier this year, the Kelowna census metropolitan area, the CMA, now has the highest crime rate in Canada, with 27,147 Criminal Code violations in the region in the 2021 report.

While the crime severity index, the CSI, is 73.7 across Canada, according to Statistics Canada, in the Kelowna CMA, it is significantly higher, at 122.3 in our region. It is the topic of discussion I hear from constituents in meetings, through emails, at coffee shops and on the streets, and it was one of the most important issues discussed during our municipal election, which just ended a few weeks ago, with different solutions discussed on how to best solve the issue.

One of the problems that arises from this is the revolving door we see in our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, too often we see individuals go through a catch-and-release system, where they do not serve their time and also do not receive the help they need to help reduce the chances of them reoffending, including addiction or mental health treatment. These are all areas where we need to see improvement in our system, on top of Bill C-9.

Unfortunately, in the conversations I have had in my community, there needs to be improvement in public confidence in our justice system and there has not been much evidence that the Liberal government has helped to uphold this. This is yet again another example of a bill which could have been in place almost a year ago if it were not for the Liberal government's decision to hold an unnecessary snap election last fall.

The previous iteration of this bill was Bill S-5 from the 43rd Parliament. It would have been debated, studied and perhaps adopted by now if all members of the House were to have moved it forward. Instead, here we are again, starting debate on this bill from the beginning, over a year since the last version was introduced, because of an unnecessary, costly election. Just as a reminder, ash was falling from the sky in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country when the Prime Minister called the snap election.

There are many examples of legislation being worked on in the last Parliament, but due to the snap election, everything was cancelled and had to start over again. The committee I sit on is now looking at a Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act, which was also first introduced over a year ago and then died on the Order Paper because of the snap election last fall. Here is another example of how we really have to look at what the government's priorities are. A lot of its priorities are political rather than moving forward good legislation that we need in this country.

Conservatives are always happy to work for reforms in our judiciary. Public faith in our system is what guarantees our society's commitment to due process under law. No one spoke more eloquently on this than former Conservative leader Rona Ambrose when she introduced her final piece of legislation in 2017, the just act. That bill proposed judicial accountability through sexual assault law training.

As a strong voice for women and sexual assault survivors, Ms. Ambrose recognized that far too often our justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault. Sexual assault survivors need to know that those hearing their cases have the training, background and context to give them a fair trial and better ensure that sexual assault survivors do not hesitate to come forward. We, unfortunately, still need a judicial system that we can trust and that will be fair, a system that really focuses on victims.

More work needs to be done to ensure judges understand the laws surrounding this consent. More tools need to be provided to judges to provide fair, compassionate sentences that will see offenders rehabilitated.

My own private member's bill legislation, Bill C-283, would provide such a tool in reforming the sentencing process for offenders suffering from drug addiction and mental health challenges. My legislation would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to support a two-stream sentencing process. While both would have the same sentence time, certain convicted individuals who demonstrate a pattern of problematic substance use and meet certain parameters at the time of sentencing could have the judge offer them the choice to be sentenced to participate in a mental health assessment and addiction treatment inside a federal penitentiary while they serve out their sentence.

Through this sentencing process, offenders would still receive meaningful consequences for their actions, but they would also receive curative treatment leading to a path of reducing the risk of reoffending. In other words, it would end the revolving door. I have actually called my private member's bill the “end the revolving door act”. My bill has the support of many stakeholders who work in addiction treatment and in the criminal justice system, and it also has support across some party lines in this place. I am thankful to say we had our first debate on it, and it will be coming forth again.

It is too important of an opportunity to miss out on, just like this bill we have here today. Some victims have said they have lost faith in the judicial system completely. It was not too long ago that victims, especially women, were blamed for sexual assault. Before laws were put into place improving the process, it was common for judges to factor in things such as the length of a woman's skirt or whether she had a past relationship with the perpetrator when determining if something was criminal. There needs to be more accountability in the judiciary. Legislation that involves our judicial system is really important.

Unfortunately, we know violent crime is up across Canada. It is up 32% since the government took office. One has to wonder how some of these soft-on-crime policies the government has can impact Canadians' faith in their justice system, as well as public safety.

We also need to remember the position of the federal ombudsman for victims of crime has repeatedly been left vacant by the government for many months at a time. Most recently, it was left vacant for almost a year. These are things that are really important when we are looking at our entire judicial system and how it functions, and we need to focus on these types of issues no only so the public has confidence, but also so the public is best served in all of these different areas. It is also really important that, at the core of everything, we keep victims in mind and that we are always standing up for the victims of crime, which is something the Conservatives absolutely do. It is always something we are considering and focusing on.

In closing, if the Liberal government really were concerned about the issue we are debating here today, Bill C-9, it would have not called a snap election last year. This would have been already in place. It is something that already would have been enacted.

[Alexis Conrad, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch and Policy Horizons Canada, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for having us with you today.

As you know, earlier this year, the government once again introduced Its bill on the Canada disability benefit, now known as Bill C-22.

I am delighted that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is continuing its study of Bill C-22. I am pleased to have the opportunity to help the committee do its work.

Mr. Chair, I will quickly walk through the legislation, and then spend a couple of minutes talking about some of the engagement that has been done leading up to this point. Hopefully, that will leave plenty of time for questions from members.

As you know, Bill C-22 proposes a framework for the Canada disability benefit. If passed, the bill will provide the legal authority to design, administer and implement a new Canada disability benefit.

First, I note that the legislation is framework legislation, meaning that most of the details of the benefit will follow in regulations. This approach is intentional. The aim is to strike a balance between getting a benefit in place to meet the immediate needs of working-age persons with disabilities living in poverty and, at the same time—in the context of “nothing without us”—having time to engage with people with disabilities and the disabilities community, in order to ensure their concerns are reflected in the design of the benefit. Given the complex system of benefits and supports for persons with disabilities in Canada, engaging provinces, territories and other stakeholders is critical to the benefit's success.

Using regulations for key benefit elements, such as eligibility, also recognizes disability as an evolving social construct. This approach will allow for more flexibility as our understanding of disability evolves. We have been very encouraged by the feedback we've received from the disabilities community, the provinces and the territories in this approach.

The disabilities community considers this strong evidence of “nothing without us” and a best practice. Provinces and territories note that, rather than announcing the specifics of the benefit, working with them to see how a benefit would best mesh with their own programming helps them and persons with disabilities at the same time. Provinces and territories have also noted that, by moving ahead with Bill C-22, the Government of Canada is demonstrating that the benefit will actually happen and isn't simply something that will be planned for later. We are asking them to do a lot of analytical work, and this legislation is proof to them that it's needed.

The purpose of the bill, as stated, is to reduce poverty and support the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities. The preamble situates this bill within the current framework of the legal rights of, and protections for, persons with disabilities in Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Accessible Canada Act. It also acknowledges Canada's international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

In addition, the preamble recognizes that working-age persons with disabilities are more likely to live in poverty than their peers without disabilities, as a result of economic and social exclusion. The preamble also reiterates Canada's aspirations to be a global leader in poverty eradication, as stated in the Poverty Reduction Act and demonstrated through Canada's existing supports to seniors and families with children.

The bill would provide the Governor in Council with the legal authority to detail the design of the benefit through regulations. These include its basic amount; how that amount would be reduced by other income, such as employment earnings; eligibility criteria for the benefit; the frequency of payments; applications and delivery mechanisms; and reviews and appeals.

The approach of tabling framework legislation, with details to follow in regulation, will enable the government to continue to engage on these design elements of the proposed benefit. The rationale behind the approach is that the government will need to work with persons with disabilities, as well as provinces and territories, on the benefit design. Canada's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Accessible Canada Act provide that the Government of Canada should engage with persons with disabilities on policy, program and service delivery and design where it affects them.

Through the approach being taken, the government will continue to engage with persons with disabilities through the regulatory process on the benefit design. In addition, engagement through the regulatory management process will allow for the ongoing involvement of persons with disabilities on the implementation of the regulations.

Because provinces and territories play such a central role in providing support to many persons with disabilities, it is imperative that the Government of Canada collaborate with them to ensure that persons with disabilities are better off because of the introduction of this benefit, and that potential negative interactions with existing federal, provincial and territorial measures are identified and addressed.

A key component of the bill is clause 12, which would require parliamentary review of the act, its administration and its operations—in other words, the implementation of the benefit. This review would take place three years after the coming into force of the act and every five years thereafter.

Finally, the long title of this bill mentions “making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act”. This amendment is to allow the sharing of tax priority information from the Canada Revenue Agency, such as income information, with Employment and Social Development Canada for the purposes of administering the benefit, in order to determine the amount to which individuals would be entitled. This is standard across most income benefits.

As with most legislation, the bill would come into force on the date set by the Governor in Council.

In the spirit of "Nothing without us : an accessibility strategy for the public service of Canada", persons with disabilities rightly demand to be included in the development of policies and programs that have an impact on their lives. The structure of the Canada disability benefit was based on information gathered from ongoing consultation with stakeholders.

Numerous consultation activities have been held thus far. From June 4 to September 30, 2021, we held online consultations on the disability inclusion action plan , which addressed issues pertaining to the Canada disability benefit. More than 8,500 participants responded to the survey.

Four disability inclusion action plan or Canada disabilities round tables have been held. There was a round table with Minister Qualtrough, MP Ryan Turnbull and disabilities organizations to launch an online survey in June 2021. There was a round table with the Prime Minister, Minister Qualtrough and persons with disabilities later in June 2021. There was one with Minister Qualtrough and Disability Without Poverty, in July 2021, and one with Minister Qualtrough and disabilities organizations later in July 2021.

Four other round tables have been held. There was a round table with disability researchers and academics in January 2022; one with organizations that work with members of racialized communities, which was also in January 2022; one with national disabilities organizations in February 2022; and one with disability service providers later in February 2022.

In addition, we have engaged with other organizations, such as those representing the private insurance sector, given their role in the broader income benefits landscape in Canada.

Currently, community-led engagement efforts are under way to inform the disability inclusion action plan and the Canada disability benefit. Funding agreements are in place with national disability organizations to lead community-level engagement. It is anticipated that the community-level engagement that is currently under way will take place until spring 2023. Funding through ESDC engagement protocol agreements for national indigenous organizations to provide community consultations is anticipated to continue until spring 2023.

We are also engaging with the provinces and territories, given that they provide key benefits and programs to persons with disabilities. In summer 2021, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for social services and disability met for an initial discussion on the proposed benefit. Bilateral and multilateral engagement with provinces and territories has been ongoing. It is expected that ministers will meet again soon, where the proposed benefit is expected to be a priority item.

If and when Parliament passes Bill C-22, the department has extensive plans to engage all stakeholders through the regulatory process to ensure their views are heard and factored into the draft and, eventually, the final regulations. In fact, the ongoing engagement that is already under way is a key input into the regulatory process.

Mr. Chair, I will stop there.

We'd be pleased to answer any questions you have.

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

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 40 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. There will be members who will be appearing via Zoom.

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

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” function before speaking. Click on your microphone icon to activate your own mike. For those in the room, it will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. If there is a disruption in translation services, in interpretation, then I would ask you to get my attention and we'll suspend while it is being corrected. I would also like to remind participants that screenshots are not permitted. Should any technical issues arise, as I indicated, we will suspend for a few moments.

Also at this time I'm going to remind members and witnesses who are appearing virtually that if you do not have a House of Commons-approved headset, I will not recognize you. This is for the benefit of the translation services, the interpreters. You can participate in the vote by raising your hand, but if you do not have a House of Commons-approved headset and you are a virtual witness or member of the committee, I will not recognize you.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, October 19, 2022, the committee will proceed to a technical briefing session on 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 would like to inform all members that the witnesses appearing virtually today have completed the technical tests, and interpretation services have been checked and are fine.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussion with a technical briefing for up to 20 minutes, followed by questions. I would indicate to the committee that following the 20-minute briefing, if it takes that long—it's maxed at 20 minutes—we will do one six-minute round, as we normally do, after which I will simply open the floor to any question by any member sitting here today—simply get my attention—rather than continuing to go from round to round, if that's agreeable to the committee members.

From the Department of Employment and Social Development, we have Alexis Conrad, senior assistant deputy minister, income security and social development branch and Policy Horizons Canada; and Krista Wilcox, director general, office for disability issues.

We will start with Mr. Conrad.

Mr. Conrad, go ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak today on Bill C‑9, right after my friend, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I want to begin by entering this debate midstream and responding to some of the comments that I was hearing in the questions and comments period immediately prior to my speech, before shifting into some of the other comments I want to make specifically about this legislation.

A favourite subject of the member for Winnipeg North is legislative timing and the processes of the House, and I must confess that it is a subject I enjoy engaging in dialogue about as well. However, I think he is always selective in his presentation of the story when it comes to the timing or process of legislation. There are a number of different aspects to that. In particular, he is essentially telling my colleague that we should not be debating this bill because he wants the bill to move forward on a certain timeline.

It is important for everybody listening to know that it is the sole prerogative of the government to schedule the legislation it is moving forward for debate in the time slots we have for presenting it, which is the vast majority of the parliamentary calender. The government needs to set aside some time for opposition days, where opposition parties put forward motions, and there is the possibility for members to move concurrence of committee reports. However, those are quite constrained given the time that those debates take. Of course, there is also Private Members' Business.

There are therefore some opportunities outside of government for legislation, policy or motions to be put forward for debate in the House, but the vast majority of the time is available to the government to schedule at their sole discretion. It is the government that makes decisions about which bills are priorities and which bills to put forward. If it wants a bill to advance, then I think it has an obligation to schedule it for enough days of debate so that debate can be brought to a conclusion. That principle applies for Bill C-9, as it does for any other bill.

What we often see the government do is fail to prioritize a bill within its own allocation of time. Then it acts mystified about the fact that it is not moving based on some artificial timeline that it has set. We saw this with Bill C-22, where the government scheduled it for one day of debate, did not schedule it for weeks afterwards and then asked why the bill was not moving forward. Of course, debate concluded the next time it was scheduled, but it would have moved forward faster if the government had chosen to prioritize it.

I detect the same string of argumentation again here from my friend from Winnipeg North. He is keen to see Bill C-9 move forward, apparently, but not keen enough to have successfully lobbied his House leader to schedule this bill and put it forward on a larger number of days. Friday is a very short day relative to the time we get.

I wanted to spend a few minutes on that particular point because I know it comes up again and again, and to pre-empt, in a sense, what I suspect will be a question from my friend from Winnipeg North, although I will say that I did appreciate him tabling a petition relating to Bill S-223 on organ harvesting. I hope that is a bill the foreign affairs committee will prioritize for deliberation and move forward, because as members know, it has been a long time.

Having responded to that, I want to add my voice to the comments by my friend from Battle River—Crowfoot pertaining to the larger issues of trust in our institutions and independence. We are talking today, in the context of Bill C-9, about certain circumstances, events and comments that have impacted trust and faith in the judiciary, and I think we need to affirm the importance of institutions.

We want to see that our institutions are trusted, but we also want our institutions to be worthy of that trust. Sometimes what we hear from some members is a call to trust institutions without being willing to note when there have been significant problems in the conduct of individuals in those institutions. I think the issue raised by the opposition House leader today with respect to interference by the government in a criminal case is another important issue in the ongoing conversation about trust in our institutions and the actions of government. Acts of interference by the government certainly do have an impact on how our institutions are perceived and the degree to which they are trusted. These matters of interference and the independence of institutions are important in their own right, but they are also important in terms of how they contribute to the level of trust that Canadians can reasonably have, in light of the facts, in the institutions that are so critical for holding our public life together.

Bill C-9, the piece of legislation we are debating today, is, on the face of it, a relatively technical piece of legislation, although as members know, every technical piece of legislation has interesting philosophical issues and questions underneath it. The legislation is about making changes to the mechanisms or processes that are in place around judicial discipline, or the discipline of judges. I will just read the summary. It states:

This enactment amends the Judges Act to replace the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council. It establishes a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct that are not serious enough to warrant a judge's removal from office and makes changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made to the Minister of Justice. As with the provisions it replaces, this new process also applies to persons, other than judges, who are appointed under an Act of Parliament to hold office during good behaviour.

It creates mechanisms by which individuals who have been appointed to hold office, pending “good behaviour”, could be considered not to have fulfilled the standards required around good behaviour and could therefore be removed from office and/or face other mechanisms of discipline. I think the details and mechanics of these mechanisms are extremely important, and are things that will be important not only for the House to consider but for committee to go into further.

After reading through the legislation, one thing I found quite interesting was the presence of a review panel of lay people who, by design, cannot have any legal background. It is always interesting to me when there is this balance where, on the one hand, there are aspects of our judicial system where we demand a certain level of expertise, and then on the other hand, there are certain places where, I think for good, understandable reasons, we demand a lack of expertise formally and in practice as a means of saying that we want some people involved in the decision-making who are non-experts.

I recall a quotation from former British prime minister Clement Attlee, who talked about how he wanted his ministers not to be experts on the subjects they were ministers of. I know that is a bit of a parenthetical question, but it is one that has been debated over the years regarding various kinds of appointments.

In any event, this legislation includes a specific, designated role in the termination process for lay people. I want to note as well the justifications by which a judge could be removed from office. Proposed section 80 says, “For the purposes of this Division, the removal from office of a judge is justified only” for these reasons:

(a) infirmity;

(b) misconduct;

(c) failure in the due execution of judicial office;

(d) the judge is in a position that a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.

These are, in some ways, notionally objective criteria, but naturally there is going to be some level of subjectivity in how they will be applied.

There is a history to the consideration of this issue, and there is a history to the discussion of judicial misconduct that touches on some very important and sensitive issues. In my time as a member of Parliament, there has been a fair bit of discussion specifically around the issue of comments by judges dealing with cases of sexual assault. There was a judge who made some very offensive and outrageous comments in the context of a sexual assault trial that he was presiding over. That provoked a lot of conversation about the reality that someone is not rendered all-knowing and all-virtuous simply by the fact that they have received a judicial appointment, and that maybe there is a legitimate place for saying that someone, by their comments or lack of understanding certain things, is no longer fit to be a judge.

How do we preserve the principle of judicial independence, the principle that judges should be making decisions based on the facts of a case and the law rather than making decisions as democratic legislators do, based on other factors, including public opinion? How do we preserve that principle of judicial independence and also say that there are certain societal norms and values that we would like to see reflected in the conduct and statements of judges? There is a point at which a person can go beyond the pale and simply no longer be suited to that position as a function of some of their comments.

There have been a number of ways of getting at this issue. One was from former Conservative leader Rona Ambrose, who put forward a private member's bill, in 2016 or the first half of the 42nd Parliament, that sought to promote judicial education around sexual assault. That is one way of dealing with comments like this: We can say that maybe it is simply about a lack of knowledge and education.

That bill did not pass in Parliament, but a similar bill was put forward and was passed in the 43rd Parliament. As I said at the time, I think we need to recognize the importance of education around these issues, but also recognize that education is not always the full solution. I think there is a lot of data to suggest that when we mandate certain kinds of training courses, for some people it is a meaningful opportunity for them to learn about the matter at hand, but for other people it is just a matter of checking the boxes that are required. Whether it is a meaningful engagement exercise or a box-checking exercise depends somewhat on the way the material is presented, but a lot of it will depend simply on the disposition of the individual and how willing the individual is to substantively engage with the matter at play.

My conclusion is that the proposal from Rona Ambrose about judicial education was very important and worthwhile, but it does not solve the whole problem of either judicial misconduct or potential issues where a judge is making comments in the context of a trial that are very offensive to the victim and to society at large.

That is some of the history of the issue, but there are also other potential issues. This is not just about comments judges make in trials; it could also be about concerns over personal corruption and other things that could be at play in the context of judicial discipline. This is a piece of legislation that, coming out of that long-running public discussion, seeks to make refinements to the processes around judicial discipline.

One thing I would like to note about this discussion is that it presumes the personal fallibility of judges. Maybe it should be fairly obvious, but with the way some of our Canadian debates have proceeded, maybe it is not so obvious that judges are human beings. They have the potential to develop great expertise, great virtue and commitment to their work.

Judges also, like any other human beings, have the potential for grave errors in reasoning, as well as moral errors of various kinds, including misconduct or corruption. They are human beings, are fallible and can make mistakes in various kinds of situations or ways. The heavy criticism of former justice Robin Camp, some of the subsequent discourse and arguments for judicial education the government has supported, and the very existence of this legislation, affirm the reality of judicial fallibility. However, at other times when we are having debates about criminal justice issues and how we respond to particular kinds of charter litigation, the discourse in the House seems to presume something else, which is the infallibility of judges.

It was very striking to me, when I was first elected as a member of Parliament, that we were, on the one hand, dealing with this whole question of former justice Robin Camp and the issues around judicial fallibility, but on the other hand we had members making comments about at the time Bill C-14, which followed the Carter decision of the Supreme Court, where it was repeated that this was a unanimous court decision. Therefore, our goal as a legislature should simply be to interpret the wisdom we were given from this wise council's vision.

I have a great deal of respect for the role the Supreme Court plays in our democracy, but I also think it is legitimate to disagree with decisions that the courts have made. Part of the process of democratic deliberation is recognizing that, if judges can be personally fallible regarding their own conduct, fallible in the sense of making inappropriate comments in a sexual assault case, then they can also be fallible in there determinations about the appropriate sentence and balance of rights that emerge from a series of arguments about how to interpret given facts in light of the charter.

The fact there is diversity in courts of dissent underlines the potential fallibility of judges, and I think we should, in our Canadian democratic discourse, seek to affirm the importance of judicial independence, and the respect that is owed to that institution, while also recognizing that judges make all kinds of mistakes and that Parliament has a role to deliberate about substantive questions of justice and human dignity and to engage in a constructive and healthy back and forth when it comes to decisions, legislation and how we respond to that.

I could cite other cases that brings this issue to the fore, but I see that I am up against my time to some extent. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the issues around Bill C-9, to share a bit of the history, and to underline that, for me, one of the lessons coming out of this is to let us acknowledge that judges are human beings. They have an important job to do, but it is legitimate to disagree with and debate the determinations that are made, and to use constitutional tools that affirm the rights and the role of the legislature when it comes to establishing and advancing common values that are determined through democratic deliberation.

Opposition Motion—Tax Exemption on Home Heating Fuel

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has gone to work in this Parliament and has pushed the government to put in place supports for dental care, a historic expansion of our health care system, and It is about time. Canadians believe universal health care is our most cherished institution. Our former leader, Tommy Douglas, was instrumental in bringing that about. Now, under the leader from Burnaby South, we have expanded it with dental care this year for children. Right across the length and breadth of our country, parents will be able to provide dental care for their children 12 and under. Inexplicably the Conservatives voted against that measure to help kids. They will have to explain that to their voters whenever the next election is held.

We also forced the government to provide supports to nearly two million Canadians renters through the renter supplement, hundreds of dollars that will make a difference to people in my riding.

Of course, the member for Burnaby South had been pushing for a number of months to get the doubling of the GST credit. That will mean anywhere from $200 to $500 that will go out in the next few weeks. Thankfully, the Conservatives, after initially opposing this NDP position, rallied. I think they finally understood the importance of providing those supports. As a result, we know those cheques will be on the way soon.

Canadians are living in difficult times. They are struggling for affordable housing. They are struggling to pay their health care bills. They are struggling because their wages have not kept up. In this corner of the House, Canadians know they have an NDP leader and an NDP caucus that is resolute about providing supports, and we have the track record to prove it.

Over the course of the last two Parliaments, almost every measure that has had a net benefit to Canadian families has come from the NDP caucus, leveraging in a minority Parliament our 25 voices, and 24 voices in the last Parliament, to make a difference for Canadians.

The fact that we have one leader in the House who has a laser-like focus, ensuring Canadians benefit from decisions made in Parliament, has made a difference in the lives of so many Canadians, but we have so much more to do, and we are going to continue to push. The reality is that we have had seven years of a Liberal government that has basically been paralyzed when it comes to the important decisions that would make a difference in the lives of people.

When we look at the disability benefit, it still does not have any substance behind it. We are going to be pushing, with Bill C-22, to actually have a disability benefit that makes a difference in the lives of people. However, to date, we have not seen the substance or the meat that actually will make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities.

These are the kinds of measures the NDP will continue to push.

On housing, we were able to force the government, in the last budget, to finally start to reinvest in affordable housing, and over the next couple of years 150,000 new affordable housing units will be built. That is a result of the efforts of the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus, again, to leverage our 25 members to make a difference, to push for change for a better life for Canadians.

We are pushing to have put into place all the calls to action on truth and reconciliation. We are pushing for measures that would stop the spread of hate and right-wing extremism that we are seeing. We will continue to push all those elements, because we believe fundamentally, as New Democrats and as members of Parliament, that our responsibility is to make a difference in the lives of people.

We did not see that in the dismal Harper decade, an incredibly dismal period in Canadian history, or in the seven years of paralysis that we have largely seen from the current government, until, with minority Parliaments, the NDP started to leverage and get things done in Parliament. We saw over the course of the Harper dismal decade a massive expansion of overseas tax havens, valuated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer at $25 billion a year, now over $30 billion a year. This is taxpayer money going off shore. The utlrarich, profitable corporations are taking their money offshore rather than providing those investments that would make a difference in the lives of families, students, youth, children, people with disabilities and seniors.

Under both the Conservative regime and the Liberal regime, the immediate thought when a crisis hit, whether it was in 2008 or with COVID in 2020, was what they could do to help the banks. We saw under the Harper government a record $116 billion in liquidity supports given overnight. The Harper government wanted to shore up bank profits. That was its first and foremost priority. It cut pensions and eviscerated a wide variety of services for veterans, seniors and people with disabilities.

It cut a whole bunch of important programs, including, inexplicably even today, the crime prevention programs that reduced crime right across the country. For the Harper government or any person connected to the Harper government, like the member for Carleton, to pretend that it took initiatives that reduced the crime rate when it destroyed the crime prevention centres strikes the heart of rampant hypocrisy. It eviscerated the most important tool in fighting back against crime.

This was the record of the Harper government: destroying services and ensuring that the banks, the ultrarich and the oil and gas industry had record profits. That was its first and foremost objective. Sadly, the new Liberal government has done the same, continuing those practices. We have gone from $25 billion a year under the Harper government to over $30 billion in overseas tax havens under the new government. In the banking sector, it was $116 billion.

We saw the Liberal government, in March 2020, step up in 96 hours with $750 billion in liquidity supports for the banks. This is while people with disabilities were struggling to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table. They are still waiting years later, and we have a bill that does not do anything yet. However, the NDP is going to fight like hell to ensure that it does do something to actually make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities.

What we have had over the last couple of decades is a government that has been focused on the needs of the banking sector and bank profits and that has allowed the grocery industry, the big giants of the grocery sector, to profit from Canadian families, without putting any measures in place to restrict that. With the oil and gas sector, of course we have seen the rampant profiteering, with the price going up on old stock as soon as there is any sort of crisis, as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has pointed out so many times. Both at the beginning and at the end of every crisis, the oil and gas sector reaps record profits.

These are the decisions we have seen from both Conservative and Liberal governments, but now we have an alternative. I want to point out why it is so important for folks in Canada to recognize that. We have a choice between the current government, the official opposition and the NDP. In the coming election, whenever that is, whether next year, the year after or in 2025, at some point this Parliament will come to an end and Canadians will have a choice to make. We have seen what the Liberals and the Conservatives do. They cater to the wealthy, the ultrarich, the banking sector, grocery chain CEOs and the grocery empires rather than dealing with regular people.

The NDP, this week, in our only opposition day of this cycle, brought forward a motion that ultimately forced all parties to support it. It recognized that “Canadian families are struggling with the rising costs of essential purchases” and asked the House to “call on the government to recognize that corporate greed is a significant driver of inflation”, or greedflation, as members know, and to take action, which includes:

(a) forcing CEOs and big corporations to pay what they owe, by closing the loopholes that have allowed them to avoid $30 billion in taxes in 2021 alone, resulting in a corporate tax rate that is effectively lower now than when this government was elected

This is an important point. It was bad under the Conservatives. It is even worse now under the Liberals.

The motion continued:

(b) launching an affordable and fair food strategy which tackles corporate greed in the grocery sector including by asking the Competition Bureau to launch an investigation of grocery chain profits, increasing penalties for price-fixing and strengthening competition laws to prohibit companies from abusing their dominant positions in a market to exploit purchasers or agricultural producers; and

(c) supporting the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in investigating high food prices and the role of “greedflation”

When we introduced this motion, the CEOs of the big grocery chains and big food immediately stepped up to say they were not going to increase their prices anymore; they were going to freeze prices. The NDP had an impact with that motion. This is an important part of what members of Parliament should be doing.

This motion passed unanimously, as members know, because it was good sense that we pushed back as members of Parliament knowing the impact that greedflation has had right across the length and breadth of this country. It has cost Canadians a terrible price. As a result of that, the member for Burnaby South brought forward this motion, which had an immediate impact.

I contrast that with the Conservatives, the official opposition. This is the third time now that they have brought forward essentially the same motion. They did it on June 7, they did it on September 28 and they are doing it today. It is for tackling a price on carbon, as if climate change and the climate crisis do not affect Conservatives. It is quite the contrary. We know that climate change is impacting people right across the country. We know that putting a price on pollution actually helps to alleviate that, yet we have this obsession from the Conservatives where on three opposition days in a row they essentially bring forward the same motion.

The motion does not deal with the issue of affordability, in the same way that the Conservatives in the House and the sound and fury from the member for Carleton do not in any way help Canadians. In fact, the Conservatives cannot really point to anything they have done over the last few years that has helped Canadians.

The NDP can. We can point to dental care. We can point to the housing supplement. We can point to the affordable housing that we forced in the last budget. We can point to the doubling of the GST credit. We can point to all of the COVID supports that we forced in this House. In a minority Parliament situation, we are using the weight of our members of Parliament to make a difference for Canadians.

What can the official opposition point to in the last few years? They can point to nothing, nada. It is so much the worse that it is a repudiation of the commitments made by the former Conservative leader in the election before last. It is important to point out that back in 2019, the Conservative leader, to quote the CBC website, made an “election promise to remove GST from home-heating bills”. To quote Global News, he said he would “cut GST from home heating bills as prime minister”.

Given the opportunity to actually put that forward, the Conservatives failed, and they brought forward the same motion a third time, as if somehow it is a magical third time. It is that triple, triple, triple of putting together the same motion and putting it out to the House again as a rerun rather than dealing with the fundamentals of removing the GST on home heating, which the Conservatives previously promised to do and did not and which the member for Burnaby South has been promoting.

What I am offering today is the opportunity for the official opposition to actually keep a promise. The Conservatives promised in the election campaign that they would take the GST off home heating, so I will be offering an amendment shortly that would do just that. The amendment, which the Conservatives should support because they committed to it, would replace the carbon tax in their opposition motion. Rather than for the third time dealing with the issue of climate change as if it is something that does not exist, we would instead put in place the removal of the GST from home heating. The Conservatives promised that, so they should support this amendment. It would actually have a meaningful impact on Canadians' lives. We know the impact of the GST on home heating, so it would make a fundamental difference.

We have seen that the NDP is really making a difference in Canadians' lives. We have seen it with dental care, housing assistance and affordable housing, measures that we forced the government to include in the last budget along with the doubling of the GST credit. All of these are a win for Canadian families.

Today, we will give the Conservatives the opportunity to keep their promise to eliminate the GST on home heating. We will propose an amendment that will make a real difference in people's lives.

That way, the Conservatives will finally be able to say that they did something to help people, that it was not just talk, that they actually did something. They need to help people instead of just going around in circles.

It is therefore with pleasure that I offer the following amendment on behalf of the NDP, and if good sense and good judgment take place, the Conservatives will support it. I move that the motion be amended by deleting the words “from the carbon tax” and substituting the following: “from the goods and services tax”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We will schedule next Wednesday for officials to come in and give a briefing on Bill C-22.

The second part I want to get through is this. On Monday, which is the 24th, I would like to schedule beginning the first review of the labour report, which you all have a copy of now. If that's agreeable to the committee, at the meeting on Monday we would begin a review of the labour report that the committee did, which you have the first draft of.

To the new members of the committee, there was a study by the committee and a labour shortage report done in the spring session, and that report's first draft was provided to committee members two weeks ago. We have yet to review that, so you have draft one of the committee's report on labour shortages.

If I see a consensus, the committee will move on Monday the 24th to begin the review of draft one of the labour shortages report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I will ask the clerk to speak on that.

We had the discussion. It looks like the earliest we could begin Bill C-22 would be October 31, because of the timeline to notify the witnesses and get them in.

Madam Clerk, do you want to elaborate on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The deadline for witnesses for Bill C-22 will be on Friday at five o'clock.

The second part is that the committee should decide or give direction on the total number of meetings to hear from witnesses. Could I receive some direction on the total number of meetings?

Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

On Bill C-22, which is coming, I am reminding you of the deadline for the submission of prioritized witness lists to the clerk. Did we pick a timeline on that, or do we want to give it now? This is on Bill C-22, which was adopted in the House and will now come to the committee. Do you want the committee to make the decision on a deadline for submitting your witness lists? Do you want to make it this Friday at five o'clock, eastern standard time?

Government Business No. 20—Proceedings on Bill C-31

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and give a speech for Canadians.

Before I begin, I want to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Granville.

Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, is extremely important. I think back to 1967, when Lester Pearson said that no senior should live in poverty. On that principle, which is so important, in 2015, when we came to government, we wanted to make sure that we built the framework necessary to bring Canada forward as a strong country so Canadians would be proud of their country, which is contributing not only to Canada but to the world. Therefore, we brought in the CCB, basically under the principle that no child should live in poverty. That was an extremely important bill we brought forward that has lifted hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of poverty.

In 2018 we worked with the provinces and territories to build a better pension plan, the CPP, for Canadians. As we know, some pensions are worth less as we move forward, so that will be a way of securing them as well.

In 2021 we brought in the child care bill, which has helped all Canadians but will also help the economy, because it will enable more Canadians to work and contribute.

Last month, in September, we brought forward Bill C-22, which we passed today, to support people with disabilities. It was again brought in under the principle that no person with a disability should live in poverty.

Today, we are bringing forward Bill C-31, which is about affordability. It is another very important piece in supporting Canadians as we move forward, and it will ensure that all Canadians have an opportunity to succeed.

No one should be denied dental care. All members of Parliament have access to dental care. All Canadians should have access to dental care.

We are also ensuring that people are not priced out of access to housing. That is why we will be bringing a top-up support of $500.

Bringing in this dental support is a big piece with respect to affordability. It is another piece to help Canadians. Let us be clear. We can connect dental care with health care. It is a direct parallel. They work together to improve the benefits that Canadians can access. In case the House is not aware, one-third of Canadians do not have access to health care. Therefore, this bill will allow Canadians and families—

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑22.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from October 17 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.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague raises very good points on both accounts. There is a fear factor within the Conservative Party. They tend to want to shy away from anything related to the environment.

In regards to the legislative agenda, when we stop and think about it, the member is right on. With respect to Bill S-5, the Senate has put in a great deal of effort and working with the government, we now have a substantial piece of legislation that we could and should be debating. One of the reasons why the government was not in a position is because we had to deal with legislation, such as Bill C-31, Bill C-30, Bill C-22, all of which are there to put more disposable income in the pockets of Canadians.

Over 11 million Canadians benefit from those three pieces of legislation, and some of it has been very difficult to get through the House because the Conservative Party does not want them to pass. They take up the time of the House to prevent the government from getting some of this important legislation done. That is why I spent as much time out of my 20 minutes refreshing the back benches of the Conservative Party on why they should not be doing this concurrence motion. They should have allowed the debate on Bill S-5. That is what would have been good for Canadians today.

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[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?

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

I have a question, Chair. We have a number of studies that need to go line by line, and we're anticipating a study here around Bill C-22. Is there an opportunity for there to be additional meetings than what's currently scheduled for HUMA?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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 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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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—

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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]

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.

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.

Taxation

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, everybody in the House will have an opportunity very soon to vote in favour of Bill C-22 to make life way more affordable for persons with disabilities living in poverty. They could also make life more affordable by voting in favour of dental for kids with disabilities or rent for low-income persons with disabilities. There are a lot of important decisions to be made. I hope the other side will understand how we can make life more affordable for everyone.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, let me echo the comments of my hon. colleague. Thanksgiving is one of my favourite times. It is an opportunity to be with family and friends. As the hon. member said, we have not had that chance in a very long time, so it makes this a very special Thanksgiving. As the member correctly stated, and we should reflect on this, we really do have an enormous amount to be grateful for in our country. It is a special occasion to give thanks and to be with the people I love. I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family and friends, and with their constituents, over the upcoming constituency week.

With respect to the member's question about when we come back, I will be talking about what we are going to be doing, but first, in answer to this question, we absolutely cannot, and I will say it every time he asks me this question, give up on action on climate. While we take action to make life more affordable, and in a minute I will talk about what we will do over the next coming weeks, we cannot afford to make pollution free again.

We cannot allow pollution to be something that spews into the environment without consequence. We will continue to return that money to Canadians. Eight out of 10 Canadians will see more back. We can fight climate change, we can do affordability and we can do those things at the same time.

I am proud to say that our agenda to make life more affordable for families continues. It continues tomorrow when we take action, again, on the environment with Bill S-5, making important amendments to the Environmental Protection Act to improve and protect our environment, and at the same time take essential action to move forward with Bill C-31, which would provide families right across Canada the opportunity to ensure they have dental care, that this is not something, as life gets globally more challenging, that is left to the wayside. We know how important dental care is to health. I hope the member opposite will be supporting us in that as it comes forward.

On the Monday, when we return from our constituency week, we will continue with debate on Bill C-31, as I referenced earlier, with respect to dental care and support for housing.

On Tuesday, we will move forward with Bill C-22, the Canada disability act, which is critical support to help lift hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are disabled out of poverty. This is essential action to help them, and I hope the Conservatives would support that. I know other parties are.

On Wednesday, we will return to Bill S-5.

Thursday will be an allotted day.

On Friday, we hope to make progress on Bill S-4, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act, COVID-19 response and other measures. We also look forward to advancing Bill C-9, with respect to the Judges Act.

Last, I would like to inform the House that the Wednesday, following question period, there will be a really important opportunity to pay respects and tribute to our friend and former colleague, who we are all mourning, the late Bill Blaikie.

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 is here at a very critical time for millions of Canadians. There are too many Canadians struggling with the rising cost of living and the challenge of keeping rent paid and food in the fridge. As the NDP critic for disability inclusion, I hear from the disability community of the realities of skyrocketing housing and food costs and how it is impacting them disproportionately.

Fifty per cent of food bank users are now persons with disabilities. This is unacceptable and the Liberal government has a responsibility to uphold the human rights of persons with disabilities and ensure that they have an adequate standard of living. That is why Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit, cannot come fast enough for almost a million Canadians with a disability.

Inequality is rising at an exponential rate in Canada and, while grocery chains are bringing in billions of dollars in profits, everyday Canadians are falling further and further behind. Corporate greed is increasing. This crisis of corporate greed is driving inflation and it is affecting everyday Canadians. It affects some more than others. It especially affects persons with disabilities, single mothers and fixed and low-income families. These are long-standing issues. With the current greed inflation, crises are happening now all across communities in Canada and people need help immediately.

Many of them are renters. That is why the renters component of Bill C-31 is so important and why it needs to get out as soon as possible. This housing benefit is a one-time $500 payment for Canadians who qualify, specifically families who earn a net income of less than $35,000 a year. People are already asking me when this will become available.

This payment will help 1.8 million Canadians with the cost of living, and it will make a real difference in their lives. It is something that the government should have brought in months and months ago. Too many renters have had to rely on rent banks throughout this pandemic. Too many people have already lost their rental housing. They are living in their cars, in tents or are couch surfing. This is the reality in communities across Canada. Tents, and I spoke of this yesterday, are now homes for more and more Canadians as they search for stable, affordable rental housing

I want to take a moment here to talk about payday loans. We have so many in my community of Port Moody—Coquitlam who are having to pay their rent through a payday loan, and we know that those interest rates are out of hand. I just want to point out that there is a bill from my colleague here from New Westminster—Burnaby on reducing those interest rates. The interest rates, for the most vulnerable who use payday loans, are criminal.

The need to act cannot wait. We cannot have one more person lose their home because they cannot afford their rent. The NDP is committed to ensure that this legislation gets through quickly, so that people can get this payment by the end of the year.

Let us not forget how Canadians got into a situation where rents are unaffordable. Conservative and Liberal governments have overseen the financialization of housing. Instead of protecting our social housing stock, they encouraged upzoning and gentrification in the name of density. Density dreams are for developers. The financialization of housing is only working for the wealthy and is leaving people behind. The most impacted are renters in need of low- to mid-income affordable homes.

We are losing affordable homes at a rate of 15:1. For every new unit this government prides themselves on building, it has not protected 15 other renters who now find themselves evicted or demovicted from their homes. Truly affordable social housing has been sacrificed to create an asset class for pension funds and for the wealthiest people and companies across the globe.

Even after Bill C-31 passes, the government must immediately act to end the financialization of housing before more Canadians lose their homes, before more children are displaced from their schools and their friends, and before more seniors lose services, as they are forced out of the community in which they raised their children.

The second part of this legislation is related to the cost of living as well, and it will have profound and long-lasting benefits for millions of Canadians. It is transformational and will make a difference for generations to come. It is dental care.

New Democrats have always known that everyone, no matter their income, should have access to basic health care, yet ever since the Canada Health Act was first passed, it has been a project incomplete. It has been a vision unfulfilled. Aspects of our health were not included in the legislation that created universal health care. Things like our eyes, mental health, which we are recognizing this month, and dental care are integral to our concept of health and to our health outcomes. They must be included in Canada's universal health care.

Today, with Bill C-31, we take the next step to universal health care by adding the long-awaited dental care. Thirty-five per cent of Canadians lack proper dental insurance and that number jumps to 50% when we are talking about low-income Canadians. Seven million Canadians avoid going to the dentist because of the cost. It is shameful. It is something that has to change. Canada's most vulnerable face the highest rates of dental decay and disease, and the worst access to dental care. There is something wrong here. It needs to change and New Democrats are going to make sure it changes.

The legislation in front of us begins with getting uninsured children of low- and modest-income families the care they need. Kids deserve it. The most prominent day surgery in hospitals among children is dental care. Shamefully, tooth decay remains the most common, yet preventable, chronic childhood illness in Canada because too many families cannot afford a visit to the dentist's office. It has taken 50 years to protect all children with this dental care plan. We are here now, so let us make it happen.

In closing, New Democrats are in a position to use their power to force the government to immediately make life better for people by providing rent support now and essential dental care in the long term. However, let us not forget why we are here in need of these emergency benefits. It is because of bad policies put forward by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, policies that put corporate profits and tax protections for the ultrawealthy before the social fabric of Canada.

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives turned their backs on investments in housing and health care in favour of a private market-driven model that is not working. In fact, it is hurting people. This decades-long lack of government investment in people is why we need Bill C-31, but make no mistake. It is just the beginning of building back necessary social supports so that all people can thrive. New Democrats will continue to lead that charge and use our power to work for Canadians.

Bank of Canada Accountability Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has not failed. It has served Canadians well. I am getting heckled by the members across the way. Do they not understand the importance of having and respecting the independence of the Bank of Canada? Let us look at the years that it has put into effect sound policy.

At the end of the day, the Bank of Canada is recognized, not only within our borders but internationally, as an institution that has done exceptionally well for our country. Our previous governor actually went on to play an important role outside of Canada, in Europe.

The Bank of Canada is not a new institution. We are talking about going back to the 1930s. In fact, the very first building of the Bank of Canada was right across the street from the Parliament buildings, the old Victoria Building, where members of Parliament have offices today. It has been there since the 1930s, and it has been there for a good reason.

We could talk about the importance of monetary policy, like issues such as inflation. Let us remember the other wonderful idea that today's Conservative leader had on inflation. Instead of saying yes to Canadian currency and yes to the Canada banknotes that the Bank of Canada is ultimately responsible for, and our currency that the Bank of Canada monitors, what did today's leader of the Conservative Party say? He has more faith in cryptocurrency, Bitcoin. He has so much faith in it that he did not tell people to buy up Canadian currency; he told them to buy cryptocurrency, to opt out. He told them that the way to deal with inflation was to buy cryptocurrency.

Wow, what a brainer of an idea that was. Those individuals who followed that advice have lost 20%-plus, and some as high as, no doubt, 50% as a result. I do not know how many Conservative MPs followed that advice. Maybe the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did. I would not want to admit to that.

At the end of the day what I see are economic policies coming from the Conservative Party. Are they serious? Do we want to talk about contrast? Let us look at what the Conservatives are proposing for inflation. The Conservatives are criticizing the Bank of Canada. Do they not realize that for generations the Bank of Canada has been held accountable? There are different ways in which that is done. There are independent audits that are conducted and provided to the government. Do they not realize that there are reports? I will give them a tip. They can get copies of those reports to see what the Bank of Canada has been doing, to provide them assurances that they are independent private audits that are done every year on the Bank of Canada.

Why is this legislation necessary? If anything, the Conservative Party of Canada is doubling down on that bizarre idea of firing the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Does it not realize the consequence of the types of statements it is making? It actually hurts the Canadian economy. It plants seeds of doubt regarding confidence in the Bank of Canada, because technically it is recognized as the official opposition. It is supposed to be the party in waiting. Hopefully it will be many years, possibly decades, that it will be waiting in opposition, based on the types of things we hear coming from it.

Canadians need to be concerned about it. I can assure the members opposite that when I have the opportunity to talk about economic policy and issues, I do not hesitate to talk about some of the bizarre things that we hear coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. We need to establish and support the Bank of Canada as much as we can with respect to building that confidence.

Dealing with inflation, we just spent a couple of hours earlier this afternoon, and we are going to spend more hours this evening, talking about the issue of inflation. As a government, whether it is the Prime Minister or members from across this country, we are concerned about inflation. That is the reason we have legislation such as Bill C-30, which we were debating just an hour ago and which has fortunately passed. It took us a little while to convince the Conservatives to support it, but they did. Kudos to them.

In about an hour from now, we are going to be talking about Bill C-31, again to deal with inflation. The Conservatives still have not come onside with that one, which gives dental benefits to children under the age of 12. It also provides support for low-income renters. I would think they would want to support that too.

We could pass that and then we could maybe go on to Bill C-22 and talk about the disability legislation, which is again legislation that would make a difference and would help Canadians in every region of our country. Instead, the Conservatives are bringing forward bizarre bills like the one the member has brought here before us today, which reinforces statements that the current Conservative leader has put on the record with respect to the Bank of Canada and the lack of confidence they have in it.

Let us get behind good legislation and pass it, and maybe put a pass on this one.

Taxation

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, here is an idea. We can support dental care for kids with disabilities. Here is another idea. We can pass Bill C-22 and lift hundreds of thousands of persons with disabilities out of poverty. Those are two really big concrete things that we can deliver together for Canadians.

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, hopefully we can bring the debate back to Bill C-30 and the income support gaps that are hurting people right now in Canada.

These are short-term emergency income support gap measures that the New Democrats support. We know people need help with rent and food. I want to ask the member specifically about the long-term measures that need to be taken, because more Canadians are falling into poverty and homelessness. I speak specifically about persons with disabilities right now. Is this House going to see Bill C-22 come back this week?

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin discussing Bill C-30, I must stop to recognize that indigenous women and girls continue to be violated and marginalized at rates much higher than those in the general population.

Today is the National Day of Action for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. New Democrats add their voices to the collective call to bring an end to the injustices suffered by Canada's indigenous women and girls. I raise my hands to the members for Winnipeg Centre and Nunavut, who continue to advocate and bring understanding to this House of the causes of the systemic abuses that indigenous women and girls continue to experience and to hold the Liberal government accountable for its lack of action.

Bill C-30 is here at a very critical time for Canadians. There are too many struggling with the rising cost of living and the challenge of keeping rents paid and food in the fridge. The fact that there is a need for immediate financial support for millions of Canadians is not an accident. It is a result of bad Liberal and Conservative policies. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have prioritized tax breaks and subsidies for the wealthiest in this country while intentionally eroding the social safety nets that support the well-being of the majority of Canadians. Poverty and homelessness are growing in this country, and they are a reality in every city and town.

While fossil fuel companies and big corporate grocery chains are bringing in billions of dollars in profits, people are falling further and further behind. It is far past time the Liberal government needs to close the long-standing tax loopholes for the superwealthy and finally make large corporations and the largest polluters pay their fair share. It is no secret that corporate greed is hurting Canadians, and it has only increased and magnified like so many other things during this pandemic. While the Liberals and Conservatives protect the profits of the wealthiest corporations, persons with disabilities, single moms, seniors and families on fixed and low incomes are not able to afford to purchase fresh fruit, cheese or meats. Some of the moms I have spoken to in Port Moody—Coquitlam are limiting their meals to one a day so that they can afford to feed their kids.

After too many years of consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments making decisions to put corporations above everyday people, our social safety net is eroded. The social safety net that supports the well-being of Canadians has been eroded to the point that we are here today trying to put patches of immediate support in place.

New Democrats are here to act on this immediate need. We are using our power to get the government to send financial support out to people with Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. I include Bill C-31 because the two bills are connected. They are both offering immediate investments in the well-being of people, investments that never would have come from the government without the pressure from New Democrats.

New Democrats will not stop fighting for people even after these immediate benefits kick in. We will continue to force the government to do the right thing and put people first. We will continue to stop fossil fuel subsidies from going to the largest polluters, close tax loopholes for the wealthiest, stop the exploitation of workers and get our health care system back on track. The health care system is broken. We see it in our communities every day. A broken health care system is hurting people. Nurses have worked tirelessly, as well as doctors and hospital staff, to the extent that they are burnt-out and people who are sick are not getting access to the care they need.

We have all heard the heartbreaking stories in our communities of those who have gone to the hospital for help and have not been able to make it in time or have decided not to go at all with fatal consequences. The government must invest in care workers immediately and increase the health care transfers the provinces have been calling for.

One in five people in this country work in the care economy, and those professionals, personal care workers, nurses and doctors have been exploited. That exploitation comes from discrimination. Gender discrimination has kept wages low in nursing. Nurses, teachers and child care workers are all disproportionately women. The government has not invested in their wages or their pensions, yet it expects them to carry the burden of an overloaded and underfunded economy and underfunded system.

The care economy is underpinned by the exploitation of immigrants as well. More often they are women without secured status. This is unacceptable. Immigrants deserve better. They deserve investment and support. New Democrats will continue to force the government to respect the workers in the care economy by paying them properly, giving immigrant care workers immediate permanent status and giving long-term care workers the protection they deserve with legislation.

We need workers in this country. Labour shortages are happening in every industry. This is a real problem that the government has not brought any solutions to yet. When we think about the labour force, we know that unaffordable housing is exasperating this problem. Workers cannot afford to live where they work. The Conservatives under the Mulroney government and then the Liberals under Chrétien axed housing programs in this country. In fact, the Liberals outright cancelled the national affordable housing program in 1993. That was almost 30 years ago. That is why we have a housing crisis before us.

Bill C-31 has a $500 housing subsidy that is coming for renters. This is a small, good gesture. This housing benefit is a one-time $500 payment to Canadians who qualify. Specifically, it will help families who earn a net income of less than $35,000 a year. There are many people in Canada who earn less than $35,000 a year in this environment. That is 1.8 million Canadians. This renters' benefit will make a real difference at this critical time.

Financialization of housing needs to be addressed immediately. It is contributing to unaffordability. The Conservatives will say that they are there for people on housing, but they do not talk about the need for affordable housing and the right kind of housing. This is not just a supply issue. One in five Canadians are paying more than 30% of their total income for their housing and that is not sustainable. At the same time, for every new unit of affordable rental housing, 15 units are being lost. There are 15 units lost for every new one, and we wonder why we are seeing homelessness on our streets. This is affecting the most marginalized people in the country, pushing them every day to the brink, to a tent pitched in a street.

As the NDP disability critic, I hear from the disability community of the realities of not being able to make ends meet with skyrocketing housing costs and the threat of displacement every day. Food costs are also becoming unmanageable. As they wait for movement on the Canada disability benefit, they are falling further and further behind. Bill C-22 needs to come back to the House immediately so that the long-term support that persons living with disabilities deserve, and should be legislated, can be passed in the House.

Almost one million persons with disabilities are living in poverty. It is a disgrace. It will only take the will of the Liberals and Conservatives, who could have supported the unanimous consent motion from the member for Kitchener Centre last week, to fast-track this benefit. The New Democrats are ready to do so.

Coming back to the cost of food, in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, a disproportionate number of food bank and food rescue recipients are persons with disabilities, and more children are becoming food insecure. Too many schools are having to feed the children of our communities. We are in a country full of natural resources and with a new bursting aspiration to make batteries for electric vehicles, yet we are not investing in food. If it were not for the not-for-profit sector, even more Canadians would be hungry right now.

Failed policies to give to the rich while taking away social safety nets, such as affordable housing, are hurting people in this country. A beacon of the Canadian social safety net is our health care plan. Thanks to the New Democrats, that finally includes a historical dental care plan, which is a profound and long-lasting benefit for millions of Canadians and will be transformational for generations to come. We have heard many times while discussing Bill C-31 that the number one surgery for kids in hospitals is for tooth decay. How is it possible in Canada that kids need to go to the hospital to be put to sleep to deal with their dental care?

With the heavy lifting of the New Democrats, the Liberals have finally taken the first steps to true universal health care by adding long-awaited dental care. It should not have taken this long, and the New Democrats will hold the current government to account for a full rollout to every Canadian who needs it.

I will take a moment here to speak about persons with disabilities and their dental care. There was a woman in my riding who was on disability benefits and had coverage for dental care. However, the clinic she was going to was charging $20 per visit, and she could not go for her second visit because she did not have the $20. It is not acceptable that this is the situation we are putting too many Canadians in.

We know that 35% of Canadians lack proper dental insurance, and that number jumps to 50% when we talk about low-income Canadians. There are seven million Canadians who avoid going to the dentist because of costs. It is shameful and something that has to change. Canada's most vulnerable face the highest rates of dental decay and disease and have the worst dental care. The New Democrats are going to change that. We will not give up until all Canadians have access to the dental care they need. This is health care, and we need to start with kids.

Lastly, when it comes to getting immediate support to Canadians, the New Democrats led the way on Bill C-30, which would double the GST credit. This rebate should have come a lot sooner. In fact, for over six months, the NDP has been calling on the government to double the GST credit. We have relentlessly pushed for this, and now we know that 11 million Canadians who need it the most would get some financial relief, likely before the end of this year. People in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam are asking when they can get it. They are desperately in need of any kind of financial support in these times.

Because of successive Conservative and Liberal governments, we do not have social safety nets to keep people in homes, keep food in the fridge or keep people healthy in this country. With much pressure on the Liberal government from the NDP, and with no help from the Conservatives, the House is in a position to make lives just a tiny bit better for people by providing these very small income supports immediately. New Democrats will always put people first, but the Liberal government needs to start making real investments in people and their well-being in Canada.

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1 (Targeted Tax Relief)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the first question, I suggest the member sit down and talk with the Minister of Finance. I am sure the minister would be more than happy to provide an explanation as to why it might not be able to be done. I do not know the answer.

With regard to Bill C-22, I can assure the member that the minister responsible for the disability legislation is very eager and wants to see the legislation come back. Unfortunately, with a limited amount of House debate time, there is only so much legislation we can bring in. For example, I would have loved to debate that bill today, but the problem is that we have to get Bill C-30 through and Bill C-31.

There are a number of pieces of legislation. If we had more opportunities to bring forward government bills, that would probably be the ideal. For example, Bill C-30 is universally supported by all members of the House from what I can tell. Right after I sit down, we could pass it and go right to the disability bill. I would be in favour of that.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Winnipeg North that we need to get help to those who need it the most.

I have two questions for the parliamentary secretary. First, refundable tax credits like the GST are indexed annually to inflation. It could be indexed on a quarterly basis, as is the case for seniors' benefits already. Why is it not in this bill?

Second, on the disability benefit, last night on the floor of the House, I asked the parliamentary secretary for a timeline for when Bill C-22 would be brought back to the floor of the House. It has been up for debate once so far. This is about ensuring some trust from the disability community to follow through on the benefit. We are not seeing any demonstration of that yet. Can the parliamentary secretary commit to a date when Bill C-22 will be back for debate on the floor of the House?

Persons with Disabilities

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

Madam Speaker, we know we need to address the long-standing financial insecurity that is the lived reality of far too many working age Canadians with disabilities. With Bill C-22, we are clearly demonstrating our commitment to lifting persons with disabilities out of poverty. As we wait for the bill to be passed, we are working diligently with all our partners to lay the groundwork for the next steps.

We will continue building on the success of the past years, such as the Accessible Canada Act and the poverty reduction strategy. We are already working with our partners to iron out all the details so that Bill C-22 can move quickly through the House.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, respectfully, this is not my advocacy. In fact, it was the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam who put forward a unanimous consent motion in the House calling on the governing party to move more quickly on the Canada disability benefit. Therefore, I will reiterate the five questions I shared, in the hope of getting an answer to at least one of them. I have not heard an answer to any of the five yet.

First, when can the parliamentary secretary commit to Bill C-22 being back on the floor of the House?

Second, where do the negotiations stand with provincial and territorial partners?

Third, why not use existing lists from existing disability support programs?

Fourth, when will the government commit to ensuring the benefit is funded?

Fifth, what will the government do in the short term to provide emergency supports for those who need it most?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend, the MP for Kitchener Centre, for his words this evening, his sense of urgency and his tireless advocacy on behalf of Canadians with disabilities.

As my colleague the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion has already said, we are not playing games. We are not playing games when our fellow citizens are facing poverty. We do not play games; we take action. That is exactly what we have been doing since forming government in 2015.

Our work began with the Accessible Canada Act, which led to the creation of Accessibility Standards Canada. Recently, the act also led to the appointment of Canada's first chief accessibility officer, as well as Canada's first accessibility commissioner to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. What is more, we launched the first-ever National AccessAbility Week in 2019.

When the pandemic hit, we provided a one-time payment of up to $600 to persons with disabilities, a payment that was expanded to include the 1.75 million Canadians who receive federal disability benefits. We are also providing income supports to students. We are making other investments to increase employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.

Allow me to mention that budget 2022 strengthened support for an employment strategy for persons with disabilities. It accomplishes this by providing more than $270 million for its implementation through the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention that we launched Canada's first poverty reduction strategy, which recognizes that, for many reasons, certain groups of Canadians are more vulnerable to poverty. Right now, we are working hard to create Canada's very first disability inclusion action plan. The cornerstone of that plan is the groundbreaking Canada disability benefit. Bill C-22 defines an approach that would establish the Canada disability benefit in legislation.

I understand very much that my hon. colleague would like Bill C-22 to move through the House quickly. I too want nothing more than to see Canadians with disabilities receive the new Canada disability benefit as quickly as possible. That is why, in the spirit of “nothing without us”, we have been working tirelessly alongside the disability community, as well as with the provinces and territories, to ensure that every person who receives the Canada disability benefit will be better off because of it.

It is true there is more work to do. I agree with my colleague that time is of the essence. As the hon. minister has said in the House, I encourage all of my colleagues to work together to pass Bill C-22. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to significantly reduce poverty for hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities. Let us not miss that opportunity.

We know persons with disabilities have waited a long time for this. That is why we are working as quickly and as efficiently as possible to deliver the historic Canada disability benefit. We are proud of this work.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to come back to the need to urgently move forward with the Canada disability benefit. For every day this is not funded, 1.5 million Canadians with disabilities will continue to live in legislated poverty. In my home province of Ontario, for example, the Ontario disability support program is a meagre $1,169. The shelter allowance is less than $500. It is not enough for a single apartment in Kitchener.

Many, of course, are disappointed that this is the same bill tabled back in June 2021, so more than anything else, this is about trust. The governing party needs to demonstrate it is serious about following through on the Canada disability benefit. This includes moving the legislation forward, Bill C-22, with openness to amendments that would improve it, as well as funding the benefit.

Tonight, I have five questions for the parliamentary secretary from the disability community.

The first is whether the governing party is going to demonstrate that Bill C-22 is a legislative priority. We had the first day of debate on this two weeks ago, and it is not projected to be back until we break at the end of this week. We know that every day delayed is another day that Canadians with disabilities live in legislated poverty. Every day matters, so I am hoping the parliamentary secretary will answer when he can commit to having Bill C-22 back for debate in this House.

Second, the minister said that negotiations with the provinces are an issue, so I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can share where the negotiations stand, what meetings have been had and what the sticking points are.

Third, the minister also shared that another slowdown, in her view, is the need to sort out eligibility, yet we know there are existing federal, provincial and territorial programs that the Canada disability benefit would supplement. The question is why this is taking so long. It has been over two years since it was promised in the 2020 Speech from the Throne, and we know that existing program eligibility lists can and should be used as a starting point. Also, the minister continually refers to “working age” Canadians with disabilities when we know that 10% of Canadians over the age of 65 with a disability are living in poverty. Is the intention not to include them as well?

Fourth, let us not gloss over the important need to fund the benefit. If done properly, this would be a significant investment, but as someone who has advocated often about the climate crisis in this place, I know the federal government has recently committed $8.6 billion to oil and gas companies for a new tax credit for carbon capture and storage. The fact is that budgets are about priorities, so the governing party has the opportunity to demonstrate that Canadians with disabilities are a priority. When will it commit to a timeline for funding the Canada disability benefit? Is it the fall economic statement, budget 2023 or something else?

Last, the minister has estimated that this could take 12 to 18 months. Those living with a disability will continue to live in poverty throughout this time. I am hearing from Canadians with disabilities who are applying for medical assistance in dying because they feel they have no other option since they cannot afford to live. The federal government is letting them down when we know from the pandemic that it is possible to move urgently when the moment calls for it. What is the federal government prepared to do to provide emergency funds in the short term?

Opposition Motion—Moratorium on New Taxes

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much we can do, like advocating here in the House. As I said in my speech, I just want all of us to come together. Let us move forward so that we can get Bill C-22 passed.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member for Mississauga—Streetsville for her support of an open letter last April calling on the government to immediately reintroduce Bill C-22 and get support to Canadians with disabilities. In the member's speech, she mentioned some MPs who blocked yesterday's unanimous consent motion, which was disappointing. However, what is also true is that the governing party could bring back Bill C-22 for debate as soon as Monday, but it is not.

What can the member do to press for Bill C-22 to be brought back for debate in the House and for emergency supports for Canadians with disabilities in the meantime?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

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

Today's motion deals with affordability, so I see this as an opportunity to discuss poverty. Recently in the House, we debated Bill C-22. The intent of that bill is to lift Canadians out of poverty and to help make things affordable for persons with disabilities. Allow me to explain why Bill C-22 must continue forward. I am disappointed that the Conservatives stopped a unanimous consent motion to move Bill C-22 to committee yesterday. It is my sincere hope that they will explain their reasoning to Canadians.

In the past, the disability community has often been left out or even forgotten. Since forming government in 2015, we have worked tirelessly to include the disability community in policy-making from the start. We are bold in taking action to ensure that no one is left behind, so that everyone feels like a fully participating member of society. Despite all the efforts and achievements of the past few years, the pandemic has taught us some really hard lessons, one of them being that we need to do more to make life affordable for working-age persons with disabilities. Bill C-22 would help address these issues. It aims to create the Canada disability benefit, which would add to the financial assistance already available from provinces and territories.

Guillaume Parent is the president and founder of the wealth management firm Finandicap, which specializes in financial services for persons with disabilities. Originally founded in Quebec City, Finandicap now operates across Canada.

In an interview with the CBC, Mr. Parent said that people are suffering a lot, especially because of the rising cost of living. His clients often face extra costs for adaptive housing, public transit and personal support workers. As a person living with cerebral palsy himself, this is his lived reality. All of the expenses he lists make life less affordable and push the poverty line higher for persons with disabilities. In Quebec, disability benefits are indexed to inflation and, in Mr. Parent's view, the problem is that these increases take effect long after prices have already gone up. Mr. Parent adds that governments need to recognize and adapt to this reality. This is what we are trying to achieve through Bill C-22.

In my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville, Luso Canadian Charitable Society is an incredible organization that helps Canadians with disabilities and provides critical services to many members of our local community. Luso provides a safe, supportive and caring environment for individuals and supports families living with physical or developmental disabilities. A month ago, I had the amazing opportunity to celebrate one of Luso's members, Paul, who turned 60, which is an incredible milestone to achieve. I was happy to celebrate his birthday with him.

We recognize that we have a responsibility to do more for Canadians. Working-age persons with disabilities need our help. Bill C-22 would supplement, not replace, other government programs. If Bill C-22 moves forward, then the Canada disability benefit would be introduced. The Canada disability benefit would make life more affordable for hundreds of thousands of persons with disabilities by lifting them out of poverty.

We are working hard to give all Canadians a little breathing room. In fact, we recently announced that we will be putting in place additional measures to make life more affordable for Canadians who need them most. Those measures would do things like double the GST credit for six months and provide a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit to deliver $500 to 1.8 million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing.

The bottom line is that we are doing the work to help make life more affordable for Canadians across the country, and that includes hundreds of thousands of persons with disabilities. In the spirit of affordability and in the spirit of lifting Canadians out of poverty, Bill C-22 must continue to move forward. Working-age Canadians with disabilities depend on it.

For my Conservative colleagues, it is time to get back to work so that we can pass a bill like Bill C-22 to help those who need it most.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, let me thank the member opposite and all Conservative members for their support in advancing Bill C-30, which is critical support at this time on the issue of affordability. I want to thank them for helping to move it to committee and for their work to move it through committee. It will be our priority next week to ensure that those critical supports are passed.

In response to the question of whether we will cease taking action on climate change, I note we will never stop fighting for this planet. We recognize that the climate and the economy are intricately bound. However, I would suggest, as my hon. colleague has suggested, that we have critical supports for vulnerable people. An example is Bill C-22. It needs to be adopted so that those who are disabled in this country can be lifted out of poverty. I would suggest there are families that need dental care, and that is covered in Bill C-31. I would suggest there are people who need support on housing, and that is also covered in Bill C-31.

The good news for the member opposite is there are many ways he can help as we work through the affordability crisis that is hitting across the globe.

On Monday, we are going to continue with second reading of Bill C-31, which I referenced earlier. It is an act respecting the cost-of-living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

On Wednesday, we will call Bill S-5 concerning the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I would also like to inform the House that next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Persons with Disabilities

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not have that in front of me right now.

What I can tell this member is that the House leader's office on this side of the House certainly works with the House leaders' offices on all sides of the House. We have a very good understanding and relationship with the NDP. I would encourage the member to encourage her House leadership to push this forward.

She knows just as well as I do that games unfortunately sometimes happen in this House that prevent legislation from going through. Let us work together to get this to committee so that we can have a meaningful impact.

I know my words might ring hollow because she has heard them many times before. I can assure the member that this side of the House is passionate about moving as quickly as possible to get Bill C-22 passed so that we can get those who need it the most the resources they require.

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

Madam Speaker, tonight I have heard a lot of the same goals: quick, efficient and wanting to bring it in as soon as possible.

I see that there is space next week on the legislative agenda. I think there is an opportunity to have Bill C-22 come back to the House so that we could get it to committee. Will this bill come back for debate next week?

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

Madam Speaker, I want nothing more, as does the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, than to see Canadians with disabilities receive the new Canada disability benefit as quickly as possible.

We understand that people have concerns about the timing of the benefit. In the spirit of “nothing without us”, we have been working tirelessly alongside the disability community, as well as the provinces and territories, to ensure that every person who receives the Canada disability benefit would be better off because of it.

Let us be clear. We need the disability community's input at every step of the design of the benefit, as I am sure the member would agree. We also need to work with provinces and territories to ensure that there are no clawbacks to other benefits that already exist, as has come up in debate in this House regarding Bill C-22.

Bill C-22 is, as the member indicated, groundbreaking framework legislation. If it becomes law, we would establish regulations that define the benefit amounts, eligibility criteria and other details. Parliament would have the opportunity to review it three years after it comes into effect. I would note that this time frame is actually shorter than the usual parliamentary review. That is because we are committed to ensuring that the Canada disability benefit meets the needs of working-age persons with disabilities.

Just last summer, with funding provided through budget 2021, we launched extensive consultations with the disability community and with national indigenous organizations, as well as with provincial and territorial governments, to seek their input on their experiences and needs.

It is important to understand the Canada disability benefit is part of a continuum of bold, historic actions that our government has taken to advance accessibility and the rights of persons with disabilities. These actions include the Accessible Canada Act, the Canada poverty reduction strategy and the development of the first-ever disability inclusion action plan. Of course the key component to our action plan is the Canada disability benefit, which would help reduce poverty for hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities.

If passed, Bill C-22 would establish guiding principles and objectives for the new benefit. It would also allow the Governor in Council to implement the benefit's design components through regulation. The sooner Bill C-22 passes, the sooner the Canada disability benefit could be implemented. That means we would be able to help the people who need it the most. We know persons with disabilities have been waiting a long time for this. That is why we are working as quickly and efficiently as possible to deliver this historic benefit.

I would also indicate to the member that I know she asked a question specifically about an amendment. She is asking if the government would work with the NDP, or if the Liberal members would work with the NDP, in committee to make these amendments. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to pre-empt the work that those members would do. I look forward to seeing the report that this member and all members of the committee will bring to the House. I am sure that if what she is recommending makes sense and is a good proposal, it would be taken very seriously by the members of the Liberal Party who sit on that committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I am here to express once again the frustrations of people with disabilities as they continue to wait for a Canada disability benefit. We know they face too many challenges that are only increasing with the rising cost of food and the skyrocketing prices of homes and rent. The situation is dire.

The government must act now to get the Canada disability benefit into people's bank accounts. When will the Liberal government make that happen? New Democrats are ready to do the work to make the Canada disability benefit the best it can be for people. To make sure it truly protects persons with disabilities from a life of poverty, we have proposed an amendment to Bill C-22 that would enshrine adequacy and provide protection.

Right now, people in the disability community are hopeful that they will finally be prioritized by the Liberal government. Will the government prioritize their well-being and accept the NDP's ask for adequacy to be enshrined in this legislation? Persons with disabilities are legally entitled to adequacy, and this new benefit must be accountable to a measurement tool that provides it. That accountability is currently missing from Bill C-22.

The government has an obligation to uphold the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to ensure dignity and full equality for all. This includes necessary income supports. Dire financial circumstances are the reality for too many people with disabilities, and the longer they have to wait for the promised disability benefit, the more they are being abandoned.

Since 2015, the Liberals have spoken about the importance of lifting people with disabilities out of poverty, yet their actions do not match those words. It is beyond time for the government to do better and to use the measuring tools available to ensure that any legislation that is meant to end poverty actually reaches that goal.

I am committed to working with the government to make this happen. Bill C-22 has the potential to be the first and only bill in Canada that actually legislates people out of poverty. Let us imagine that: one bill that can almost cut poverty in half with one or two simple sentences.

Will the Liberal government work with the NDP to turn its aspiration statement into a reality and amend the bill in committee to include an amendment for adequacy that would actually make sure persons with disabilities are lifted out of poverty, and will it do so now?

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the motion 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 and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, be deemed adopted on division, deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that working-age persons with disabilities in Canada are twice as likely to live in poverty as those without. That is why we have taken action to build a Canada that is disability inclusive. In 2019, we passed the groundbreaking Accessible Canada Act, legislation that aims to realize a barrier-free Canada. Yesterday, Bill C-22, Canada Disability Benefit Act began second reading.

Can the Hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion please share with the House how the Canada disability benefit will help lift working-age persons with disabilities out of poverty?

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[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, 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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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, 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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can we do that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the pandemic hit, the situation only got worse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persons with Disabilities

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

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

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

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

moved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us take a look at some of those bills.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persons with Disabilities

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

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

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