Bill C-81 (Historical)

Accessible Canada Act

An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada

This enactment enacts the Accessible Canada Act in order to enhance the full and equal participation of all persons, especially persons with disabilities, in society. This is to be achieved through the realization, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, of a Canada without barriers, particularly by the identification, removal and prevention of barriers.
Part 1 of the Act establishes the Minister’s mandate, powers, duties and functions.
Part 2 of the Act establishes the Canadian Accessibility Standards Development Organization and provides for its mandate and structure and its powers, duties and functions.
Part 3 of the Act authorizes the Accessibility Commissioner to provide the Minister with information, advice and written reports in respect of the administration and enforcement of the Act. It also requires the Accessibility Commissioner to submit an annual report on his or her activities under the Act to the Minister for tabling in Parliament.
Part 4 of the Act imposes duties on regulated entities that include the duty to prepare accessibility plans and progress reports in consultation with persons with disabilities, the duty to publish those plans and reports and the duty to establish a feedback process and to publish a description of it.
Part 5 of the Act provides for the Accessibility Commissioner’s inspection and other powers, including the power to make production orders and compliance orders and the power to impose administrative monetary penalties.
Part 6 of the Act provides for a complaints process for, and the awarding of compensation to, individuals that have suffered physical or psychological harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of — or that have otherwise been adversely affected by — the contravention of provisions of the regulations.
Part 7 of the Act provides for the appointment of the Chief Accessibility Officer and sets out that officer’s duties and functions, including the duty to advise the Minister in respect of systemic or emerging accessibility issues.
Part 8 of the Act authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations, including regulations to establish accessibility standards and to specify the form of accessibility plans and progress reports. It also provides, among other things, for the designation of the week starting on the last Sunday in May as National AccessAbility Week.
Part 9 of the Act provides for the application of certain provisions of the Act to parliamentary entities, without limiting the powers, privileges and immunities of the Senate, the House of Commons and the members of those Houses.
Parts 10 and 11 of the Act make related and consequential amendments to certain Acts.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time this afternoon with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

With the cost of living crisis soaring in our country, many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. For Canadians with a disability, who have higher living costs, those costs are disproportionate. In addition to the surging costs of essentials like groceries, fuel, housing and home heating, persons with disabilities also face extra costs for their personal care needs above and beyond other Canadians.

The ever-deepening affordability crisis is unmanageable. All Canadians deserve the opportunity to live full lives and participate fully in society.

The creation of a Canada disability benefit had the potential to significantly improve the financial security and overall well-being of persons with disabilities. The potential was understood across this chamber, and that is why this bill saw cross-partisan support. Any delays in the passage of the bill was at the hands of the Liberal government itself, whether that was the COVID election or its own management, or mismanagement, of the government calendar.

When the Liberals put forward Bill C-22, they proudly boasted repeatedly that the Canada disability benefit would be a once in a generation opportunity to lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. Shamefully, the then-minister for disability inclusion was simply making grandiose promises to Canadians with disabilities that the Liberals simply did not keep. Instead of taking accountability for their broken promises, they are still going around patting themselves on the back.

The 20th report from the human resources committee calls on the Liberal government to address very specific issues around this benefit: that it ensure the benefit will not result in clawbacks of provincial benefits and takes into account its relationship with existing entitlements, including federal ones; that the benefit will be adequate; that it take into consideration the heightened cost of living crisis faced by persons with disabilities; that it will be accessible to those who need it and should be eligible; and that the government will collaborate. All this needs to be said or asked for because it was simply not in Bill C-22.

The Liberal government tabled in Parliament what it had dubbed “framework legislation”. Ultimately, it is legislation that allows Liberals to establish the most important details behind closed doors without the scrutiny of Parliament. By design, they chose to determine all the details of the benefit during the regulatory process, making that a more cumbersome process completely lacking in transparency. That is why Bill C-22 saw so many amendments in the human resource committee and also in the Senate, which the coalition government rejected.

When Bill C-22 received royal assent, the most critical details of the bill were still unknown. Who would be eligible for the benefit? What would the application process be? How would this benefit interact with other provincial programs? All those details were unknown because the government refused to present them. The Liberals wanted to do it all behind closed doors at a snail's pace. These are really pertinent and critical details.

At the time that Bill C-22 was being considered, the then-minister of disability inclusion made statements that the clawbacks of provincial supports would be a red line in her negotiations with the provinces, but there is no legislative guarantee to that. A Conservative amendment that would have prevented clawbacks at the federal level was rejected by the Liberal government members.

The Conservatives put forward amendments to increase transparency in the regulatory process, amendments like broadening consultation requirements and increasing transparency in negotiations between the federal government and the provincial governments. The Liberal government rejected these amendments and, with the help of its NDP coalition, omitted all substantive elements of the benefit from the legislation.

This approach of framework legislation expects us, as parliamentarians, to put our trust in the minister and the Liberal government. However, more important, it expects Canadians with disabilities and advocates to put their trust in the Liberal Government. Of course, we know now with great certainty that the trust was not warranted. It is those who cannot afford it the least who are most impacted by the Liberal government’s broken promises.

The Liberal government’s aversion to timelines, parameters and scrutiny offers little confidence in it and its aspirations. As I speak, the human resources committee is hearing from witnesses on the government’s progress toward its goal of a barrier-free Canada by 2040. What we have heard in this study affirms what we heard more than six years ago when the committee was studying Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act. Witness after witness told the committee that the Accessible Canada Act had great intentions and set really nice goals and ideas, but that the bill itself was devoid of any assurances that it would be enforced or implemented efficiently or, quite frankly, even at all.

The Accessible Canada Act received royal assent more than five years ago, but progress toward a barrier-free Canada by 2040 has been minimal, at best. Witnesses are saying that federally regulated entities are unsure of their responsibilities and requirements. To date, there is only one single legal regulatory obligation, which is to provide an accessibility plan, a plan that does not require timelines or accountability.

We are not going to see progress toward an inclusive and barrier-free Canada with half measures. There needs to be realistic goals established. The expectations on federally regulated entities need to be in plain language. Parliament needs to lead by example. We should not have barriers preventing persons with disabilities from testifying as witnesses in Parliament, but the reality is that we do.

The Accessible Canada Act was an example of the Liberal government making nice promises that sounded great, but when persons with disabilities gave it feedback and pleaded for changes to the bill, they were told to trust the government and then, subsequently, were ignored. The disability benefit is the exact same song and dance just a few short years later.

The disability benefit is not set to be rolled out until July 2025. This means that it will have taken the coalition government five years to decide to provide up to a maximum of $200 a month for recipients who have a valid disability tax credit certificate. The asks in the report from the HUMA committee are certainly not being met by the government. More important, the needs of the disability community are not being met or even heard in a way that is meaningful.

The Prime Minister and the Liberal government have repeatedly broken promises that they have made by failing to live up to the expectation they set for themselves. The cost of living crisis in our country is unmanageable and the costly coalition's harmful policies continue to make everything more expensive. Every Canadian should be able to participate fully in society. They should be able to clothe, house and feed themselves. However, we know that for far too many Canadians that is not the reality, especially those with disabilities.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to this particular legislation before it went to committee for proposed amendments, or the hopeful change of amendments. At that time, I raised some very serious concerns that I had about the changes proposed, through the legislation, to the parameters around medical assistance in dying. I shared my concerns that with the removal of existing safeguards, this legislation was eroding protections for vulnerable persons.

Countless medical professionals and advocates for persons with disabilities have come forward to express their great concern with this legislation, but it seems that the government is more concerned with rushing to pass this legislation than with listening to the serious and valid concerns they have. These doctors have lived experience with vulnerable populations, and a deep understanding of not only the demand for medical assistance in dying, but also of broader medical needs. It is reprehensible that their voices are being ignored. We have to ensure that personal autonomy does not supersede the protection of vulnerable persons. When the consequences of getting this wrong are life-ending, we really cannot afford to get this wrong.

We know that Conservatives put forward a number of reasonable amendments to reinstate protections that the Liberal government would remove through this legislation. These amendments were sought in good faith to better protect vulnerable persons, such as reinstating the 10-day reflection period when death was reasonably foreseeable, maintaining the requirement for two independent witnesses or even requiring that patients be the ones to first request information on medical assistance in dying. I am beyond disappointed that these proposed amendments were rejected.

We have heard the testimonies and read the stories that persons with disabilities and elderly Canadians are being offered medical assistance in dying without requesting the service. In those moments, the underlying message being communicated to them is that their lives are “less than”, and that is just not okay. It is not okay for us to create the legislative framework that perpetuates ageism and ableism. Every life has value and every life is worthy of protection.

If members opposite do not believe Conservatives, disability advocates or medical professionals that this is happening, maybe they will listen to the words of their colleague, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. In speaking to Senate members about the personal experience of Roger Foley, a person with a disability who was offered, unsolicited, medically assisted death, the minister said:

I absolutely acknowledge and am quite preoccupied by the power imbalance between practitioners and patients, particularly patients who have been in systems that have discriminated against them and ignored their voices their entire lives. I have grave concerns with the particular circumstances of the individual that you spoke of. Quite frankly, I can tell you, he is not alone. I regularly hear from families who are appalled by the fact that they take their child, potentially their older child, in and are offered unprovoked MAID. I think that has to stop. That’s a matter of practice, I would suggest, and we need to get at that through our regulations, through working with our medical associations.

I agree with the minister. This has to stop. Every life is valuable, disability or not.

The rejected Conservative amendment to require patients to be the ones to first request information on medical assistance in dying could help that, but the legislative changes proposed in this bill, to make same-day medically assisted death available and to remove the requirement for the second witness, certainly would not make it stop. A person with a disability who may already feel disempowered would not be empowered by these proposed changes.

In the previous Parliament, I sat on the HUMA committee during the study of the accessibility act, Bill C-81. The guiding principle of that particular piece of legislation was to ensure the full and equal participation in society for persons with disabilities. I have to wonder how we can ensure their full participation in society while eroding these protections in the medical assistance in dying framework.

Why are we not listening to the disability advocates who are sounding the alarm? These advocates are telling us that the removal of existing safeguards in medical assistance in death has the potential to devalue the lives of vulnerable persons.

The other significant piece of this conversation is that we cannot truly assert that we are giving Canadians personal autonomy if there is no real choice. If palliative care and medical care needs are not available to a person, but medically assisted death is readily available, there is a problem.

The legislation passed in the previous Parliament required that an in-depth, five-year parliamentary review of the original medical assistance in dying legislation occur, and that the review also consider the state of palliative care in Canada. This government is recklessly pushing through this legislation before that work is done.

The reality is that we already know there is inadequate access to palliative care in Canada. There have been countless studies, and we hear it from medical professionals. We hear it from those who are seeking palliative care and from their advocates. Certainly, this legislation would be better informed if that in-depth parliamentary review had already occurred, and that would be the appropriate order of consideration.

As we navigate COVID-19, we certainly cannot ignore how the quality of care and physical restrictions might impact vulnerable persons. The story of Nancy Russell, who sought medically assisted death rather than face another lockdown in her care home, is heartbreaking. We can certainly imagine that Nancy was not alone in those feelings of loneliness and hopelessness.

First, this story emphasized to me the need for better supports in our care homes. COVID-19 has exposed the acute challenges in long-term care in Canada. These challenges have only been compounded by the pandemic. This government has a responsibility to ensure that there is adequate access to masks and rapid testing, so that our seniors are not forced into endless isolation to the point that ending their lives feels preferable.

Second, this story reinforced my strong belief that we have to be cautious that we are not promoting MAID to those who are experiencing moments of hopelessness. We have to ensure that we are delivering better and adequate supports and services to all Canadians. We need to ensure that there is adequate access to palliative care and home care needs. We have to make efforts to ensure dignity in living, not only dignity in dying. Without ensuring this, we are in fact eroding personal autonomy, and then choice is skewed. In effect, without true personal autonomy in the decision, there is no dignity in dying either.

I implore my colleagues in the House to pay attention to the alarms that have been sounded by so many Canadians, including countless medical health professionals and disability advocates. I ask them to seriously consider the impact of removing vital safeguards for medical assistance in dying, to consider making efforts to address systemic ageism and ableism and not reinforce it, and to not endanger the lives of vulnerable persons by allowing respect for individual autonomy to outweigh the protection of vulnerable persons.

In my view, the proposed legislation does not find that balance. We must do better to protect vulnerable persons, in fact, on all issues, but even more so on issues of life or death.

We owe it to Canadians to properly consult, review and consider legislation. They deserve that from us.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, surely the member cannot be as unaware of the arguments that people have been making, including in the media, about the reality of the effects of this, at least as unaware as he may have been about the process that Bill C-81 followed in the House.

Eligible media organizations are precisely the hinge point in this issue. It is the government, through this panel, that will determine who should be considered eligible to access this funding and who should not. Yes, we are talking about something that involves a cost to government of $600 million.

Therefore, there is a cost, and it only applies to eligible media organizations. The member knows that who fits into that box and who does not will be decided by a panel that includes Unifor. I did not just make that up. It was not an invention of the opposition. Anybody who reads the papers or consults the independent media about which he speaks will know that the government has created this panel, it does in fact include Unifor and that many of the leading journalistic voices in the country have criticized it.

Persons with Disabilities

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of our third annual National AccessAbility Week, and of course with Bill C-81 having gone through this House last week, I can assure every Canadian that we will find jobs for these workers. In fact, we are showing them the dignity of giving them meaningful work so that they contribute to government operations.

I have been working with the organization. No one will be without a job.

Opposition Motion—News Media Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way has a habit of debating things in the House that he clearly has not read about, because he is not aware of what this motion is about. The motion is about the inclusion of Unifor in the distribution of funds.

Yesterday he went after me on Twitter, saying that I had put Bill C-81 at risk of not passing because it might not have time to go through the Senate. Actually, he did not know that when we were debating Bill C-81, it had already passed the Senate, and we were debating Senate amendments. He has a habit, without reading or understanding the detail, whether it is Bill C-81 or this motion, of taking strong opinions and attacking people.

Let me be very clear for the benefit of the member: This party will always stand up for small businesses. We do not accuse small business owners of being tax cheats; we create a competitive environment that is beneficial for small businesses and entrepreneurs, which includes journalists. That does not include having Jerry Dias at Unifor involved in deciding who gets a government bailout. That is not something that we see as part of an agenda to advance and protect small business.

Persons with Disabilities

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Karki, age 66 and 69, missed their flight from Vancouver to Edmonton after being left in their wheelchairs without assistance for hours at the airport. They could not go to a washroom or even get a drink of water.

The Liberal government passed an accessibility act that exempts the Canadian Transportation Agency from enforcing it. How can we rely on airlines to include people with disabilities when Liberals failed to make it mandatory in Bill C-81?

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that Prince Edward Islander Hannah MacLellan will be representing Canada at a UN conference on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in New York next week.

At 20, Hannah has already made her mark in P.E.I. politics. She was the driving force in the adoption of a bill known as Hannah's Bill, which passed through the P.E.I. legislature in 2016.

While working toward a degree in human rights and disability studies, Hannah has been an active member of the Carleton University Young Liberals and is a valuable employee in my office. She has been a fixture in the gallery of this place, especially during the debate on the government's bill to create a barrier-free Canada. Hannah most recently represented the riding of Cardigan in Parliament for Daughters of the Vote, where she gave an impassioned speech on Bill C-81.

I am proud to say that persons with disabilities have a formidable advocate in Ms. MacLellan. Today also happens to be her birthday. I wish Hannah a happy birthday.

Persons with Disabilities

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility)]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that all Canadians deserve to have the same opportunities and chances at success. Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, was passed with unanimous consent this week. Once it receives royal assent, it will allows us to transition from a system where Canadians with disabilities have to fight for every basic access, to a new system that systematically identifies and prevents barriers from the start. This legislation reflects the work and commitment of those in the disability community who, for years, have been tireless advocates of an accessible Canada. This success is theirs.

Criminal Records Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to speak to Bill C-93. However, before I do, I want to congratulate all my fellow Albertans celebrating carbon tax freedom day. I also want to thank the new provincial government in Alberta for keeping its promise, which is something my friends across the way do not know. Maybe they can wait for the translation. It kept its campaign promise to repeal that bill. I also want to take this opportunity to wish our new premier, Premier Jason Kenney, a happy birthday.

Bill C-93 is a bill basically to provide no-cost expedited record suspensions for those who received a criminal record for pot possession. It proposes to make changes to the pardon process to waive the fees for past pot possession convictions. It will assist Canadians who were criminalized for possession of pot that is now legal, waive the usual wait time and also amend other acts.

We generally support the bill, but I have to agree with my colleague from the riding of Victoria, and it is a dad joke, when he called it half-baked. We will support the bill. It is not perfect, but it is a step forward. I am sure when the Conservatives are back in power, we will take the time to fix the weaknesses in the bill.

The Conservatives at committee put through several valid amendments, which I will discuss here.

First, we put forward an amendment to allow for record suspension applications to be made through an online portal to make it easier and most cost-effective for Canadians to apply. Unfortunately, that was voted down by the Liberals.

We put forward an amendment to allow for applicants whose records had been destroyed to sign an affidavit explaining their circumstances and swearing that they were eligible. This would bring procedural fairness, which was criticized by several witnesses. It was originally passed at committee and then unfortunately defeated by the Liberals at a later stage.

We put forward an amendment to reinstate the Parole Board's power to cause inquiries to be made to determine the applicant's conduct since the day of conduct. It was unfortunately defeated by the Liberals.

We also put put forward an amendment with respect the Parole Board's power to cause inquiries with respect to any factors that may be considered in determining whether ordering the record suspension would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. That was also defeated by the Liberals at committee.

Finally, we put forward an amendment to require that the Parole Board include in its annual report a review of the success rate of this legislation and the associated costs. This actually was approved.

The Canadian Police Association put forward an amendment, which we hope the Liberals will consider. This is the police asking that the Parole Board retain limited flexibility and discretion to conduct investigations and to ensure that the small number of applications from habitual offenders, not all, are vetted. This would ensure that these individuals would not take advantage of a process that was clearly not intended for their cases.

There are some fiscal implications of the bill.

The Department of Public Safety and the Minister of Public Safety think it is around $2 million. They have not done any fulsome studies, but they guess it is around $2 million. It is funny timing for the minister to say that, basically at the same time the Senate has forced through Bill C-81, the new backdoor gun registry bill.

I want people to think back to the Liberal government years ago and Allan Rock. The government said that the gun registration would only be $2 million. It ended up well over a billion. It ended up costing Canadian taxpayers about $1.3 billion. Of course, with this massive spending oversight, what did the Liberal government do? Much like it does today with all its other mistakes, errors and incompetence. It blames someone else. It blames the provinces and the gun owners themselves.

[Member spoke in Latin and provided the following translation:]

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

[Member spoke in Latin and provided the following translation:]

Beware of Liberals promising just $2 million costs.

[English]

The government apparently has not done a proper study on the costs or timelines. The fee previously was $631, which I understand had been moved up previously in 2012, on advice of bureaucrats who said that was the general cost of arranging the cost of the suspension. Now the government is saying it expects it to be $250. Where did $250 to the penny come from? We do not know because they have not done their homework on it.

It is currently five to 10 years to get the suspension, but the public safety minister said he could not offer a timeline as to when that would happen. He said that the critical point was not the cost or the actual timeline to help Canadians; it was getting the bill tabled. It was not the actual results helping Canadians, but it was the announcement of getting this bill tabled.

I have to ask, why now? The government has also said this is fundamental transformation. If it is critical and a fundamental transformation, I have to ask why the government waited until the final three weeks to put the bill through. Obviously it has been rushed through for political reasons.

I have looked at the departmental plans, and remember these are the plans that the minister signs and that are tabled in the House. This is not just nominal propaganda; these are actual documents tabled in the House, showing the government's plans for its departments.

These are the Liberals' targets for this year. The percentage of record suspensions that are processed within an established time frame is 95%, but the Minister of Public Safety says there is no time frame. Why would they commit to a target of 95%, table these numbers in the House and at the same time tell Canadians they do not know where they are going to help. I do not know if they do not have a clue, do not know what they are doing with their departmental plans or are just being disingenuous.

I also note that the departmental plans for 2018-19 for the Parole Board go out three years. When we factor in just 2% inflation, they are cutting 8.6% of the Parole Board's spending. This is in the Parole Board's departmental plans. These are actual plans, submitted in the House for long-range forecasts, which show they are cutting 8.6% of Parole Board funding.

When the member for Yellowhead submitted an amendment at committee, suggesting that people be able to apply online for this, members were told by the Parole Board that it could not offer it because of technical limitations. Apparently they do not have enough money to develop the technology, but at the same time we are going to allow this new process with up to 250,000 Canadians applying.

When we look at the Parole Board's departmental plans, which are also required to show labour going forward, they have not added a single body from the 2016-17 year. From last year to next year, they added five bodies. They are going to process perhaps up to 250,000 of these suspensions with no extra labour. Why do they think they can do all this extra work without providing extra bodies and while at the same time cutting 8.6% from the Parole Board budget going forward?

If getting it tabled is as critical as the minister says, and if it is so transformational, why has the government not provided for long-term funding in the departmental plans? It is not even mentioned in the public safety minister's own departmental plan. I remind members that all the pardons for the unjust criminalization of same-sex activities will be going through at the same time, yet with no extra bodies.

This is right from the Parole Board's departmental plan, signed off by the Minister of Public Safety. It says the volume of applications forecasted to be received this year or next year remains the same. We have all the applications from the unjust criminalization of those in same-sex activities all those years ago and potentially 250,000 Canadians who can receive a pardon for pot possession. The government has provided no extra resources and no extra staff, and has actually said there is not going to be any increase in applications over the previous year.

Again, I have to wonder how seriously the Liberal members are taking this. They say it is transformational and critical, but like so many other things, they leave it until the last second and rush it through. Are they pushing it through solely for their political agenda and for political reasons? The evidence shows they are. If they actually really cared about Canadians, they would have tabled this legislation at the same time they legalized pot. They would have taken the time to perhaps consider the other amendments put through by our party, the NDP or law enforcement members.

While we support the bill, it is another example of lazy legislation by the government.

Disability Awareness Week

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

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday I was honoured to help kick off Disability Awareness Week celebrations at key industries in Saint John.

Disability Awareness Week is a time for all of us to promote accessibility and inclusion, and to celebrate the incredible social and economic contributions that Canadians with disabilities make to our communities. It is also a time for us to redouble our commitment to the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities.

Our government is doing this by advancing Bill C-81, which represents the most significant advancement of rights of persons with disabilities in Canada since the advent of the charter. I was thrilled to be able to contribute to the strengthening of this historic legislation at committee, and I look forward to standing up for the rights of persons with disabilities by standing up for this legislation later this week.

I will always stand up for the rights of persons with disabilities in Saint John—Rothesay.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, moving a motion to extend the sitting hours of the House is not a great way to close out the last session of the 42nd Parliament of Canada. We are not opposed to working late every evening. We want to work and make progress on files.

Once again, we take issue with the means the government is using to get all members to work a little harder because the session is ending and these are the last days of this Parliament. The other items in the motion do not concern the extension of sitting hours. We take issue with the government's approach, which prevents the opposition from doing its job properly. It is handcuffing the opposition and moving the government's agenda along as quickly as possible, not based on what parliamentarians may have to say, but on what the government wants.

This is not new to us, given how the government has handled the legislative process throughout its mandate. The government has been unable to advance a decent legislative agenda. I am the opposition agriculture and agri-food critic. I spoke to my predecessors, and we have been waiting for the Minister of Agriculture to introduce a bill to improve the lives of Canadian farmers since my appointment two years ago.

When I look at all the agriculture documents and bills this government has introduced since it was elected in 2015, it is clear to me that the government has achieved nothing. Absolutely no legislation was proposed to improve the lives of Canadian farmers.

However, numerous bills were introduced. Now, the government is saying that the situation is urgent and that we must move quickly and pass this legislation. A number of bills were not passed by the government, and now time is of the essence.

Of all of the bills that were not passed, some never even moved forward. We have, for example, Bill C-5, introduced on February 5, 2016; Bill C-12, introduced on March 24, 2016; Bill C-27, introduced on October 19, 2016; Bill C-28, introduced on October 21, 2016; Bill C-32, introduced on November 15, 2016; and Bill C-33, introduced on November 24, 2016. The Liberals have had four years to move these bills forward.

All of a sudden, the government claims that these bills need to be passed urgently. After the vote this evening we will debate Bill C-81, which was introduced on June 20, 2018. It has been nearly a year. We are being told that this bill is urgent and must absolutely be passed, but the government was unable to bring it forward earlier.

If this is so urgent, why did the government not bring up this bill more regularly in the House? Why did we not talk about it on a regular basis? All of a sudden, we need to pass it quickly because the Liberals have realized that they are going to run out of time. The government was unable to manage the House. It was unable to give parliamentarians an opportunity to do their work and to speak about important bills. The Liberals have realized at the last minute that they have forgotten this and that. There is an election coming up in the fall and now parliamentarians have to do the work to pass this or that bill.

The government chose to impose late sittings on the House for 18 days while also moving a time allocation motion, which means that we will not even have the chance to talk about it for long. If we refer to the Standing Orders, the government could have extended sitting hours for the last 10 days of the session, as provided for in our normal parliamentary calendar. That is what it could have done, and it would have been entirely doable.

I would like to talk about one of the Standing Orders. Even though the standing order that governs the extension of sitting hours in June has been in effect since 1982, it is not used every year. In some cases, special orders were proposed and adopted instead, usually by unanimous consent.

Parliamentarians are here to represent the people in their ridings. According to the Standing Orders, anyone who wants to change the rules to move things along has to seek the unanimous consent of the House.

Unfortunately, this government does not really seem to care about unanimous consent. It does not really seem to care what the opposition thinks or has to say even though, just like MPs on government benches, we represent all the people of our ridings. The least the government could do, out of respect for Canadian voters, is respect people in opposition. We have a role to play.

Unfortunately, our role is not to agree all the time and say the government is doing a good job. On the contrary, our role is to try to point out its failings so it can improve. Basically, the opposition's role is to make the government better by pointing out its mistakes and bad decisions so the government can reflect on that and find better solutions for all Canadians. However, the government does not seem willing to take that into account.

On top of that, there are two opposition days left. I mentioned the negative effects of the motion. The government is proposing to extend the hours in the House, but what it failed to mention is that it is going to deny the opposition the opportunity to have two full opposition days to address situations that are very troubling to Canadians.

For instance, during a normal opposition day during which we might hear from a number of stakeholders, we could have talked about the canola crisis, which is affecting thousands of canola producers across Canada. This crisis, which involves China, is costing Canadian canola producers billions of dollars. For all members who have canola farmers among their constituents, it would have been an opportunity to express the concerns of their fellow citizens and farmers in their regions. Perhaps we could have convinced the government to take action, such as filing a complaint through the World Trade Organization to condemn China's actions or appointing an ambassador, for example. As peculiar as it may seem, Canada currently has no representative in China to speak with Chinese authorities.

We could have had such a debate here in the House.

The one thing that the members across the aisle seem to have forgotten is that members of the House are not the government. The government is the ministers, the cabinet members. In this chamber, people have the right to speak their minds in the hope of swaying the government.

It is true that the government is formed by the party with the most members elected to the House, but it is also up to backbench members of the ruling party to try to persuade their government and speak for the people they represent, such as the farmers in their ridings. Sadly, the members on that side of the House seem to be divorced from reality. They seem to be blind to the government's desire to crush Parliament, to crush the MPs who are trying to do a good job of representing the constituents of every riding. I think that is a real shame.

We have absolutely nothing against extending the sitting hours of the House, but if it is intended to cover up the government's mistakes and its inability to properly organize the work of the House, then I think that is disgraceful.

The government is using this kind of motion to not only make us work more, which, as I mentioned, we agree with, but also deprive us of our last remaining tools, like the voting marathons everyone remembers. We held those voting marathons to make the government realize it cannot do whatever it wants in the House of Commons. The House of Commons is not the tool of the government. This motion to extend the sitting hours also prevents us from using that tool, which was a powerful means for us to send the government a message.

After making such grand promises of transparency and openness, this government has failed spectacularly to deliver. Sadly, its latest motion on the rules of the House just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has no respect for the work of the House. It saddens me to see a government ending its term on such a sour note.

Resuming debate

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if members were to review Hansard, they would find that legislation can pass very fast in the House. It can pass from second reading to committee stage to third reading virtually in one day, if it is deemed to be supported by both sides of the House through unanimous consent.

I am very sensitive to the Bill C-81 issue. If every member of the House were to speak for one minute, that would be 338 minutes. In terms of speaking, it is just not practical. That is the reason why we have caucuses and why we go to committee. There are plenty of opportunities.

I believe that those who want to get engaged could bring it to their House leadership, and even the independents are always afforded the opportunity if they go through the House leadership teams. It does not mean they have to go through the House leadership teams, but if it is something important, that is one of the things I would recommend. However, it is not compulsory. Everyone has the opportunity to stand and address the House when the floor is vacant.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague pointed out that there are legitimate tools the government needs to use in order to pass legislation. He has talked about time allocation, extending the hours and things like this, but the frustration on the opposition side is that, if we count them, there are 20 bills the government wants to move forward and there are only 20 days remaining.

He brought up the example this morning of Bill C-81 regarding accessibility, saying there has been some obstruction on this side. I was in the House earlier today and would have liked an opportunity to speak to the bill. As many people in the House know, I have a son who has been diagnosed on the spectrum, and it is a very important bill. Sixty amendments were put forward at committee, and the government chose to include only three. Our job is to make it a better bill, and if we can do that, all of us win. I commend the government for bringing this legislation forward, because it is important legislation, and I will be supporting it. If it is not a perfect bill, it is a start, and we can move forward with that.

There are 20 days remaining, and there are 20 bills. Does my colleague really think there is enough time to properly debate these 20 bills in the next 20 days? Does he not think the government should have had better organizational skills to get these important bills passed?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a parliamentarian for almost 30 years. Most of those years were in opposition. I can tell the member that I know how to recognize a filibuster when I see a filibuster.

At the end of the day, the member will have to reconcile within his House leadership team why the Conservative Party chose not to pass Bill C-81 this morning. To try to imply that there are endless members who want to speak to it or that it was necessary to prolong the process, I would welcome a debate where we could both go into a community and have that endless debate. I feel very comfortable with the experience I have. He would have to justify it within his own House leadership.

For me, personally, I look at the behaviour of the official opposition. Let us keep in mind that the official opposition, on several occasions, has become tired of sitting and has attempted to adjourn the House. The opposition will cause the bells to ring to prevent debating bills or will attempt to adjourn for the day. They would adjourn debate on other pieces of legislation. These are all tools that are used to prevent legislation from passing.

I will give the Conservatives this much. They are very good at being the opposition and I hope they are going to stay in opposition for many years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, my friend's comments were even more ridiculous than usual.

When the government insists on debasing our institutions through its corruption, we will hold it to account, whether it is budget day or any other day. That is exactly what we did and what we will continue to do. Canadians expect us to defend the integrity of their institutions, whatever the issue of the day is.

I want to respond to some of the things the member said about Bill C-81. I think he should know better than to present misleading information about what actually took place with this bill.

The government waited until very late in the life of this Parliament to bring this bill forward. It rejected multiple opposition amendments at committee that would have strengthened this bill. The government therefore sent a flawed bill to the Senate, which necessitated amendments to be proposed by the Senate, which meant that after amendments were proposed, the bill would have to come back to the House.

Still, when the bill came back to the House, the government did not bring the bill forward at the earliest opportunity. It could have been brought forward last week. The government could have used Standing Order 53 to try to expedite it. I suspect there would have been interest in doing that from this side of the House.

However, to expedite the debate beginning, because the debate has to take place, the government chose, after all these mistakes, to bring this bill forward for the first time this morning. Absolutely, the opposition is prepared to debate and highlight the areas in which the government has fallen short, and ultimately to support the bill's passage. That is a certainty.

The member accused me of filibustering, but I think he knows that if I was trying to filibuster something, I would still be talking on it right now. I gave a speech. I delivered important points about the government's failures on the bill. Why is the government so upset? It did not want the bill to be criticized.

We support the bill but there are things that the stakeholder community believes needed to be included in it that were not included. The importance of the topic is precisely why these points have to be made. If it was not an important topic, we would not need to talk about it. However, given the critical importance of the topic, we needed to talk about it.

Could the member tell us why the government failed to bring forward this bill yesterday or last week? Why did it fail to bring forward the bill at the earliest opportunity it could?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we had a very good example this morning with the member across the way.

Contrast that to another example where we had legislation which members of the New Democratic Party recognized that they actually liked. I think it was Bill C-37. I could be wrong on that but if members did a quick check of Hansard, they would be able to find out when members of the NDP supported time allocation. They wanted us to pass that legislation. They recognized the value and importance of that legislation. That is not the only time they did that. The NDP members on a couple of occasions have recognized that they like the legislation and want it to pass and have therefore supported our bringing in time allocation.

What we know is that all parties in this House actually support the concept of time allocation, if it is deemed necessary. Even when I sat in opposition, Peter Van Loan would bring in time allocation, and I remember standing in my place and supporting it, because if one is not getting the support and co-operation from opposition parties in particular and from the government at times, one may need to use time allocation. A lot depends on what is happening in the opposition benches.

I know the government House leader continues to want to work with opposition members. If the government House leader asks how many speakers a party would like to put forward on something or how quickly might we be able to get a piece of legislation through, it is not some sort of trap for the opposition parties. It is to allow for more debate on issues which the opposition members would like to have more debate on.

There are bills that are relatively non-controversial, like Bill C-81, which is historical legislation. I am not going to say that members should not be debating the bill, but based on my 30 years of parliamentary experience, when the will is there to see a bill pass, it passes really quickly as opposed to there being a filibuster. Maybe it would have been better to allow Bill C-81 to actually pass today. I would argue that would have been the right thing to do.

I listened very closely to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan across the way. All he would say is that it will pass in due time and before the next election it will be passed. He indicated his support for it on behalf of the Conservative Party. The member is playing a game and he knows it. If the Conservative Party really wanted to, that bill could have passed and we could have been debating something else right now. We needed to get an indication to help facilitate debate inside the House.

There are many issues that I would like to debate and, in good part, I have been fortunate to have been afforded the opportunity to do that. The NDP House leader talked about an issue which I am very passionate about: pharmacare. That is not an NDP issue, although the NDP tries to claim it as one. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is an issue today because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to ensuring that we expand our health care system. That is the reason the NDP is talking about it today. It was years ago, when we first came in as government, through a standing committee that the idea started to really flourish.

I participate in a caucus and I have many discussions with my colleagues. We understand the value of it. We understand that we have to work with many different stakeholders. Then the NDP members catch wind of it and all of a sudden they say that they to get out in front of the Liberals on it. That is balderdash.

The NDP does not get credit for something of this nature. If anyone should get the credit, it is Canadians. It is Canadians who have been communicating, whether through the Prime Minister or through members of our caucus, about the importance of pharmacare. That is the reason we have prioritized it. We are looking forward to the report we will be getting toward the end of June.

NDP members talk about housing as if they are leading the file. Who are they kidding? I enjoy listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. He is one of the most able-minded individuals I know, and he understands the issues of housing in Canada.

In the last federal election, the commitment the NDP made with regard to housing pales in comparison to what this government has put into place. I find it somewhat humorous that the NDP has attempted to stake claim to an area in which this government has moved forward.

From day one, whether in regard to budgetary measures or legislative measures, this government and the Prime Minister have been focused on Canada's middle class. Let us talk about our first piece of legislation. Bill C-2 provided a tax cut to Canada's middle class. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going into the pockets of Canadians. At the same time, the legislation allowed for a special increase in tax for Canada's wealthiest 1%. By the way, the Conservatives and the NDP voted against that.

That was a legislative measure. In our very first budget, we committed to a tax-free Canada child benefit program. Again, this is putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of almost nine out of 10 families, although I could not tell members the actual percentage. That initiative literally lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and the Conservatives and NDP voted against it.

That is why I say that from day one, this government, whether through budgetary measures or legislative measures, has been very active at ensuring we continue to move forward. However, in virtually every initiative we have undertaken, and Bill C-81 is more of an exception, opposition parties have fought us.

Let us recall the last federal budget. Before I comment on some of the content of it, do members remember the day of the federal budget? It was not a good day for parliamentarians. The Minister of Finance wanted to address the House and Canada. All sorts of stakeholders were waiting to hear about the budget. Do members remember the behaviour of members of the official opposition? They were yelling and slamming their desks. They did not want the Minister of Finance to be heard. In my 30 years of parliamentary experience, I had never witnessed that sort of inappropriate behaviour coming from the official opposition. It was embarrassing.

The Conservatives are very focused on trying to discredit the person of the Prime Minister. We can hear it in their speeches. It is the personal attacks, whether directed at the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. That is fine. It is the Stephen Harper type of politics, with more and more of Doug Ford's style getting into their caucus and in their policies. It is scary stuff.

One member opposite said that he is going to join our caucus. I believe that could happen sometime soon. If I were to speculate on the Conservative leadership at the end of the year or in 2020, I am thinking it could be Doug Ford, Jason Kenney, maybe the opposition House leader, and I do not know who else.

The bottom line is the Conservatives are so focused on character assassination instead of being a constructive opposition party. That is okay, because as they focus on that negativity, we will continue to focus on Canadians. The results are really showing in a tangible way.

I made reference to the hundreds of thousands of children, and there are also hundreds of thousands of seniors who have been lifted out of poverty as a direct result of this government's actions. In the last three and a half years, we have seen one million new jobs created by working with Canadians. We have seen incredible investments in infrastructure. In the last budget alone, there is a commitment to municipalities. In Winnipeg, I believe it is about 35 million additional dollars. If members were to drive around some of our streets, they would get a better appreciation of why that is such an important investment.

I started off talking about the historical legislation of Bill C-81. We have indigenous legislation that is before the House on language and foster care. These are critically important issues. It is historic legislation. These are two pieces of legislation that we still need to pass. That is why I am here standing in my place saying that we still have 19 days to go. Unlike the Conservatives and the New Democrats, we are prepared to work until the very last day. We are prepared to work late. We have a legislative agenda and we are committed to passing that legislation. We know that this government works for Canadians in every region of our country every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get under way with my comments, I want to reflect on the previous speaker's comments and address many aspects of them during my speech.

If we look at what has transpired over the last number of years, we have seen a great deal of change in committees. I sat in opposition when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, and I understand very clearly that when he was the prime minister, opposition members' amendments were never passed at committee. It just did not happen, unless one were a government member. Opposition members did not have their amendments passed during the time I was here under a majority Stephen Harper government.

However, to try to give the impression that this government has behaved in the same fashion is just wrong, because it is just not true. This government, on multiple pieces of legislation, has not only approached standing committees in a different fashion from the previous Stephen Harper government, but also, members will find that the current government has accepted numerous amendments to our legislation, whether they be from New Democrats, Conservatives or even the Green Party. That is something we did not witness under Stephen Harper, but something that we have seen here.

Also, in response to the opposition's effort to claim there has been no change, we can just look at the parliamentary secretaries. When I had sat on the procedure and House affairs committee, the Conservative parliamentary secretary was there and led the committee. As the parliamentary secretary related in regard to that particular committee today, I do not even attend that committee.

There is a substantial difference between this Prime Minister and Stephen Harper. There is a lot more transparency and accountability with this Prime Minister than the former prime minister on a number of different fronts.

However, for those who might be following, we are having this debate because the government has decided, as previous governments have done in the past, including Stephen Harper's, that as we get into June, there will at times be a need to have extended sitting hours. There is nothing new in that. As I said, Stephen Harper did so, and prime ministers before him have also done so. We have extended hours because, like Canadians, we believe that we should continue to work every day that we sit, and if we have to put in extra hours to pass more legislation, why not?

It is interesting listening to the Conservatives talk about last-minute legislation. What do they expect? We are now at the end of May. Do they just want the government to shut the doors and stop debate on all legislation? Maybe the NDP and Conservatives would like to operate that way, but we as a government are committed to working hard for Canadians every day, and members will see that with the different types of initiatives we have taken, whether it be legislative action, budget actions or just trying to build consensus.

Today is an excellent example, because we saw a lot of games being played by the opposition parties. They ask why we bring in time allocation or closure, and they challenge us, especially me when I stand to talk about the benefits of using time allocation. However, so that those listening can understand what is actually taking place, they need to recognize that there is legislation the government has introduced that the NDP will never, ever support, unless we delete the entire bill by way of an amendment. That is an absolute guarantee: there is legislation the NDP will never, ever support.

The trade agreement is a good example. We have had a number of trade agreements from this government, and every time, the NDP members vote against them. If it were up to them, agreements would never be allowed to go to a vote. Equally, there is legislation here that we have introduced that the Conservatives would never, ever support and have voted against. They will go out of their way to prevent the legislation from passing.

We could have the Conservatives saying no to legislation, with the NDP, the Greens and the government saying yes, but if the Conservatives wanted to, they could prevent the legislation from passing. All they have to do is to speak to the legislation, propose an amendment and speak endlessly. We had a good example of that today.

We are talking about disabilities and Bill C-81. What are the principles of the bill? The main principles are inherent dignity, equality, opportunity, barrier-free government, autonomy, inclusive design and meaningful involvement. This is legislation that every member in the chamber, I believe, will vote in favour of. No one is going to dispute it.

Then we had the first Conservative speaking to the legislation, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who spoke for 95 minutes—

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader definitely experiences things very differently. When it comes to Bill C-81, I encourage her to talk to people from the communities that are going to benefit from that legislation. I know there are people on Parliament Hill right now who just heard her comments. She seems to be a little confused as to what she is referring to. This is historic legislation, and the amendments that came from the Senate were probably given. It is true that the Conservatives never would have accepted amendments from the Senate. The difference is that we accept them quite often, because we know they improve legislation.

Where the Conservatives would have said no really quickly, we actually pondered the legislation. When it comes to Bill C-81, people seem to know that the Conservatives support the legislation but will not let it come to a vote, because the Conservatives will put partisan politics ahead of Canadians every single time.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we really are seeing is a scandal-ridden government that is in its final days and has mismanaged the House entirely. Bill C-81 is another example: The government's response to the Senate amendments only came to us on a Thursday before we rose for the one-week break. We came back after the constituency break, and we have not had a chance as caucus to look at the government's response. What did the government members do at the last minute? They brought the legislation here today.

This is an important piece of legislation, and the government has done virtually nothing to help persons with disabilities. In fact, it has done everything it can to hurt them. We all remember what the government has done to people with diabetes, and we know what it has done to individuals who were working at Library and Archives. This is the problem with mismanagement.

I know that my hon. colleague, the government House leader, is well staffed, and maybe this is why we are getting short opposition days. She is maybe experiencing Wednesdays differently from the way we experience Wednesdays. However, of the last six opposition days, three were on a Wednesday and one was on a Friday: Wednesday, March 20 was an opposition day; Wednesday, May 1 was an opposition day; Wednesday, May 15 was an opposition day, as was Friday, April 5.

I would like the member to correct the record and admit that she has consistently given the opposition short days so that we cannot do the job we need to do, which is holding the Liberals to account.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Whitby is hearing from constituents when it comes to Bill C-81 and other pieces of legislation. We will be debating that legislation tonight and we will have extended hours. If the member has not had an opportunity to speak to that legislation, I look forward to working with her to ensure that she is provided the opportunity to represent the voices of her constituents.

I want to see Bill C-81 receive royal assent. This is an important week when it comes to persons with disabilities. It is the third year that we have celebrated National AccessAbility Week, and I know there are good people on the Hill who came to see the Minister of Accessibility speak to this legislation.

I want to see it advance, and when it comes to other pieces of legislation, if I cannot find a way forward through working with the opposition parties to be able to advance that legislation, I will use the limited tools I have available. Every time I use those tools, I can assure members that I use them with regret. I do hope we are able to find a better way forward.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Independent, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up where the hon. government House leader left off with respect to the resources used when we extend the hours in this place. I note the pages, the staff and others have to be here for that particular period of time.

There are a couple of pieces of legislation that I know concern constituents in Whitby. I have received emails about them. One is Bill C-81. During debate earlier today, we heard an assurance that this piece of legislation will be passed.

If we are going to be extending House hours and using more resources, I would like reassurance from the government House leader that the pieces of legislation that are important to Canadians, which we have been sent here to debate and discuss, are going to be passed in a timely manner before the House rises.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when our Prime Minister says that in Canada diversity is our strength, he is not only talking about the shells we occupy but he is also talking about the diversity of opinions, regions and experiences, and the list goes in. There is definitely a diversity of interpretations right here, because what we said in the campaign was that we were against the improper use of omnibus legislation and the improper use of time allocation.

Under the previous government there was no desire to consult and ask. We were told how many days would be given, and that was it. If we did not comply with the hon. Peter Van Loan, then he would use his tools. I have tried to ask how much time is needed for debate. Sometimes I have received answers and sometimes I have not. Members can see clearly that there are times we receive answers and there are times we do not.

When it comes to Bill C-81, I publicly state that we have received amendments from the Senate. The minister has now stated that we will be accepting all those amendments. There is no reason we should have to use time allocation, yet we are not getting commitment from the official opposition that it will let that legislation go.

The legislation has been scrutinized. It has been to committee, returned to this chamber and been through all stages in the Senate. It has come with amendments, which we have accepted, yet the Conservatives will not let that legislation go. Therefore, there is no way for us to get that legislation to a vote if I do not use those tools.

The members opposite need to take partial responsibility and understand why those tools are being used. We could advance, and if they do not want to, it is their prerogative and the choice they are making. However, I will ensure that the government advances the mandate that Canadians gave us. When it comes to Bill C-81, we are talking about a more accessible Canada. Who could be against that?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opposition House leader's acknowledging the importance of extending hours so that we can discuss important legislation that actually benefits the lives of Canadians. Most of the motion is exactly, word for word, the motion that has been submitted in previous parliaments. Within the extension of hours motion, members who will not be running again will be provided time to make a speech, because it is important that they do so.

When it comes to the opposition days the member is referring to, within the Standing Orders, a portion of those days can be allotted to Wednesdays and Fridays. My intention will always be to provide them on longer days. As long as we can advance government legislation, I will ensure that we are able to find a collaborative way forward. If that is not the desire of the opposition, then I am restricted to limited tools and limited days to provide those days. I encourage the opposition House leader, as well as her colleagues, to let us know how much time is needed so that bills such as Bill C-81 can be returned to the Senate. There is no reason we cannot have that finished today so that it can receive royal assent.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Whitby for that question, especially when it comes to actually dealing with pieces of legislation that are going to impact people's lives for the better.

I would like to assure the member that I will use every tool necessary to ensure that we advance this legislation. However, it would be great if opposition members would share the time needed for debate on those pieces of legislation so that we can ensure that everyone who wants to speak on it is able to. There is definitely a difference between members of Parliament standing up and speaking on behalf of their constituents and members of Parliament speaking to advance their party's line. Unfortunately, when we are advancing the party's narrative, we take away from the work we are doing in our constituencies.

I would agree that Bill C-81 is historic legislation. It has gone to the Senate and we have seen it return with amendments. The minister has considered those amendments, because they would improve the legislation. Therefore, there is no reason that we cannot see this proposed legislation move along quickly. Members will see that the government wants to see it move quickly, and Canadians will be able to see who will block that legislation from happening. Also, when it comes to Bill C-83, once again, we would like to see this proposed legislation move along quickly, and Canadians will also be able to see clearly who blocks that from happening.

It is clear that the government wants to advance legislation that works for Canadians, but the opposition would rather get in the way of government's advancing legislation at the expense of Canadians, and that is really unfortunate.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Independent, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two pieces of legislation the member mentioned that are particularly important to the most vulnerable individuals in our community, and thus I do not mind extending the hours. She mentioned Bill C-81, which would identify, remove and prevent accessibility barriers and level the playing field especially for those with various disabilities. She also mentioned Bill C-93, the expedited record suspension, and, of course, we know that when it comes to simple possession of cannabis it negatively impacts indigenous individuals and people of colour disproportionally.

If we extend the hours, what is the likelihood we will get these pieces of legislation passed before the House rises?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 21, 2019:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12:00 a.m., except that it shall be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (e), when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2) or Standing Order 78, but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply 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, if a recorded division on the previous question is deferred and the motion is subsequently adopted, the recorded division on the original question shall not be deferred;

(c) notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6) and paragraph (b) of this Order, no recorded division in relation to any government order requested after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 20, 2019, or at any time on Friday, June 21, 2019, shall be deferred;

(d) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) or Standing Order 67.1(2);

(e) 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;

(f) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday;

(g) a recorded division requested in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

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

(i) when one or several deferred recorded divisions occur on a bill at report stage, a motion, “That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass”, may be made in the same sitting;

(j) no dilatory motion may be proposed after 6:30 p.m., except by a Minister of the Crown;

(k) notwithstanding Standing Orders 81(16)(b) and (c) and 81(18)(c), proceedings on any opposition motion shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. on the sitting day that is designated for that purpose, except on a Monday when they shall conclude at 6:30 p.m. or on a Friday when they shall conclude at 1:30 p.m.;

(l) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day, pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates, (i) all remaining motions to concur in the Votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the question deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested, (ii) the Speaker shall have the power to combine the said motions for voting purposes, provided that, in exercising this power, the Speaker will be guided by the same principles and practices used at report stage;

(m) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the 31st sitting day after the interruption; and

(n) Members not seeking re-election to the 43rd Parliament may be permitted to make statements, on Tuesday, June 4, and Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at the expiry of the time provided for Private Members’ Business for not more than three hours, and that, for the duration of the statements, (i) no member shall speak for longer than ten minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, (ii) after three hours or when no Member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the House shall return to Government Orders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 30, which allows for the extension of the sitting hours of the House until we rise for the summer adjournment.

There is a clear and recent precedent for this extension of hours to give the House more time to do its important work. It occurred last year at this time and also the year before that. As well, in the previous Parliament, the hours of the House were extended in June 2014.

Four years ago, our government came forward with an ambitious mandate that promised real change. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, our government has introduced legislation that has improved the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. However, we have more work to do.

So far in this Parliament, the House has passed 82 government bills, and 65 of those have received royal assent. The facts are clear. This Parliament has been productive. We have a strong record of accomplishment. It is a long list, so I will cite just a few of our accomplishments.

Bill C-2 made good on our promise to lower taxes on middle-class Canadians by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians. There are nine million Canadians who have benefited from this middle-class tax cut. This tax cut has been good for Canadians and their families. It has been good for the economy and good for Canada, and its results have been better than advertised. On our side, we are proud of this legislation. We have always said that we were on the side of hard-working, middle-class Canadians, and this legislation is proof of exactly that.

As well, thanks to our budgetary legislation, low-income families with children are better off today. We introduced the biggest social policy innovation in more than a generation through the creation of the tax-free Canada child benefit. The CCB puts cash into the pockets of nine out of 10 families and has lifted nearly 300,000 Canadian children out of poverty.

Early in this Parliament, in response to the Supreme Court of Canada, we passed medical assistance in dying legislation, which carefully balanced the rights of those seeking medical assistance in dying while ensuring protection of the most vulnerable in our society.

Also of note, we repealed the previous government's law that allowed citizenship to be revoked from dual citizens. We also restored the rights of Canadians abroad to vote in Canadian elections.

We added gender identity as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Also, passing Bill C-65 has helped make workplaces in federally regulated industries and on Parliament Hill free from harassment and sexual violence.

We promised to give the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer the powers, resources and independence to properly do its job. We delivered on that commitment through legislation, and the PBO now rigorously examines the country's finances in an independent and non-partisan manner.

Through Bill C-45, we ended the failed approach to cannabis by legalizing it and strictly regulating and restricting access to cannabis, as part of our plan to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth and profits out of the pockets of organized crime. Along with that, Bill C-46 has strengthened laws to deter and punish people who drive while impaired, both from alcohol and/or drugs.

These are just some examples of the work we have accomplished on behalf of Canadians.

We are now heading into the final weeks of this session of Parliament, and there is more work to do. Four years ago, Canadians sent us here with a responsibility to work hard on their behalf, to discuss important matters of public policy, to debate legislation and to vote on that legislation.

The motion to allow for the extension of sitting hours of the House is timely, and clearly it is necessary. We have an important legislative agenda before us, and we are determined to work hard to make even more progress.

Passage of this motion would give all members exactly what they often ask for: more time for debate. I know every member wants to deliver for their communities and this motion will help with exactly that. We have much to accomplish in the coming weeks and we have the opportunity to add time to get more done.

I would like to highlight a few of the bills that our government will seek to advance.

I will start with Bill C-97, which would implement budget 2017. This budget implementation act is about making sure that all Canadians feel the benefits of a growing economy. That means helping more Canadians find an affordable home, and get training so that they have the skills necessary to obtain good, well-paying jobs. It is also about making it easier for seniors to retire with confidence.

Another important bill is Bill C-92, which would affirm and recognize the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families. The bill would require all providers of indigenous child and family services to adhere to certain principles, namely the best interests of the child, family unity and cultural continuity. This co-drafted legislation would transfer the jurisdiction of child and family services delivery to indigenous communities. This is historic legislation that is long overdue.

We have another important opportunity for us as parliamentarians, which is to pass Bill C-93, the act that deals with pardons as they relate to simple possession of cannabis. As I mentioned, last year we upheld our commitment to legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to cannabis. It is time to give people who were convicted of simple possession a straightforward way to clear their names. We know it is mostly young people from the poorest of communities who have been targeted and hence are being left behind. This bill would create an expedited pardon process, with no application fee or waiting period, for people convicted only of simple possession of cannabis. Canadians who have held criminal records in the past for simple possession of cannabis should be able to meaningfully participate in their communities, get good and stable jobs and become the contributing members of our society that they endeavour to be.

Meanwhile, there is another important bill before the House that we believe needs progress. Bill C-88 is an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. This legislation only impacts the Northwest Territories, and its territorial government is asking us to act. This legislation protects Canada's natural environment, respects the rights of indigenous people and supports a strong natural resources sector. This bill will move the country ahead with a process that promotes reconciliation with indigenous peoples and creates certainty for investments in the Mackenzie Valley and the Arctic.

Earlier this month, our government introduced Bill C-98, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act. This bill would create civilian oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency. It would provide citizens with an independent review body to address complaints about the CBSA, just as they now have complaint mechanisms in place for the RCMP. Let me remind members that it was our government that brought forward Bill C-22 that established the national security intelligence committee of parliamentarians, which has tabled its first annual report to Parliament. We are committed to ensuring that our country's border services are worthy of the trust of Canadians, and Bill C-98 is a significant step towards strengthening that accountability.

We have taken a new approach. We, as a government, have consulted with Canadians when it comes to our legislation. We have seen committees call witnesses and suggest amendments that often times improve legislation, and we, as a government, have accepted those changes. We were able to accomplish this work because we gave the committees more resources and we encouraged Liberal members to do their work.

Likewise, currently there are two bills that have returned to the House with amendments from the Senate. I look forward to members turning their attention to these bills as well. One of those bills is Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. Our goal is to make accessibility both a reality and a priority across federal jurisdictions so that all people, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, can participate and be included in society as contributing members. Bill C-81 would help us to reach that goal by taking a proactive approach to getting ahead of systemic discrimination. The purpose of this bill is to make Canada barrier free, starting in areas under federal jurisdiction. This bill, if passed by Parliament, will represent the most significant legislation for the rights of persons with disabilities in over 30 years, and for once it will focus on their abilities.

The other bill we have received from the Senate is Bill C-58, which would make the first significant reforms to the Access to Information Act since it was enacted in 1982. With this bill, our government is raising the bar on openness and transparency by revitalizing access to information. The bill would give more power to the Information Commissioner and would provide for proactive disclosure of information.

There are also a number of other bills before the Senate. We have respect for the upper chamber. It is becoming less partisan thanks to the changes our Prime Minister has made to the appointment process, and we respect the work that senators do in reviewing legislation as a complementary chamber.

Already the Senate has proposed amendments to many bills, and the House has in many instances agreed with many of those changes. As we look toward the final few weeks, it is wise to give the House greater flexibility, and that is exactly why supporting this motion makes sense. This extension motion will help to provide the House with the time it needs to consider these matters.

There are now just 20 days left in the parliamentary calendar before the summer adjournment, and I would like to thank all MPs and their teams for their contributions to the House over the past four years. Members in the House have advanced legislation that has had a greater impact for the betterment of Canadians. That is why over 800,000 Canadians are better off today than they were three years ago when we took office.

We saw that with the lowering of the small business tax rate to 9%, small businesses have been able to grow through innovation and trade. We see that Canadians have created over one million jobs, the majority of which are full-time, good-paying jobs that Canadians deserve. These are jobs that were created by Canadians for Canadians.

That is why I would also like to stress that while it is necessary for us to have honest and vibrant deliberations on the motion, Canadians are looking for us all to work collaboratively and constructively in their best interests. That is exactly why extending the hours will provide the opportunity for more members to be part of the debates that represent the voices of their constituents in this place, so that we continue to advance good legislation that benefits even more Canadians.

It has been great to do the work that we have been doing, but we look forward to doing even more.

Persons with Disabilities

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility]

Mr. Speaker, last month, with the unanimous consent of the House, we passed Bill C-81, the most significant advancement in disability rights since the charter. With Bill C-81, we are creating a system to identify and remove barriers proactively so that all Canadians, regardless of their disability, can fully participate in society. Canada also recently acceded to the optional protocol for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, further strengthening the rights of Canadians with disabilities. We are acting, we are working with the disability community and we are going to build a truly inclusive and accessible Canada.

International Day of Persons with Disabilities

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities. This year's theme, “Empowering persons with disabilities and ensuring inclusiveness and equality”, is at the heart of the Government of Canada's commitment to build a Canada without barriers.

In June, our government introduced Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, which if passed will address barriers to accessibility in the federal jurisdiction.

Earlier today, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility announced that Canada has acceded to the optional protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This means that Canadians will have additional recourse if they believe their rights under the convention have been violated.

These actions speak to our dedication to creating a truly inclusive and accessible Canada. Please join me in celebrating people with disabilities and the significant contributions they make to Canadian society.

Persons with Disabilities

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility)]

Mr. Speaker, our goal is to make accessibility a reality across federal jurisdictions, so that all people, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, can fully participate and be included in society.

Bill C-81 will help us reach that goal. This legislation represents a significant, historic advancement in federal disability rights legislation. Our government will provide $290 million over six years to further the objectives of the new legislation once it is given royal assent.

I am proud that our government has delivered on this important mandate commitment.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is the point of rushing through accessibility legislation if the government is not going to put its money where its mouth is? The Liberals keep failing Canadians who live with disabilities. In the fall economic update, there is no mention of new obligations, let alone funding for the CRTC to maintain its existing responsibilities. This is unfair, and it is insulting to Canadians who are waiting for implementation of Bill C-81.

Why will the Liberals not take their responsibilities seriously and ensure that institutions like the CRTC are accessible to everyone?

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-81, the accessibility legislation.

Our intention for tomorrow is to call Bill C-75, justice modernization, at third reading. We sincerely hope that Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers reach an agreement. However, if they do not, we will call government Motion. No. 25, concerning the resumption of postal services, for debate tomorrow.

On Monday, we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-86, Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2. This will also be the business for Tuesday and Wednesday.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I want to thank all those associated with the bill. Many accommodations were made to bring the witnesses forward. We worked very well together with the vice-chair. I want to thank all the committee members. This is a good bill.

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House and to have the opportunity to show my support for Motion M-192.

I join my hon. colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake in calling on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to provide the House with concrete policy recommendations to ensure that persons with episodic disabilities caused by, among other things, diseases such as multiple sclerosis are adequately protected to ensure equity in government policy to support Canadians across the country.

This topic is something that is quite close to my heart because of individuals within my own family who deal with episodic disabilities. I have watched the impact this has had day in and day out on their ability to function in daily life. There is certainly much more that could be done on their behalf.

Canadians living with a disability, whether mental or physical, have made a lot of progress with regard to fighting for equal access to all aspects of Canadian life. Under the late hon. Jim Flaherty, great progress was made with regard to equal benefits for those who live with a disability. That said, there are still gaps. The current government has promised to address those gaps. It has been slow in doing so. Nevertheless, I think that there is still an opportunity to move forward and to work collaboratively.

Canadians who do not live with a disability or regularly interact with those who do may not consider or appreciate the daily challenges faced by these individuals. There are numerous barriers in Canadian life that should be addressed.

Today our focus is on those who live with an episodic disability. I am talking about a long-term disorder that has periods of good health, and then that good health is disrupted by periods of poor health or disability. The period of time during which a person faces that ill health or that disability could range anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of months to a year or maybe more. Even with excellent medical management and care, people may face these tumultuous times of ill health in a way that is unexpected or that they are unable to predict.

Episodic disabilities impact thousands of Canadians. Multiple sclerosis is the most common, and it has been discussed here today. This disease impacts 77,000 Canadians. Our country has one of the highest prevalence rates in the entire world. As legislators, we certainly have the opportunity to address this, and I hope we do so.

It is important to note that these conditions have a negative impact on workforce participation and income security. These Canadians are struggling with a disease that affects their everyday lives and the ability to provide for themselves. With all the medical challenges these folks face, it is incumbent upon this place to try to alleviate any additional barriers they might face in daily life.

Canadians living with disabilities do not wish to be held back by their conditions. They want to participate in as much as possible. They want to live full and productive lives, like every other Canadian citizen, but oftentimes, they face roadblocks, and many of them come from the bureaucracy of government, such as roadblocks having to do with paperwork for improving different things with regard to their disability and their needs. I would think it would be our desire as a House to make sure that those processes are streamlined.

Motion M-192 was put forward by my colleague, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. The intent of the motion is to strengthen and inform Bill C-81, which is the accessible Canada act, put forward by the current government.

The information gathered from the committee study the motion calls for will be imperative in the application of the proposed government legislation. The two would go hand in hand.

With this motion, it will be the first time legislation and policy will be looked at through an episodic disabilities lens. This is really important. Motion M-192 will look at the challenges individuals with this type of disability face on a day-to-day basis, and it will put forward recommendations for policy change. I am talking about episodic disabilities such as MS, which I mentioned earlier, but I am also talking about things like HIV, cancer, epilepsy, Crohn's disease, diabetes, and arthritis. These are all diseases that should be considered when we think about episodic disabilities.

Some will say that the government's Bill C-81 would address these issues in time and that perhaps we should just wait. Time is critical. Canadians living with an episodic disability very much look forward to changes that will improve their quality of life. They want to see those changes come about as quickly as possible.

Bill C-81 will take some time to pass through this place, whereas right now we have the opportunity to send a motion to committee to begin a study, to call forward witnesses, to hear from experts across the country and to begin addressing this issue today.

As my colleagues in the House said before, it is up to the Canadian government to stand up for people who are fighting MS and other episodic conditions. We need to take action and it is incumbent upon us to make this a priority.

Because MS is the most prevalent, I would like to take a moment to address that condition specifically.

Typically, MS is diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 40. These are crucial years in the growth and advancement of a person's life. These are the years in which people go to school. These are the years where they get an education, they start a career, they raise a family. A teen student with MS may struggle with holding a pen. An individual who has MS and is a mechanic might have a hard time using tools effectively. An individual who is a researcher and needs to use different scientific material or a computer might find that difficult to do when he or she has an episodic condition.

These are real Canadians with daily struggles and it is sometimes difficult for the rest of us to understand what that might look like if we have never had that experience before.

Unfortunately, when it comes to providing financial support to those who live with a disability, bureaucrats often take a black and white approach. For people applying for a benefit, bureaucrats look at their applications and say “Either you can work or you cannot work”. However, there needs to be some middle ground where there is some flexibility. Many of these individuals wish to work. They want to contribute to society. They like what they do and they want to use their skills, their talents and abilities in an effective way. However, sometimes they are not able to do that for a week, a month or sometimes longer. Provisions need to be made for these individuals who find themselves in these unique situations.

Today we have the opportunity to support the motion brought forward by my colleague, calling for a study and to look at this closely to ensure these individuals, particularly those individuals who live with these conditions, are provided with helpful policies.

At this point, I would like to note the fact that this really does have an impact on how these individuals live their daily lives and the types of resources they have available to them. None of us wants to go without an income. None of us wants to live a life that is less than what we see others live. Unfortunately, many of these individuals who have an episodic disability find themselves in that place.

It is my request of the House to support this motion. I believe the members on this side are unified on this. I believe we have the government's support. I very much look forward to this going to committee and being looked at with the utmost integrity and then having us move forward toward change. We have the opportunity to stand and speak out on behalf of the most vulnerable.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility)]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the second hour of debate on the motion introduced by my hon. colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. His personal story of his wife's battle with MS is truly gripping and we all take it very seriously.

This motion proposes that the House of Commons instruct the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, or HUMA in short, to study the issue of episodic disabilities to ensure the people who live with these disabilities are adequately protected and that there is equity in government policy.

First, it is important to understand that a person can simultaneously live with both permanent and episodic disabilities. Every disability is different. What sets an episodic disability apart is that, unlike disabilities that may have more consistent and predictable impacts on daily living, an episodic disability is marked by fluctuating periods and degrees of illness and wellness. Episodic disabilities are often life-long and chronic conditions. It is difficult to predict when episodes of disability will occur, how severe they will be and how long they will last.

Because episodic disabilities can be unpredictable, people with these types of conditions may face particular barriers to their social and economic participation. For example, they face barriers to employment and they are often ineligible for benefits and services, including those provided by the Government of Canada. As a result, people with episodic disabilities may be vulnerable to experiencing income insecurity. Our government recognizes that current programs and policies for people with disabilities are generally based on an understanding of disability as a continuous state, rather than one that fluctuates over time. We also recognize that programs and policies do not always meet the specific needs of people with episodic disabilities, so we need to obtain a better understanding of the socio-demographic, economic and disability-related characteristics of Canadians who experience episodic disabilities in order to better meet their needs and eliminate the barriers they face to full participation.

Advancing the economic and social inclusion of people with episodic disabilities aligns with our government's commitment to ensuring a more accessible and inclusive Canada. On June 20, we tabled in Parliament Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act. This proposed legislation would proactively identify, remove and prevent barriers to accessibility in areas under federal jurisdiction. New requirements in priority areas such as employment, developed in co-operation with partners and Canadians with disabilities, would help to ensure that all Canadians can fully participate in their communities and workplaces.

As I said during the first hour of debate, Bill C-81 is inclusive of episodic disabilities. In defining a disability, Bill C-81 specifically recognizes impairments or functional limitations that are episodic in nature. With Bill C-81, we would transform how we think about accessibility and ensure that in working toward the realization of a barrier-free Canada, we are inclusive of all people with disabilities, including people with episodic disabilities. We know there is more we can do to advance the inclusion of Canadians with episodic disabilities, particularly with regard to improving their financial security.

Let us not forget that many supports and services for people with episodic disabilities fall primarily within the jurisdiction of provincial and territorial governments. Employers also play a key role in advancing the financial well-being of people with episodic disabilities, through the provision of flexible work arrangements as well as other accommodations and supports. We need to work together, then, to support and advance the inclusion of people with episodic disabilities.

The findings of a HUMA study could assist in identifying realistic solutions. They could also shed light on emerging ideas and best practices in advancing the inclusion of people with episodic disabilities.

Therefore, we support the motion of the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake to give instruction to the HUMA committee to study the needs of persons with episodic disabilities. We support it because it works toward our government's aim to create a truly accessible Canada where all Canadians have an equal opportunity to succeed, have the same rights and obligations, and are equal participants in society.

Let me remind the House that our government has taken significant action to enhance federal programs in place to support people with disabilities. For example, the Canada Labour Code was amended to provide employees with the right to request flexible work arrangements, such as flexible start and finish times, and the ability to work from home. This could be beneficial to an employee with an episodic disability.

The Government of Canada is also committed to filling knowledge gaps around the experiences of people with episodic disabilities. The Statistics Canada 2017 Canadian survey on disability is the first national survey to contain questions aimed at identifying people with episodic disabilities. It will provide valuable information to be used by governments, disability organizations and other stakeholders. Results are expected to be released in the near future.

Our government also supports people with disabilities, including episodic disabilities, through initiatives such as the labour market development agreements and the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities. Moreover, we have been working with the provinces and territories toward Canada's accession to the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

These measures, in addition to Bill C-81, will help our government lead the way to real improvements to inclusion and accessibility in Canada.

I would like to conclude by reiterating that our government supports the motion before us today. Given HUMA's busy agenda over the coming months, we propose that an amendment be made to the motion to allow more time for the completion of a comprehensive study. Instead of February 2019, we suggest that the committee be required to report its findings to the House of Commons by May 16, 2019.

This is an important topic, and we should give the HUMA committee the time it needs to get this right. Our government remains committed to upholding and safeguarding the rights of all people with disabilities, including episodic disabilities, to enable them to reach their full potential.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to my hon. colleague's motion this afternoon. It is a private members' motion, Motion No. 192, put forward by my friend and colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Simply put, private members' Motion No. 192 would work to advance government policy to ensure that persons living with episodic diseases like MS are given the supports they need and deserve. Who does not deserve to be treated equally? I am very glad to be wearing my MS band, which I got at a fundraiser a couple of weeks ago in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil.

Before I continue, I would like to thank the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake for his passion and hard work on this very important initiative, and for sharing his story and how much this means to his family. I would also like to thank the MS Society, which has partnered with my colleague to help construct this private member's motion. Every day, the MS Society works tirelessly to find a cure and advocate for the 77,000 Canadians affected by this terrible disease.

Private members' Motion No. 192 has the potential to make a positive impact on not only the lives of people living with episodic diseases, but their families as well. This motion would also bring about much needed awareness about episodic diseases. As I have learned after listening to my colleague, MS is not the only disease classified as episodic. The list includes diabetes, epilepsy and cancer. Awareness is an important step in finding a cure.

In June of this year, the government tabled Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. Although it offers some help to strengthen support for Canadians with disabilities, it will take time to pass, and time is critical to people living with these terrible diseases. We are waiting for what amendments would be added moving forward, but welcome amendments that would address the needs of those affected by episodic diseases.

Private members' Motion No. 192 will offer parliamentarians a perspective on how people with episodic disabilities live their lives, and how their families are affected by these diseases. MS alone affects 77,000 Canadians, which is one in 385 Canadians. Every 77 seconds, someone is diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in Canada. It is surprising to know Canada has one of the highest rates of MS in the world. It is often referred to as “Canada's Disease”. Sixty per cent of adults diagnosed are between the ages of 20 and 49, and women are three times more likely to be diagnosed than men and MS, along with all other episodic diseases, has a lasting impact on the lives of so many.

In my riding of Barrie—lnnisfil, my constituents have taken leadership in the fight against MS. The Mandarin MS Walk is one of the largest walks in the country, bringing together hundreds of participants and raising hundreds of thousands of dollars. This year alone, it raised $200,000. I am very pleased to have attended this year's event, as I do every year with my colleague from Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte

This past weekend, I was at a fundraiser and bought this band at the Two of a Kind Craft Market put on by the Simcoe Muskoka chapter of the MS Society of Canada. It is simply amazing to see what the constituents in my riding are doing, and their leadership should not go unnoticed. It is why I have taken the time to mention them today. The time spent and money raised by these initiatives are proof that Canadians are taking action, and so should their parliamentarians.

Now, besides recognizing that episodic diseases take a toll on a person's body, we must remember that these diseases also take a toll on the lives of family members and their way of life. Many of those living with these diseases and their families are treated differently. Finding work is hard due to the unpredictability of the disease. Access to resources such as student assistance and apprenticeship programs is hampered, and supports for families are minimal at this time.

Private member's Motion No. 192 is an opportunity to right these wrongs and fix these deficiencies. As the official opposition, we want to see, and will support, a realistic strategy to break down the barriers facing people with disabilities.

I, as well as my other hon. colleagues, believe that everyone, whether disabled or not, deserves to participate fully in all aspects of life, but we must keep in mind that different diseases affect people differently. We have to be mindful that legislation like Bill C-81 must not be a one-size-fits-all solution and that episodic diseases are, in fact, diseases.

The objectives of private member's Motion No. 192 are simple, as my hon. colleague mentioned when he introduced it. It would create better employment supports for people living with episodic disabilities. It would work to improve economic conditions for those living with episodic diseases. It would allow for better treatment, improve and raise the standard of care they receive, improve housing and ensure the government is investing in ways to find a cure for these diseases.

As I said earlier, and I echo my hon. colleagues, we must act now to get this passed. People affected by MS and diseases like it sometimes wait weeks, months or even years to get the treatment or care they need. I have received several letters and emails on this issue and a common denominator is time, and some people just do not have it.

Let us take action today to ensure the playing ground is even for all Canadians. Everyone deserves the chance to contribute to their community and their country and I hope that everyone in the chamber will stand together, along with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, in voting in favour of this motion.

Petitions

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention the fact that one year and five days ago, I rose in this House on the same issue on which I rise today, which is fair and reasonable access for all Canadians to participate fully in the democratic processes of this great institution. I am referring, as you pointed out, to the public paper petitions that we, as MPs, receive from Canadians right across this country on a variety of topics.

As Speaker Gaspard Fauteux said, in 1947:

All authorities agree that the right of petitioning parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution. It has been uninterruptedly exercised from very early times and has had a profound effect in determining the main forms of parliamentary procedure.

This was later echoed by the Hon. James McGrath in his third report to the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. He stated:

Public petitions addressed to the House of Commons constitute one of the most direct means of communication between the people and Parliament. It is by this means that people can voice their concerns to the House on matters of public interest.

As you will recall, I received a petition from constituents that was printed on paper that was 11 inches by 17 inches, or ledger size, and it was rejected by the clerk of petitions for not being on paper of the “usual size”, even though it had only been enlarged so that the constituents and petitioners could actually see what they were signing.

What exactly does “usual size” mean? Some people would interpret that as legal or letter size paper, which is exactly what was decided by the clerk's office. However, “usual size” does not mean the same thing to all Canadians. As a matter of fact, this House has a history of accepting petitions printed on varying sizes of paper and getting those certified.

On December 10, 1974, Mr. John Roberts, the member of Parliament for St. Paul's, successfully tabled a petition in the House of Commons that was on a single piece of paper that was over 370 feet long, longer than a Canadian football field. Then on April 6, 1982, Mr. Bill Domm, the MP for Peterborough, tabled a petition that was on paper 36 inches wide and three and a half miles long and weighed 247 pounds. In fact, it took all the pages and four MPs to carry it in. It included 135,327 signatures, making it the largest petition the Commons has ever received.

A few years later, the House underwent major reforms to the Standing Orders, and one section addressed was petitions. Prior to these reforms, petitions were first presented in the House, and it was up to the MPs to make sure that they were in order. After tabling, the clerk would examine them to make sure that they complied and would report back, and that would be it.

After the reforms, petitions were required to have a minimum of 25 valid signatures and to be examined before tabling, and the government had to respond within 45 days. However, notably, there were no changes to the size requirements.

Mr. Speaker, my last point of order on this matter is your own ruling, in which you stated:

The...House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 1166, states that only petitions printed on 21.5 centimetres by 28 centimetres, better known as 8 1/2 inches by 11 inches, or 21.5 centimetres by 35.5 centimetres, or 8 1/2 inches by 14 inches, sheets can be certified.

Having said this, I can understand the member's frustration. Thus, I suggest she could raise the matter with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which could, if it sees fit, consider changing the requirements for petitions.

I dug a bit deeper, and with the Library's assistance, I learned that at no time has this House of Commons ever defined the term “usual size”. It would appear that this is only an interpretation of a specific size requirement, and it comes from officials and not from the members of this House.

As for the standing committee, Mr. Speaker, I did take your advice, yet here we are, over one year later, and nothing has changed. The Liberals could have agreed to change the Standing Order after I rose on my last point of order, but they did not. The Liberals could have addressed this issue at PROC, but they did not. The Liberals again could have addressed this issue after I raised it once more in my speech on Bill C-81, but they did not. For a government that says it wants to make life easier for people living with disabilities, we are not seeing much action.

Take, for example, Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act, in its current version. There are no timelines and there is not even a coming-into-force date. This would allow the government to pass the bill and actually never do anything with it.

We need to act now to make Canadians' lives better because, as the Minister of Accessibility said in her speech to this House on Bill C-81:

We have to wait until individuals are denied a service, a job, a program, and then the system kicks in to determine if that denial was discriminatory. We literally have to wait until people are discriminated against before we can help them. These laws place the burden of advancing human rights on individuals.

Today, I am proud to rise on behalf of those individuals with a petition that was rejected by the clerk of petitions because it was on ledger-size paper.

There are two special features to today's petition. First, each signatory has some degree of visual impairment, which is why it is on ledger-size paper. It asks that the government amend Standing Order 36(1.1)(c). The second interesting feature is that it was signed by almost 200 parliamentarians, from all caucuses but one, in both Houses. I did invite members of the government side to join us in signing it, and I was very disappointed when they all refused.

I do hope that this new research I am providing will help fix this unacceptable state of affairs. I know that no member of this House wants to make the lives of those living with disabilities any more burdensome, nor do they want to infringe on any Canadian's fundamental and constitutional rights.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for me to table this petition calling on the government to amend Standing Order 36(1.1)(c).

Elections Modernization Act

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House once again to speak to Bill C-76, the elections modernization act. Throughout my speech, I will share how this bill will affect many citizens in my riding.

As members know, the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook is a half circle of the city of Halifax and Dartmouth. The riding has seen the largest increase in the number of seniors in Nova Scotia in the last five years. We also have the largest number of military members and veterans, who make up 23% of the communities within our riding. We have a lot of youth and young families and many seniors. Therefore, my speech today will touch on how this bill will help these individuals.

There is no doubt that this new law will make the system much more transparent for voters. What is more, it will make voting more accessible for those who have difficulty getting out to their polling stations. It will also make the system much more secure.

When we talk about democracy, we should start at the base to see how this bill was prepared and presented here today. I want to thank the minister for her excellent work and leadership on this bill. However, let us look at how this bill came about, because that is true democracy.

The Chief Electoral Officer made 130 recommendations to improve our electoral system. Those were of course reflected on, researched and consulted on before he came forward with them. Out of those 130 recommendations, about 87% of were included in this bill. Therefore, this was not one party deciding the full framework of this bill, because a major part of it came from recommendations that were made.

Also, we should mention the committee's work. There was a lot of debate and many witnesses came forward to speak about how we could improve the system. There were many amendments that came forward. I want to make sure that the people in Canada are aware that 70 amendments that came forward were accepted. That is not one party controlling, but rather all parties coming together. We had 16 amendments from the Conservative side that were approved. We had two amendments from the New Democratic Party that were approved. Therefore, 70 amendments were approved altogether, which is a large number. We also had some feedback and information that came about through discussion and debate at the Senate level.

I want to touch on some of the key ones, such as accessibility. One of my former students is the Speaker in the House today in the Nova Scotia Legislature. Mr. Murphy, a former student, had an accident playing hockey when he was very young and is in a wheelchair. Of course he has to have accessibility not only to federal institutions but to voting as well. Therefore, we want to make sure that we are answering his needs, and the needs of other Canadians who may have other challenges or disabilities, which is extremely important. People are now able to vote at home or in residences where seniors may not be able to make their way to voting stations. We even have some reimbursements in the bill for physical changes that need to be made with respect to accessibility to accommodate others.

The second one I want to speak about is our Canadian Armed Forces. If we look back, the Chief Electoral Officer said that we had to improve and give much more flexibility to the Canadian Armed Forces in voting. That was a key recommendation. We would be moving forward on that, which is extremely important. Canadian Armed Forces voters could now choose the method they would like best to vote so that they could have access to that important democratic right. To guarantee the integrity of the vote, we would also increase the information exchange between Elections Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces.

Those are very important changes to respond to, as I said earlier, a big part of my riding, where 23% of constituents are in the military or are veterans.

We would be encouraging more voters to vote. There are certain things that would be reinstated in this bill that were not there before under the so-called unfair elections act the former Conservative government had. I say so-called, because looking closely, there were a lot of issues with that bill.

We would also reinstate the voter's information card as a piece of ID and reintroduce vouching, which was removed in the Conservative's bill. This is another key measure to ensure that all eligible electors are able to cast a vote. This legislation, as introduced by the minister, contains limits on how vouching could be used to ensure that it could not be used in a way that threatened its integrity. For example, an elector could only vouch for one person in the same polling station. An elector could not vouch for more than one person. Finally, a person who was vouched for could not vouch for someone else. That would put some limitations on vouching, but it would be reinstated so that we could ensure that more Canadians were able to vote. Through this bill, over a million Canadians would have access to voting who did not have it under the Conservatives' bill, the so-called Fair Elections Act.

There were also important changes to this bill. I think it must be noted that it would ban the use of foreign money, which would be severely limited through this bill. Again, many of these changes came through the committee's work and from recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer and others.

Social networks would have to create a registry of all digital advertising published. We would be able to better track who spent what doing what and then follow up on that. We would also put in place some protections in the new registries for the future electorate, young Canadians aged 14 to 17.

I want to finish by saying that this bill would continue the transparency our government has brought forward since 2015 through Bill C-50, which was the political financing bill, the modernization of the access to information act, and the accessible Canada act, Bill C-81, which is currently being debated.

I want to thank committee members, the Chief Electoral Officer and Canadians for their input. I know that this is a big improvement for Canadians. We are looking forward to making sure that Canadians have better access to voting for parties or individuals, whomever they desire.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to spend a moment reinforcing what my colleague is talking about, the great work of the committee and of the government on Bill C-76 as it pertains to making sure Canadian elections are inclusive and barrier-free. If we take a look at our government approach as a whole when it pertains to persons with disabilities, we are trying to make the federal workplace barrier-free through Bill C-81 and are trying to make sure our elections process is inclusive and fair. This is a process that should be inclusive to all Canadians and should prevent foreign interference in our Canadian elections system, and that is exactly what Bill C-76 would do.

Canada Labour Code

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to offer some remarks in support of Bill C-65 so we can continue to move this important legislation through the legislative process and toward being implemented as law in Canada.

I would like to thank the minister responsible for the bill, as well as all of my colleagues from different parties who have taken part in the debate from inception to today. I had the pleasure of substituting in for a handful of studies while the bill was going through the standing committee process after second reading, and I am pleased to have it return to my attention today.

The bill is meant to address harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces, Crown corporations and the federal public service. Over the course of my remarks, I hope to offer some thoughts on the scope of the problem of workplace harassment and violence, as well as address some of the measures included in Bill C-65 to combat these social problems. If time permits, I will address some of the Senate amendments.

It is my pleasure to begin by discussing head-on the subject of workplace harassment and violence. This social phenomenon, quite frankly, is a serious problem that has no place in Canadian society whatsoever. It is disappointing to me that while most people we speak to would acknowledge this, workplace harassment and violence continues to persist.

I note that in a study conducted by Abacus Data, one in 10 people believed harassment in the workplace was really quite common. This is unacceptable. The standard of one in 10 thinking it is quite common should shock the conscience of every Canadian. We need to be promoting healthy workplaces where people can feel free to be their best selves and ensure they are able to contribute fully.

What makes it worse is I anticipate that most people who actually experience harassment or violence in the workplace do not come forward as often as we would like to think they do and when they do, they feel the measures are extraordinarily ineffective. This is a very serious problem. In my opinion, the system we have today disincentivizes people to report harm done to them in the workplace, incidents such as harassment or violence in the workplace.

The impact of harassment and violence at work should concern every one of us. It obviously has an impact on the individual who is the subject of this harassment or violence. We can imagine that people who are subjected to harassment or violence at work experience a far higher degree of stress or anxiety when they go to work in the morning and put in their shift. I am sure as well that it is a less satisfying experience as an employee to go to work and face this kind of harassment. It will also impact work performance if an employee is worried about physical violence or emotional harassment of any kind in the workplace. It is hard to imagine how the individual could be his or her best.

This can also have a ripple effect over the course of a person's career. We know that if people are experiencing this kind of subjugation at work from another person, it has the potential to cause them to miss work. They could actually have their careers thrown off track. People leave jobs over these kinds of incidents. Often the person who suffers the greatest consequences from harassment is the victim rather than the perpetrator, which is unacceptable in today's Canada.

However, it is not just the victim or survivor of harassment and violence who suffers consequences. Quite frankly, everyone suffers.

To remove the emotional or social context from this and to just look at hard and crass economics, it does not make sense to continue with the current system that helps to perpetuate violence and harassment in the workplace. When employees are subjected to harassment and violence, productivity of our companies go down. We know there can be reputational damage done to employers as well as severe reputational damage done to the employees when there are allegations of harassment, true or untrue, in the workplace. We need to consider this. We also know that workers who are subjected to violence have a poorer attendance records at work, through no fault of their own, by the way, and this also brings down the ability of companies to succeed in the Canadian economy.

However, this cannot be dealt with simply in terms of the hard and crass economics. We have to understand that there are individual human beings at the centre of this and that there is a disproportionate impact on different kinds of people based on the rate at which they experience violence and harassment in the workplace.

In particular, marginalized groups such as women, the LGBTQ community, indigenous people, people living with disabilities, racial and religious minorities and linguistic minorities suffer harassment and violence in the workplace at a far greater rate than the ordinary Canadian citizen. That is not okay.

I have been given every advantage in life. I am a white male from a good family. My parents both had good jobs. People whom I have worked with through my life have faced so many obstacles I have not faced. I am not okay with continuing to obtain advantages that my neighbours do not have. We live in an unfair society. Until every one of my neighbours is free and has the same advantages I had growing up, I cannot give up fighting inequality in our society.

If we want to take, for example, the experience that Canadian women have as opposed to Canadian men when it comes to workplace harassment and violence, the examples will shock members. For my first three years as a parliamentarian, I had the pleasure and privilege of serving on the Standing Committee for the Status of Women. It was an eye-opening experience for me, to say the least. We conducted studies on things like gender-based analysis, on ending violence against young women and girls, and on seeking equity in the Canadian economy.

I had the opportunity to sift through testimony. It is something that I will never forget. I have spoken personally with women whose careers have been completely derailed because of harassment in the workplace, including in Crown corporations and the federal public service and in certain agencies where the rules will change when Bill C-65 is implemented. I have heard stories about women who have been pushed into divorce because of the harassment they experienced when a husband and wife worked in the same workplace. I have heard tales of women being harassed so much that when they requested a transfer to another location, the employer would not accommodate their family being transferred as well. Those are consequences that we cannot accept, because they are having such a devastating impact on individual Canadians and a systemic impact on large groups of the Canadian population.

We know that women experience rates of workplace harassment and violence three times the rate experienced by Canadian men. We know that women are more likely to find themselves in an occupation that is subject to workplace harassment. We know, for example, that women are disproportionately represented in positions such as clerks or administrative assistants that report higher incidents of harassment and violence in the workplace.

This is holding our society back. We know that if we have rules that might in effect discriminate against women, though may not seek to do so, then those rules need to change. We will all benefit when they do.

Over the past couple of years in #MeToo era, we have come to better understand this problem in society and it is time that we do something about it. I cannot, in good faith, stand up here and argue that Bill C-65 is the panacea that will erase all of our social problems when it comes to gender and equity, but it will move the ball forward. I hope that some day we will get there, one step at a time.

It is not just women who suffer disproportionately when it comes to the social problem of workplace harassment and violence. If we look at minorities or marginalized groups, such as the LGBTQ community, we know that they also face higher rates of violence and sexual harassment.

I had the opportunity to work for a human rights organization in Johannesburg in a position funded by the Canadian government. While I was there I did a fair amount of work with the LGBTQ community, helping them to access information held by the government. One of the key issues we focused on was employees who were wrongfully dismissed based on their sexual orientation or gender status. I have worked with clients who have been fired for reporting bullying as a result of their being transgender. That is not okay.

We have to remember that whatever one's sexual orientation, whatever one's gender, one does not deserve discrimination. I am talking about people who had spotless performance records, people who got along very well with their fellow employees but who, when they went public about going through a transition, were discriminated against and heavily bullied. When they reported to their employers they were experiencing this kind of bullying based on who they were as a person, the employers terminated their positions. Although it took years of fighting, we were able to obtain records demonstrating that the reason they were let go was that they had filed complaints that had caused their employers headaches. That is not okay. The rules in South Africa are not the same as the rules in Canada, but I want to highlight that we can always do better to make sure that everyone is treated equally.

If we consider indigenous people in the workplace, we need to do a better job at creating an environment and circumstances that make them feel welcome in the Canadian economy. We are dealing with the fastest growing and youngest segment of the population. This should concern not just indigenous Canadians but non-indigenous Canadians as well. If we are going to make progress as a country, we need to embrace the youngest and fastest growing sector of the population. Right now these people are being discriminated against. They experience violence in the workplace at more than double the rate of non-indigenous people.

If we consider persons with disabilities, one would not believe the lack of accommodation for them throughout our society. On a separate but related piece, I am so pleased that our government is moving forward with Bill C-81. I note that we have members in the House who strongly support those who live with episodic disabilities as well. I congratulate those who took part in that debate.

We know that individuals living with disabilities, and particularly those living with intellectual disabilities, suffer from harassment and workplace violence at an extraordinarily high rate, sometimes more than four times that of the average population. We know that those facing mobility challenges face an extraordinarily high rate of violence in the workplace as well, and are treated far too often as victims because they are seen as not having the tools to defend themselves like many other Canadians have. This is absolutely disgusting and we need to ensure that we have a process that prevents these kinds of incidents from occurring, one that offers a meaningful response, that delivers justice to the victims of harassment and violence and also creates a change in workplace culture.

My point is that workplace harassment and violence is a serious problem that we all need to play a part in addressing to ensure that we can move forward in Canada by supporting Canadians, no matter what their background.

That leads me to the measures contained in Bill C-65. It takes us to where we are today. I think it is appropriate to take a snapshot of where we are today and how today's rules can change for the better. Presently, if I can oversimplify things, there are two regimes for workplace harassment and violence in Canada. Those two regimes have different mechanisms for resolving the issues facing those who have been affected by harassment or violence in the workplace. This creates an imbalance between workplaces. To point to a defining kind of example, current sexual harassment rules only apply in the federally regulated private sector, whereas rules pertaining to violence apply to the public service as well. This kind of two-tier approach makes absolutely no sense. Whether one works in the private sector, in transportation for example, or the banking sector, as opposed to working for a branch of the federal public service, one deserves the same remedy if one is treated inappropriately, no matter where one works. This is incredibly important.

What really bothers me as well is that the workplace we all share here in Parliament does not fall under either of these categories. That has been newsworthy over the last number of years, particularly when dealing with the power imbalance between elected officials or senior members of government or of a different political party, who often deal with young people who are having their first experience in politics. There is an extreme power imbalance.

Today there is not really an effective remedy, in my opinion. We are getting better as a parliamentary community and a parliamentary family, but realistically, the stories we hear through the grapevine are predominantly of young women leaving politics after a few years of being exposed to it, if they have been victimized by sexual harassment or violence in the workplace. We need to do better and Bill C-65 is an opportunity to make us be just a little better.

There are three real pillars to Bill C-65 in how we are going to approach things moving forward. The first is that we are going to try to prevent incidents from taking place in the first place; the second that we will try to offer a meaningful response to incidents when they occur; and the third, and perhaps most important, that we will try to better support employees who have been victimized and lived through episodes of violence or harassment in the workplace.

On the point of prevention, Bill C-65 will require employers to train employees and undergo training. I was very pleased to take part in the training organized by the House of Commons to ensure that I could better understand what harassment and violence in the workplace look like. Some of the examples might be very obvious when it comes to a violent outburst and some of the more subtle instances of harassment, when viewed through the eyes of one person, who may be giving direction but can be interpreted and felt as harassment by another. Through training, employees and employers can better understand where the line that should never be crossed is.

Still on the point of prevention, employers will be required to work with their employees to develop a harassment and violence prevention policy. It is essential that this not be dictated from the top down. The feedback from those living in a work environment can contribute to the development of policy. When more voices from different perspectives come to the table, the quality of the policy on the back end will improve.

Under the second pillar of the changes under Bill C-65, the need to respond to incidents of harassment and violence, the bill would implement a number of measures. The first is the establishment of a timeline for responses and attempts to resolve a dispute. It will require that employers appoint a competent person to conduct proper investigations of incidents when they occur. It would also empower employers to share information with the workplace committee when it would not compromise the privacy of the persons involved in a given incident. It would also require that when an investigation by a competent person does take place, the recommendations of that investigation be implemented. Finally, it would require that when incidents occur, they be recorded and reported in a systemic way.

The final pillar is that employers will be required to provide assistance to employees who subjected to harassment or violence in the workplace and that employers engage the workplace committees in developing policies to help make their workplaces safer.

Bill C-65, as I mentioned, will not have every answer and will not cure every problem in a day, but it represents meaningful progress. One of the features included in the bill that would ensure that we are moving in the right direction over time is the five-year review. It would ensure that we revisit these policies after we have had enough time to determine whether they are having a meaningful impact. With the co-operation of the Parliament five years from now, hopefully we can examine how things have gone in this new world and continue to improve them.

In conclusion, it has been a privilege to learn about the issues that employees face when they are subjected to harassment and violence. It is completely inappropriate and unacceptable that we continue to discriminate against marginalized groups in the workplace, in federally regulated sectors, in the public service and in any employment situation in Canada, quite frankly. We need to do better and Bill C-65 helps move us in the right direction.

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the motion brought forward today by the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. This is a very interesting motion.

Our government is committed to protecting and enhancing the rights of people with disabilities, including episodic disabilities, so they can reach their full potential. We recognize the importance of ensuring that Canadians with episodic disabilities get the support they need to stay in the workforce and fully participate in society.

As we prepare for the parliamentary debate on Motion No. 192, the views expressed by community partners and organizations will receive considerable attention. We recently undertook a number of initiatives that should improve the inclusion of people with episodic disabilities. Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada, was tabled in Parliament on June 20. It specifically mentions episodic disabilities in its definition of “disability”, to ensure that the specific needs of Canadians with episodic disabilities are considered.

Furthermore, the 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability is the first national survey to include a module on episodic disabilities. This data will be invaluable to governments, organizations working with people with disabilities and other stakeholders.

Episodic disabilities are conditions characterized by periods of good health interrupted by periods of illness or disability that may vary in severity, length and predictability. Some common examples of episodic disabilities include multiple sclerosis, arthritis, diabetes, chronic pain and some forms of mental illness.

According to a Social Research and Demonstration Corporation study based on Statistics Canada's 2012 Canadian Survey on Disability, an estimated 3.9% of people aged 15 to 64, a cohort 900,000 strong, claimed to suffer from an episodic disability in 2012. Some 40% of those people described their conditions as serious or very serious. Many episodic disability sufferers are able to work most of the time.

My time is up for now, so I would like to wish all of my colleagues a happy Thanksgiving. I hope that they enjoy every moment spent with their families and return well-rested on October 15.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that our government takes very seriously the challenges faced by people with episodic disabilities.

Episodic disability is a health condition that we all know about but that is difficult to measure and manage because of its unpredictable manifestations. It is for this reason that we take into account the needs of people with episodic disabilities in the development of our legislative programs and policies.

Episodic disability is characterized by moments of well-being and periods of illness or disability. These periods can vary in duration, predictability and severity. It is because of their condition that people with episodic disabilities may have to take time off work and thus use income replacement programs.

In 2012, nearly 3.8 million Canadians aged 15 and over reported having a disability limiting their daily activities, including those with episodic disabilities. People with episodic disabilities often face more employment challenges than people without disabilities. In 2011, almost half, or 47%, of respondents with disabilities aged 15 to 64 reported having a job, but for non-disabled respondents, this proportion was 74%.

Many of us know someone who has an episodic disability, and many people have episodic disabilities as they get older.

Motion No. 192 proposes that the House of Commons request the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to make “recommendations for legislative and policy changes necessary to ensure that the needs of persons with episodic disabilities caused, among other things, by multiple sclerosis, be adequately protected to ensure equity in government policy to support Canadians across all types of disability.”

Our government is well aware that people with disabilities face unique barriers that may limit their participation in our society and economy.

Our efforts to support and advance the integration of people with disabilities are not new. Since day one, we have been committed to this goal. In addition, we have improved and adjusted our programs accordingly. That is also why we have a minister dedicated to accessibility.

Our approach is based on collaboration and communication. That is how the government implements its commitment to people with episodic disabilities. We are committed to supporting people with episodic disabilities through many programs and benefits, such as the Canada pension plan disability program, the disability tax credit and the Canada health and social services disability benefits.

We have heard from people with episodic disabilities and the organizations that represent them that they are not always eligible for benefits of this nature because of the nature of their illness. For example, in June 2018, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology presented concerns such as these in its report, “Breaking Down Barriers: A critical analysis of the Disability Tax Credit and Registered Disability Savings Plan.”

We are constantly evaluating the extent to which our programs meet the needs of people from diverse groups, including people with episodic disabilities. We also regularly ask for advice on how our programs and policies could be more inclusive and better help Canadians. We appreciate the work of the organizations involved in this regard.

We have already taken important steps to provide better support. For example, in budget 2018, our government announced that it would expand labour provisions for a period of El benefits, maternity and sickness benefits. The purpose of this measure is to provide claimants who have an illness or injury more flexibility to manage their return to work and retain a larger portion of their El benefits.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention Bill C-81. On June 20, 2018, we tabled the accessible Canada act in Parliament. Under this new legislative proposal, our government would require organizations under federal jurisdiction to identify, eliminate and prevent barriers to accessibility, particularly in the area of employment. In addition, Bill C-81 would require consideration of the particular accessibility needs of people with a variety of disabilities, including those with episodic disabilities.

Before we introduced our bill, we talked to and listened to stakeholders. During the “accessible Canada” consultations, we heard from more than 6,000 Canadians and 90 organizations.

Our Government recognizes that it is important to ensure that people with episodic disabilities benefit from the proposed accessibility act in the same way as other people.

In response to stakeholder recommendations, Bill C-81 includes a broader definition of disability and specifically includes episodic disabilities. This addition is a clear sign to those with an episodic disability that our government is working to remove the barriers they face on a daily basis. Our government will continue to work with persons with disabilities, including those with an episodic disability. Our goal is to ensure these people are recognized and supported by our policies, programs and laws. Our commitment to inclusion and accessibility is unwavering.

I want to express my appreciation to our colleague for bringing this issue to the House. There is no reason why all Canadians cannot showcase all of their strengths and talents. People with disabilities share the same contributions to Canada's prosperity as the rest of Canadians. Canada is a country where everyone should be able to benefit from our collective prosperity. We will continue our work to shape an all-inclusive Canada.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Motion No. 192, the private member's motion of my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. It seeks to enhance government policy responding to persons who suffer from episodic disabilities, including those caused by MS.

I had the pleasure of knowing my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake for several years before I came to the House. I met his wife, Kathy, when they were door knocking for their by-election, and his daughter, Melissa, a wonderful lady who is suffering under snow in Calgary. She can come home to Edmonton any time. She served on my EDA. I tease David that we have the third best Yurdiga in the House today, but they are wonderful people nonetheless.

His wife, Kathy, is a wonderful lady, She spent countless hours helping out those in Fort McMurray during the disastrous fire we had a couple of years ago. Even with the issues she is facing, she still continues to give to the community, and I thank her for that.

I know my office, no doubt like other MPs here, works with constituents who need help accessing disability resources and, as is often the case, are looking for support from the system that may not be best equipped to handle changing needs, demographic and demands.

Discussions like the one we are having today are essential for establishing an action plan for community organizations that serve those who live with debilitating conditions. This type of discussion, a proper referral to committee to hear directly from those affected, how they can be better accommodated, what needs to be changed and so on, is the best way we can ensure that the needs of those who suffer from a disability, which may not always present signs or systems, are heard.

I compare this motion against the government's Bill C-81, which rather than provide an opportunity to develop a tangible plan with a road map for goals and desired outcomes, seeks to merely increase the bureaucracy and spending and add what will likely be decades more of proposals for upgrading buildings from Infrastructure Canada and PSPC. I have no doubt it will be added to the Liberals' list of “underway with challenges” on the Liberals' fabled mandate tracker.

We need to truly address the needs of persons with disabilities and, like my colleague for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake has highlighted, those whose condition may present episodically rather than chronically. The best way to do this is not through the observed experience of a policy analyst at PSPC or of a bureaucrat whose government mandated focus is fining and penalizing government agencies whose buildings are not up to code.

Bill C-81's information package provided by the government had twice as much information on how it would fine and penalize Canadians than it did on how it would implement the program or how it would help Canadians with disabilities. I would not be so cynical if there were not a clear record of the government penalizing persons with disabilities rather than helping them.

Let us go back to as recently as last year. The CRA began targeting people living with type 1 diabetes, people suffering from autism, as well as those suffering from severe mental health disorders. Autism Canada says that to this day it still is hearing too many stories of people who have had the disability tax credit, sometimes for decades, for their children with autism and it is being taken away.

What is going on with the government that it is allowing the CRA to go after families that have a loved one suffering from autism and now saying "you don't qualify"? Here is a hint to the government. People do not have autism and a tax credit one day and then the next not have autism. The way the government is acting is beyond belief.

The disability tax credit reduces the tax burden of people with type 1 diabetes and others with disabilities. Under the law, they have been eligible to receive it for the last 10 years as long as a doctor certified that they required life-sustaining therapy at least three times each week for a total of 14 hours on average. The government is now taking away tax credits from people who have diabetes or autism even when doctors certify they are eligible under the existing law and policy, neither of which has changed apparently.

This new direction appears to have happened secretly, with no public notice or consultation with the diabetes community. As a diabetes sufferer stated, "It's not like I can snap a finger and this disease turns off." Therefore, I have a question in all of this for a government that is so heavy on the need to consult. Why is it so quick to unilaterally decide on how to handle the issue of the level of disability? This is part of an alarming trend from a government increasingly desperate to raise revenue to fund its out of control spending.

I note that in its accessibility legislation, there is no mention of helping community-based organizations, those that persons with disabilities rely on during their day-to-day lives. People living with a disability do not need additional red tape, empty promises or an enhanced bureaucracy that just increases the amount of redirects they get when they call the department for help.

They need tangible change, something that can be attained by digging into exactly what is working and what is not working through a comprehensive study like that proposed under Motion No. 192. Perhaps the Liberals need to take heed of our record on disability legislation with programs that provided concrete action to address disability-related problems.

The Conservative government introduced the registered disability savings plan, which helps parents and grandparents with children with severe disabilities to contribute to the children's financial security. Over 100,000 Canadians have taken advantage of this program to save for their children's future. It took all of three months from election to legislation to create this program. Compare that to the Liberal record on Bill C-81 with three different ministers, or maybe four when we consider that it started with the current minister of PSPC under a different department. Now it is with disability and sports. With three different mandate letters over three years and it is still not accomplished.

During the former Conservative era, we invested $30 million into the opportunities fund to help persons with disabilities gain employment. We supported caregivers by providing tax credits to help them through the difficulties associated with caring for a loved one. There was over $200 million for labour market agreements for persons with disabilities to assist provinces in improving the employment situation of Canadians with disabilities, millions of dollars for the initiative of the Canadian Association for Community Living to connect persons with developmental disabilities with jobs, millions to support the expansion of vocational training programs for persons with autism spectrum disorder, and the list goes on.

However, the former Conservative government's action on disability resources did not stop with our previous government. The member for Calgary Shepard introduced Bill C-399,, the fairness for persons with disabilities act. This bill would amend the Income Tax Act to reduce the threshold for the number of hours necessary for an activity to be eligible for the tax credit from 14 to 10 hours. In the case of therapy that requires a regular dosage, it would take into consideration time spent on calculating the dosage to qualify for the tax credit. This would protect diabetics and certain rare disease patients for whom the calculation of their dosage takes considerable time. It would also add medical food and formula to qualifying for the DTC in order to add certainty for patients with certain rare diseases. This is the action that we need and action that will help those living with disabilities.

The member for Carleton introduced Bill C-395, the opportunity for workers with disabilities act to ensure that those with disabilities, upon gaining employment, are not net losers when government benefit clawbacks occur. Again, this is real action, common-sense action to help. Now my colleague for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is introducing this motion to develop a road map that would close the gaps in policy for people who are not always presenting signs of a disability, as is often the case for people suffering from MS.

We need a record that clearly shows what Canadians are saying about how the current system affects them and how it must be changed to help them not only live with dignity but continue to be active and contributing members of Canadian society. Motion No. 192 provides the action plan to do exactly that and I hope my colleagues on all sides of the House recognize what it seeks to do and support it.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my hon. colleague for bringing forward this important issue and, in particular, for sharing his personal stories about the importance of this issue. Of course, the impact of episodic disabilities is not limited to his family but also is significant for Canadians in every part of our country.

Our government understands that people with episodic disabilities such as MS, arthritis, diabetes, chronic pain and some types of mental health issues as well face particular barriers to their social and economic participation in society. At its core, what this motion seeks to do is to have a committee study the issue of episodic disabilities to ensure the people who live with these disabilities are adequately protected.

With respect to my hon. colleague's motion, before I commit on the spot to what seems like a sensible thing to study, I would like to have the opportunity to chat with some of my colleague who serve on the committee to ensure, first, that episodic disabilities would be part of the study on Bill C-81, and to ensure that we are taking steps in that bill to address the issue. If it turns out that this motion would indeed make a difference and not duplicate the work, it would have my support.

Episodic disabilities are characterized by fluctuating periods of wellness and periods of illness or disability. These periods may vary in length, severity and predictability. In 2012, almost 3.8 million Canadians reported having a disability that limited their daily activities. This figure includes people with episodic disabilities.

Persons living with disabilities often face more challenges in the labour force than those without disabilities. In 2011, close to half, or 47%, of 15-year-olds to 64-year-olds living with disabilities reported that they were employed. The figure for their contemporaries without disabilities was 74%. Employment is one of the key aspects of independent living and full participation in society. As such, the Government of Canada strives to empower all adults of working age, including people with episodic disabilities, to fully contribute to their communities and achieve their personal goals.

Our government is committed to supporting people with all forms of disabilities. One of our important initiatives is to remove barriers in areas of federal jurisdiction. On June 20, 2018, we tabled in Parliament Bill C-81, the accessible Canada act. I should stress that barriers can not only be physical in nature, such as access to built infrastructure like buildings, but that attitudinal barriers can also limit access and full inclusion. For example, persons living with disabilities can face discrimination in their workplaces or in seeking employment.

Earlier, I mentioned the discrepancy between the employment rates of those living with disabilities compared with other Canadians. However, the survey indicated that 51% of potential workers in that age group thought employers considered them disadvantaged as a result of their condition. This simply is not right. Under the new proposed legislation, organizations falling within federal jurisdiction would be required to identify, remove and prevent barriers to accessibility, including in the area of employment.

Under this important bill, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility would be responsible for the act and would implement aspects of it related to employment across all sectors within federal jurisdiction, including transportation, broadcasting and telecommunications.

Bill C-81 would also make use of a broader definition of disability. This speaks to the content of the motion in particular, because the definition includes a specific reference to episodic disabilities to signal our commitment to reducing barriers for people who live with episodic conditions. If passed, Bill C-81 would require consideration of the particular accessibility needs of people with a variety of disabilities, including episodic disabilities such as multiple sclerosis. For all people with disabilities, we are taking action.

To support the implementation of the proposed new legislation, the Government of Canada has committed approximately $53 million over six years toward a new strategy for an accessible Government of Canada. As part of the strategy, and as Canada's largest employer, the Government of Canada has committed to hiring at least 5,000 new employees who live with disabilities over the next five years. We are also introducing a federal internship program for Canadians with disabilities, and establishing a centralized workplace accommodation fund to better manage workplace accessibility for federal public service employees who live with disabilities. This is real action to effect change, and it will impact individuals who live with episodic disabilities.

These initiatives would support Canadians in accessing secure, gainful employment opportunities. Supporting and advancing the inclusion of people living with disabilities is not new to this government. From day one, we have been committed to this goal and have been improving our programs and benefits to better fit people's needs. This is also why we have a minister dedicated to supporting persons living with disabilities. Our approach is based on collaboration and communication. Notably, we have heard from people with episodic disabilities and stakeholder organizations that these individuals may face barriers in accessing federal supports.

I am proud to say that our government has taken significant action to enhance the federal programs in place to support these individuals. For example, in budget 2018, the Government of Canada announced that it would extend the employment insurance provisions for those working while on claim to sickness and maternity benefits. This would allow claimants dealing with an illness or injury to have greater flexibility managing their return to work and to keep more of their employment insurance benefits. This measure could have a positive impact on improving workforce attachment for people with episodic disabilities.

In 2017, the CRA reinstated the disability advisory committee, a committee of 12 members and two co-chairs, including people living with disabilities, advocates from the disability and indigenous communities, qualified health practitioners and tax professionals. This committee is mandated to advise the Minister of National Revenue and the commissioner of the CRA on interpreting and administering tax measures for Canadians living with disabilities in a fair, transparent and accessible way.

Enhancing the accessibility of the CRA's services to persons living with disabilities, including those with episodic disabilities, is an ongoing effort that will be greatly assisted by the committee's work. The Government of Canada is also committed to filling knowledge gaps around the experiences of people with episodic disabilities.

Statistics Canada's 2017 Canadian survey on disability is the first national survey to contain questions aimed at identifying people with episodic disabilities, and will provide valuable information to be used by governments, disability organizations, and other stakeholders. Results are expected to be released later this fall.

In these ways, the Government of Canada continues to implement its commitment to advancing the inclusion of people with episodic disabilities. We will maintain communications with Canadians with episodic disabilities so that we can always improve the support we provide and empower them to get the most out of life.

We believe in a truly accessible Canada, one where everyone has a fair chance to succeed.

I look forward to second reading of the hon. member's motion and having the opportunity before it comes back to the House to chat with my colleagues to ensure that the motion will lead to greater support for those living with episodic disabilities.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and appreciate his coming forward and talking about his most personal story with his spouse, someone living with MS. The fact that more Canadians suffer from this dreadful disease than anyone else in the world is something we really have to take seriously. Episodic disorders like MS are very individualized to the person. My heart goes out to him and his family.

I want to talk about the present bill, Bill C-81, which is currently being studied by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities. The bill actually includes specific mention of episodic disabilities in its definition of disabilities to ensure consideration of the particular accessibility needs of Canadians with this type of disorder.

The member's motion calls for the committee to report to the House by February 2019. I wonder if the member would be flexible in his timeline. It is important to give the committee the time it needs to make sure that it hears all questions and answers about this very important issue.

Opposition Motion—Housing

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I will inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

It is my pleasure to rise today to take part in the opposition day debate on housing. It is not often that an opposition party gives the government a chance to talk about all its achievements, but thanks to the member for Saskatoon West, we are doing that today.

I am not just going to speak about our record on housing. I am going to talk about what we have done for seniors, for people living with disabilities and for vulnerable Canadians. Most of all, I am going to speak about what we are doing in the fight against poverty, because that is at the core of this opposition day motion. What is the government doing to fight poverty in Canada? The answer to that question is simple: We are doing more than any government has done in generations.

I will start with seniors. We all know that Canada's population is aging. However one looks at it, Canadians are living healthier, longer lives, and with these demographic changes, our country will have both challenges and opportunities. Our government recognizes this, which is why a key focus since taking office has been improving the quality of life for an aging population.

We increased the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, improving financial security for almost 900,000 seniors and helping to lift thousands of seniors out of poverty. We enhanced the Canada pension plan for the first time in a generation, which will help the seniors of tomorrow with increased retirement benefits, particularly for disabled contributors, widows and widowers. Indeed, in my riding, I cannot tell members how many seniors have come in who are trying to survive on the Canada pension plan, the OAS and the GIS. They struggle. This is a huge accomplishment. Of course, we reversed the Harper government's disastrous changes to OAS and GIS eligibility, restoring the age from 67 back to 65, which will prevent 100,000 seniors from falling into poverty every year.

Let us talk about what our government is doing to promote accessibility and help Canadians living with disabilities. Today, one in seven Canadians reports having a disability, and disability continues to be the most common ground for discrimination complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That is why our goal is to make a barrier-free Canada a reality within the federal jurisdiction and why, last June, we tabled Bill C-81, Canada's first-ever national accessibility legislation. Thanks to the accessibility act, our government is taking a proactive approach to get ahead of systemic discrimination across all areas of federal jurisdiction to achieve the progressive realization of a Canada without barriers.

We are also putting money where it matters through programs such as the enabling accessibility fund and the social development partnership program. Initiatives like these support community-based projects across Canada aimed at improving accessibility and safety within communities and workplaces. They get us closer to a barrier-free Canada, where people with disabilities can have a real opportunity to succeed.

We can talk about housing. Our government is proud to have announced Canada's first-ever national housing strategy, our 10–year, $40-billion plan to give more Canadians a place to call home. Thanks to the national housing strategy, we are going to create 100,000 new housing units and repair and renew more than 300,000 housing units. We are going to reduce or eliminate housing needs for 530,000 Canadian families across Canada. We are going to protect an additional 385,000 households from losing an affordable place to live. We are going to reduce chronic homelessness by 50% by 2027–28.

It is important to note, however, that our commitment to make sure that Canadians have access to safe, affordable homes runs deeper than the national housing strategy. From the beginning of our mandate, we have been making unprecedented investments in housing. These investments are already paying off. Whether it is eliminating chronic homelessness in Victoria, funding new community housing projects in Calgary or Kitchener, or funding seniors in supportive housing units in St. John's, all across Canada we are helping to create homes for people who need them the most. In fact, since forming government in 2015, we have invested nearly $5 billion in housing, which has benefited nearly one million Canadians from coast to coast to coast. By comparison, the party that initiated today's debate promised less than $3 billion over four years for housing, and those commitments were conditional on first balancing the budget.

Our government understood from day one that meeting Canada's housing challenges could not wait, which is why we have invested from the beginning of our mandate and why we have committed to providing stable, long-term funding to our partners for the next decade. This will bring certainty for our partners over the next decade so that they can plan and start to look forward as to how they can help resolve some of these issues.

Let us talk about poverty. As we outlined recently in opportunity for all, which is Canada’s first-ever national poverty reduction strategy, and there seem to be a lot firsts coming along here, our government has a plan to achieve the lowest level of poverty in Canada's history by 2030. That is millions of people removed from poverty. We are also going to establish the first-ever official poverty line so that we can accurately measure how we are doing in the fight against poverty rather than leaving it up to the government of the day to set its own definitions.

In the committee I sit on, I asked all the witnesses about data. We need that data. We need to understand the baseline. How are we doing compared to where we were? How are we doing in meeting our future goals? That is critically important in executing any operational plan.

Once again, we understand that the fight against poverty is not something that can wait, which is why we have invested heavily in that fight since we took office. To date, we have invested more than $22 billion in the fight against poverty. I am proud to say that those investments are paying off. Thanks to the Canada child benefit, enhanced seniors benefits, and starting next year, the Canada workers benefit, by April 2019, we will have lifted more than 650,000 Canadians out of poverty, including more than 300,000 children. This is an incredible achievement and something we are very proud of.

Our government understands that there is still more work to do. The Prime Minister likes to say, “better is always possible.” However we look at it, by whatever measure we use, we are making real change happen. We were elected to help Canadians in the middle class and those working hard to join it, and through unprecedented investments in housing, seniors, and the fight against poverty, our government is making it possible for more and more Canadians to have a real and fair chance at success.

I would like to add that in my riding, we see these issues being played out every single day. I have sat in on countless round tables and town halls. I have been in some of these consultations with our colleagues. What we have heard and what we are putting down as a plan is what the experts have been telling us we need. We do not need a knee-jerk reaction. We need to have a long-term plan that we can count on so that we can effectively move forward over the next decade.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is so much to talk about here. It is sad that I only have 10 minutes, but I am going to start with the priorities.

First of all, this motion calls for the government to bring forward 50% of the strategy's funding before the next election. I am glad it was put forward in this proposal. The government has a rather annoying habit of announcing funding that is only going to happen after the next election. It is mythical funding if the Liberals are not re-elected, and I am very hopeful that they are not.

We have seen the infrastructure money that was promised 10 years out. That is assuming that they will be re-elected twice, which is really scary. I think we need to spend infrastructure money in this country, and affordable housing is one of the areas that needs that funding. If I think about the promises the Liberals were elected on, they were going to run really small deficits, and they were going to spend that money on infrastructure in municipalities. However, here we are, the third year into their mandate, and less than 40% of their infrastructure money has even been spent. What a disaster that is.

In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, we have a lot of opportunities to spend that money. It is really badly needed. The affordable housing situation we have requires $40 million in renovations for the existing affordable housing in my riding. That said, I am in a similar position as some of the other members who have testified in this House today. There is no place affordable to live for anyone looking for a house. I had one of my constituents call the office, a single mother just coming out of the women's assault centre. She had no place to live for her and her two children that she could afford, and she is working full time.

The wage base has not kept up with the increase in house prices. We certainly need to do something about that. I would love to see the government actually spend the money that was promised and put it into the affordable housing area.

With respect homelessness and the plan to end homelessness, I was on the board of a homeless shelter. We have a significant homelessness issue in Sarnia. Maybe it is not as bad as in some of the larger cities, but still it is very serious. What we find is that in many cases, there are mental health issues, addiction issues and other problems that lead to people finding themselves in this homelessness place.

Interestingly, the homeless shelter I was on the board of put in place a unique solution of coming alongside those people, befriending them and helping them. They were able to pair them up with people they became friends with at the homeless shelter, and then they were able to live independently, and we would help them manage their money, because many times they were not very good at managing the money the government was providing to support them. It was so successful, in fact, that the Province of Ontario decided to donate money to the homeless shelter, or provide funding, to continue to expand the program, because we were very successful in getting people out of homelessness and into independent living. Part of the success of that solution is finding affordable housing. We can see how affordable housing is going to be so important to achieving a number of the things that are in this motion today.

This motion also talks about the administration of programs that meet the special needs of seniors and persons with reduced mobility. I was pleased to rise the other day to speak to Bill C-81, which was about people with disabilities and how we are going to enable them to have the same rights and freedoms other people enjoy in the country. I shared an example that I think speaks to the affordable housing area.

We have a fellow in my riding who was, unfortunately, paralyzed in an accident and is in a wheelchair. He is such an inspiration in our community. He partnered with the architect for a fundraiser that the hospital has called the dream home. They sell tickets for the dream home, and it is a way of raising money for the hospital. In this case, they worked together, he, Dan Edwards, and the architect, to create a visitable home. It is a home that is totally accessible for a person in a wheelchair, who can absolutely cook and do all the things they need to do in a house, and it is a reasonable price,

I think there are ideas out there that could be incorporated into affordable housing, because many people who find themselves in need of affordable housing are seniors. Our seniors are struggling to make ends meet, and they are finding it very difficult to find places they can afford to live. The size of their pensions or their CPP and OAS is not increasing, and as the price of a place to live continues to inflate, they are the ones having difficulty. In many cases, over the years, they are going to become less able to walk and will have other disabilities that will need to be dealt with. Certainly, this is an area where, if we are building affordable housing, we should make sure that we are making it accessible and think about seniors and the needs they are going to have.

The other part of the motion I want to talk about has to do with housing for indigenous communities. There is an awful lot of rhetoric coming from the Liberal government about its nation-to-nation relationship. However, when I look at what is actually happening, there is a lot of talk but there are not a lot of results, when we think of building housing, addressing the boiled water advisories, etc.

There is a need out there, but we want to make sure that we do not get back into a situation such as what happened at Attawapiskat. Members might remember when $300 million was given to the community. There were about 80 people in the community, and they were all living in tents and horrible living conditions. In my mind, there was no resolution, because $300 million should have been enough to build affordable housing and it should have been satisfactory.

There is a need the government is not addressing within our indigenous communities. It would be great for the government to spend some of the money it futuristically planned. It should spend it now, because the need is immediate, and it is important that the government do that.

On the right to housing as a human right, I am not sure I am really on that page, because as soon as we say it is a human right for people to have housing, the question will be what kind of housing they deserve. There is no definition provided of what is acceptable. Do we think everyone should have a $300,000 house, or should we all be able to buy a house in Vancouver or Toronto? I think that is a point of discussion.

My youngest daughter recently purchased a home. They are first-time home buyers in London. The member for Elgin—Middlesex—London indicated that the typical price of a house there is probably $300,000. Well, for a first-time homebuyer, one needs a 20% down payment because of what the finance minister put in place. That is $60,000. What kind of young first-time homebuyers have $60,000? If they do not have parents who are reasonably well off and generous, they are not going to be able to get into the housing market. Therefore, another helpful suggestion I would give to the government is to get rid of that 20% requirement for a down payment. I mean, if one is going to have a mortgage of $240,000, there is not that much difference between that and one for $300,000, but it is a huge difference in terms of young people being able to have that dream of owning a home. I think that is important as well.

When we look at all the parts of the motion before us, there are many priorities the government could be doing something with. I hope it spends money on infrastructure. I hope it meets the needs of indigenous communities. I hope it provides affordable housing by letting members of Parliament who are in the House actually submit what the municipalities need in their areas. There is more than enough need to help the government spend the 60% of infrastructure money that has not yet been spent.

I do not see a plan to end homelessness coming from the government, but there are many wonderful solutions in communities, such as the one I talked about, that could help end homelessness. I am glad to hear that the housing first program was not cancelled, because it is certainly something we need. We have to have a place where people can go, because that is part of getting people back to health and back to work.

I did not talk about the expansion of rent supplements, because I did not really understand what was intended and what they would like to see in place. Because there is no affordable housing, the amount of money the government is giving for rent is not enough, which I think is fair to say, and it is worse in larger communities like Vancouver and Toronto than it is here.

Overall, I am glad to see that the motion was brought forward.

Accessibility

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility]

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely recognize the importance of sign language to the deaf and hard of hearing communities here in Canada, both as a means of communication but also of cultural significance. Our government is very committed to ensuring greater accessibility and opportunities for all. That is why our government was proud to table Bill C-81, which will help ensure that all people, regardless of ability or disability, can fully participate in society.

I encourage all members of the House to support this bill and I invite them to join me this evening for a reception with members of the deaf community to celebrate International Day of Sign Languages.

Bill C-81—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, though I believe we will be able to find a way forward, because it is important legislation, to ensure that we continue advancing legislation, I would like to inform you that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

I hope this notice does not need to be acted upon.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue third reading debate of Bill C-71, the firearms legislation. Tomorrow, we will have second reading debate of Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights.

On Monday, we will return to the second reading of Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada. We also hope to start debating Bill C-78.

Persons with Disabilities

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility]

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud that tomorrow we are commencing debate on second reading of Bill C-81, the accessibility act.

I can tell members that, in my opinion, this will be the most significant piece for disability rights legislation since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am excited to be working with the member opposite on this bill. I am excited that we can get it to committee tomorrow as soon as possible so that we can make it as substantively great as we possibly can to include the full participation and inclusion of every Canadian in our society.