Bill C-22

Canada Disability Benefit Act

An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act

This enactment establishes the Canada disability benefit to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities. It sets out general provisions for the administration of the benefit and authorizes the Governor in Council to implement most of the benefit’s design elements through regulations. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act .

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, committee members.

I would like to thank the committee for its work to create a more inclusive country for persons with disabilities. I also thank all parties for supporting Bill C‑22 at second reading.

Colleagues, you have before you legislation that is very straightforward in both its objective and its format. Bill C-22 would create the new Canada disability benefit, a monthly supplemental income payment modelled after the GIS and to be paid directly to working-age, low-income persons with disabilities. The objectives of Bill C-22 are poverty reduction and financial security. The harsh reality is that working-age persons with disabilities in Canada are twice as likely to live in poverty as those without. Approximately one in four working-age persons with disabilities lives below the poverty line.

Many persons with disabilities in Canada experience a modest level of financial security for the first time in their adult lives when they turn 65 and have access to OAS and GIS. The poverty level drops by over 60% for persons with disabilities between the ages of 64 and 65—from 23% to 9%. I know you all agree that is unacceptable—not the poverty drop, but the fact that it was 23%.

The Canada disability benefit would be established and implemented through Bill C-22, which is the legal framework to create the benefit, and a subsequent public regulatory process through which the specific details of the benefit would be established. This is by design. This is intentional. This approach recognizes the important role the disability community must play in this process, as well as the complexity of existing provincial and territorial disability service and support systems.

Let me back up for a moment. From the outset, I have had two priorities in developing this benefit: first, that the disability community be involved at every stage of the process, and second, that there be rigour in dealing with provinces and territories, in order to ensure that people are better off and that existing benefits and services are not clawed back.

To my first priority, we worked very closely with the disability community. The principle of “nothing without us” is embedded in Bill C-22. The Accessible Canada Act requirement that persons with disabilities be involved in the development and design of laws, policies, programs and services is embedded in Bill C-22, and Canada's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are embedded in Bill C-22.

We invested $12 million over three years in budget 2021 to work with the disability community on the design of the proposed benefit. We did an online survey, held roundtables and other forms of consultations. We also funded national disability organizations to engage the community directly.

We will not impose upon this community, and we will not create a race to the bottom.

Stakeholders such as Inclusion Canada have made it clear they don't want decisions being made without the disability community's meaningful participation. People First of Canada raised the key principle of having people with intellectual disabilities at the table during the design stage of the benefit. Disability Without Poverty wants this legislation to pass quickly through Parliament and is eager to participate in the regulatory process, so that a range of lived experiences are heard and listened to. There are more.

We've worked with the community at every step and will continue to engage, seek input from and respond to the community through this and every subsequent phase of benefit development and delivery, including the regulatory process.

With respect to my second priority, it is through the work with the provinces and territories where the rubber hits the road on both the delivery and potential impact of this proposed benefit.

Bill C‑22 recognizes the leading role that the provinces and territories play in providing supports and services to persons with disabilities. Each jurisdiction in Canada has a unique policy environment with respect to disability benefits and supports.

Quite frankly, I cannot overstate the complexities of the systems we are working with. There are 13 different provincial and territorial systems in play, each with its own combination of supports and services. Some are grounded in legislation or regulations, while others are related to program delivery. There are different definitions of “disability” and a variety of eligibility criteria, not only across jurisdictions but also within them.

In some cases, eligibility for one disability program opens up access to another. In other cases, being enrolled in one disability program can exclude individuals from accessing others, or reduce the benefits provided. Across jurisdictions, there are differences in the treatment of other forms of income, different reduction rates and different treatment of spousal or family income and support.

For example, Alberta has a benefit structure focused on people with severe disabilities. Clients must be substantially limited in their ability to work, and their disabilities must qualify as likely to be permanent. The benefit dollar is significant, and couples can retain more than twice as much employment income as singles before they start to lose benefits.

Ontario provides broader, less targeted assistance. Qualifying disabilities need not be severe and can affect work, personal care or participation in community life. The disability must be expected to last at least one year. Benefits are calculated on a family basis. The employment income exemption is calculated separately for each member of a couple.

The Northwest Territories provides benefits that are geared to the high cost of living in the north. Eligibility is based on the ability to perform the activities of daily living. Benefit amounts cover the actual cost of low-cost shelter and utilities, with no fixed cap. Employment income exemptions are household-based.

These are just three of the 13 we're working with in here.

Bill C-22 grants the authority to enter into agreements with provinces and territories to carry out the purposes of this act. That's really important. The CDB is intended to supplement existing provincial and territorial support, not replace it.

Within this complex ecosystem I just described, we really need to harmonize our systems to ensure that there are no clawbacks and that everyone who receives the CDB is better off. This means ensuring that income supports are not negatively impacted and that eligibility for related services and programs is not negatively impacted. We need to lift people up. We need to lift people out of poverty. Across Canada, most disability programs and income benefit amounts leave recipients well below the poverty line. The average total annual income of working-age persons with disabilities who receive social assistance is $12,600. This comes nowhere close to the national poverty line, which ranges from $19,000 to $25,000 per year, depending on where you live.

I'm pleased to report that work with the provinces and territories is going well. There's an FTP work plan that all jurisdictions have agreed to. PTs are very supportive of the framework legislation approach. They appreciate and understand that there's no one-size-fits-all that will optimize the impact of this new federal benefit within the complex array of provincial-territorial systems, and they share our commitment to making people better off and lifting people out of poverty. This is really important. We absolutely need flexibility in working with the provinces and territories. I'll note quickly that we're also working across the Government of Canada on federal benefit interaction.

Colleagues, we have the opportunity for a once-in-a-generation change here. With Bill C-22, we are doing things differently on purpose. Bill C-22 will allow us to work collaboratively with the disability community, as well as with the provinces and territories, to ensure that the benefit achieves its objective of reducing poverty among working-age persons with disabilities.

I'd be happy now to take your questions.

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

The clerk has advised me that we have quorum. I will call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 41 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is again taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. People are attending in person and remotely using the Zoom application.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” icon. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. For those in the room, it will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. If translation is interrupted, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it is being corrected. I would remind all participants that when the meeting is in progress, no screenshots shall be taken.

Pursuant to the order of Tuesday, October 18, 2022, the committee will commence its study of Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

I would like to take a moment to remind those participating in today's meeting, as well as those observing the proceedings in person and on video, that the committee adopted a motion on October 24 that included instructions for the clerk to explore options to allow for the full participation of all witnesses and members of the public in the context of consideration of Bill C-22. In planning inclusive and accessible meetings, the committee has made arrangements for sign language interpretation in both American Sign Language and Quebec Sign Language for those witnesses appearing in person and by Zoom, and for those in our audience. The sign language interpreters are being videorecorded to be incorporated into the archived video recording of the proceedings, which will be made available at a later date on ParlVU via the committee's website. To assist the interpreters in their work, I kindly ask all members and witnesses appearing today to introduce themselves when speaking, and to speak slowly.

Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify a member of the staff or the committee clerk.

I would like to inform all members that the witnesses appearing virtually today have completed the technical test to check their connectivity, equipment and verification for interpretation in both official languages.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussion with five minutes of opening remarks.

It is our pleasure to have with us in the room today the Honourable Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, and from the departmental staff, Alexis Conrad, senior assistant deputy minister, income security and social development branch and Policy Horizons Canada. Appearing virtually is Krista Wilcox, director general at the office for disability issues.

We'll start with Minister Qualtrough for five minutes, at which time I will open the floor for questions from the members.

Yes, Madam Gray.

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to speak to this piece of legislation.

In my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country, the impacts of crime and increasing crime rates are things that I have heard more and more about from my constituents. According to a release from Statistics Canada earlier this year, the Kelowna census metropolitan area, the CMA, now has the highest crime rate in Canada, with 27,147 Criminal Code violations in the region in the 2021 report.

While the crime severity index, the CSI, is 73.7 across Canada, according to Statistics Canada, in the Kelowna CMA, it is significantly higher, at 122.3 in our region. It is the topic of discussion I hear from constituents in meetings, through emails, at coffee shops and on the streets, and it was one of the most important issues discussed during our municipal election, which just ended a few weeks ago, with different solutions discussed on how to best solve the issue.

One of the problems that arises from this is the revolving door we see in our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, too often we see individuals go through a catch-and-release system, where they do not serve their time and also do not receive the help they need to help reduce the chances of them reoffending, including addiction or mental health treatment. These are all areas where we need to see improvement in our system, on top of Bill C-9.

Unfortunately, in the conversations I have had in my community, there needs to be improvement in public confidence in our justice system and there has not been much evidence that the Liberal government has helped to uphold this. This is yet again another example of a bill which could have been in place almost a year ago if it were not for the Liberal government's decision to hold an unnecessary snap election last fall.

The previous iteration of this bill was Bill S-5 from the 43rd Parliament. It would have been debated, studied and perhaps adopted by now if all members of the House were to have moved it forward. Instead, here we are again, starting debate on this bill from the beginning, over a year since the last version was introduced, because of an unnecessary, costly election. Just as a reminder, ash was falling from the sky in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country when the Prime Minister called the snap election.

There are many examples of legislation being worked on in the last Parliament, but due to the snap election, everything was cancelled and had to start over again. The committee I sit on is now looking at a Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act, which was also first introduced over a year ago and then died on the Order Paper because of the snap election last fall. Here is another example of how we really have to look at what the government's priorities are. A lot of its priorities are political rather than moving forward good legislation that we need in this country.

Conservatives are always happy to work for reforms in our judiciary. Public faith in our system is what guarantees our society's commitment to due process under law. No one spoke more eloquently on this than former Conservative leader Rona Ambrose when she introduced her final piece of legislation in 2017, the just act. That bill proposed judicial accountability through sexual assault law training.

As a strong voice for women and sexual assault survivors, Ms. Ambrose recognized that far too often our justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault. Sexual assault survivors need to know that those hearing their cases have the training, background and context to give them a fair trial and better ensure that sexual assault survivors do not hesitate to come forward. We, unfortunately, still need a judicial system that we can trust and that will be fair, a system that really focuses on victims.

More work needs to be done to ensure judges understand the laws surrounding this consent. More tools need to be provided to judges to provide fair, compassionate sentences that will see offenders rehabilitated.

My own private member's bill legislation, Bill C-283, would provide such a tool in reforming the sentencing process for offenders suffering from drug addiction and mental health challenges. My legislation would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to support a two-stream sentencing process. While both would have the same sentence time, certain convicted individuals who demonstrate a pattern of problematic substance use and meet certain parameters at the time of sentencing could have the judge offer them the choice to be sentenced to participate in a mental health assessment and addiction treatment inside a federal penitentiary while they serve out their sentence.

Through this sentencing process, offenders would still receive meaningful consequences for their actions, but they would also receive curative treatment leading to a path of reducing the risk of reoffending. In other words, it would end the revolving door. I have actually called my private member's bill the “end the revolving door act”. My bill has the support of many stakeholders who work in addiction treatment and in the criminal justice system, and it also has support across some party lines in this place. I am thankful to say we had our first debate on it, and it will be coming forth again.

It is too important of an opportunity to miss out on, just like this bill we have here today. Some victims have said they have lost faith in the judicial system completely. It was not too long ago that victims, especially women, were blamed for sexual assault. Before laws were put into place improving the process, it was common for judges to factor in things such as the length of a woman's skirt or whether she had a past relationship with the perpetrator when determining if something was criminal. There needs to be more accountability in the judiciary. Legislation that involves our judicial system is really important.

Unfortunately, we know violent crime is up across Canada. It is up 32% since the government took office. One has to wonder how some of these soft-on-crime policies the government has can impact Canadians' faith in their justice system, as well as public safety.

We also need to remember the position of the federal ombudsman for victims of crime has repeatedly been left vacant by the government for many months at a time. Most recently, it was left vacant for almost a year. These are things that are really important when we are looking at our entire judicial system and how it functions, and we need to focus on these types of issues no only so the public has confidence, but also so the public is best served in all of these different areas. It is also really important that, at the core of everything, we keep victims in mind and that we are always standing up for the victims of crime, which is something the Conservatives absolutely do. It is always something we are considering and focusing on.

In closing, if the Liberal government really were concerned about the issue we are debating here today, Bill C-9, it would have not called a snap election last year. This would have been already in place. It is something that already would have been enacted.

[Alexis Conrad, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch and Policy Horizons Canada, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for having us with you today.

As you know, earlier this year, the government once again introduced Its bill on the Canada disability benefit, now known as Bill C-22.

I am delighted that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is continuing its study of Bill C-22. I am pleased to have the opportunity to help the committee do its work.

Mr. Chair, I will quickly walk through the legislation, and then spend a couple of minutes talking about some of the engagement that has been done leading up to this point. Hopefully, that will leave plenty of time for questions from members.

As you know, Bill C-22 proposes a framework for the Canada disability benefit. If passed, the bill will provide the legal authority to design, administer and implement a new Canada disability benefit.

First, I note that the legislation is framework legislation, meaning that most of the details of the benefit will follow in regulations. This approach is intentional. The aim is to strike a balance between getting a benefit in place to meet the immediate needs of working-age persons with disabilities living in poverty and, at the same time—in the context of “nothing without us”—having time to engage with people with disabilities and the disabilities community, in order to ensure their concerns are reflected in the design of the benefit. Given the complex system of benefits and supports for persons with disabilities in Canada, engaging provinces, territories and other stakeholders is critical to the benefit's success.

Using regulations for key benefit elements, such as eligibility, also recognizes disability as an evolving social construct. This approach will allow for more flexibility as our understanding of disability evolves. We have been very encouraged by the feedback we've received from the disabilities community, the provinces and the territories in this approach.

The disabilities community considers this strong evidence of “nothing without us” and a best practice. Provinces and territories note that, rather than announcing the specifics of the benefit, working with them to see how a benefit would best mesh with their own programming helps them and persons with disabilities at the same time. Provinces and territories have also noted that, by moving ahead with Bill C-22, the Government of Canada is demonstrating that the benefit will actually happen and isn't simply something that will be planned for later. We are asking them to do a lot of analytical work, and this legislation is proof to them that it's needed.

The purpose of the bill, as stated, is to reduce poverty and support the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities. The preamble situates this bill within the current framework of the legal rights of, and protections for, persons with disabilities in Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Accessible Canada Act. It also acknowledges Canada's international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

In addition, the preamble recognizes that working-age persons with disabilities are more likely to live in poverty than their peers without disabilities, as a result of economic and social exclusion. The preamble also reiterates Canada's aspirations to be a global leader in poverty eradication, as stated in the Poverty Reduction Act and demonstrated through Canada's existing supports to seniors and families with children.

The bill would provide the Governor in Council with the legal authority to detail the design of the benefit through regulations. These include its basic amount; how that amount would be reduced by other income, such as employment earnings; eligibility criteria for the benefit; the frequency of payments; applications and delivery mechanisms; and reviews and appeals.

The approach of tabling framework legislation, with details to follow in regulation, will enable the government to continue to engage on these design elements of the proposed benefit. The rationale behind the approach is that the government will need to work with persons with disabilities, as well as provinces and territories, on the benefit design. Canada's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Accessible Canada Act provide that the Government of Canada should engage with persons with disabilities on policy, program and service delivery and design where it affects them.

Through the approach being taken, the government will continue to engage with persons with disabilities through the regulatory process on the benefit design. In addition, engagement through the regulatory management process will allow for the ongoing involvement of persons with disabilities on the implementation of the regulations.

Because provinces and territories play such a central role in providing support to many persons with disabilities, it is imperative that the Government of Canada collaborate with them to ensure that persons with disabilities are better off because of the introduction of this benefit, and that potential negative interactions with existing federal, provincial and territorial measures are identified and addressed.

A key component of the bill is clause 12, which would require parliamentary review of the act, its administration and its operations—in other words, the implementation of the benefit. This review would take place three years after the coming into force of the act and every five years thereafter.

Finally, the long title of this bill mentions “making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act”. This amendment is to allow the sharing of tax priority information from the Canada Revenue Agency, such as income information, with Employment and Social Development Canada for the purposes of administering the benefit, in order to determine the amount to which individuals would be entitled. This is standard across most income benefits.

As with most legislation, the bill would come into force on the date set by the Governor in Council.

In the spirit of "Nothing without us : an accessibility strategy for the public service of Canada", persons with disabilities rightly demand to be included in the development of policies and programs that have an impact on their lives. The structure of the Canada disability benefit was based on information gathered from ongoing consultation with stakeholders.

Numerous consultation activities have been held thus far. From June 4 to September 30, 2021, we held online consultations on the disability inclusion action plan , which addressed issues pertaining to the Canada disability benefit. More than 8,500 participants responded to the survey.

Four disability inclusion action plan or Canada disabilities round tables have been held. There was a round table with Minister Qualtrough, MP Ryan Turnbull and disabilities organizations to launch an online survey in June 2021. There was a round table with the Prime Minister, Minister Qualtrough and persons with disabilities later in June 2021. There was one with Minister Qualtrough and Disability Without Poverty, in July 2021, and one with Minister Qualtrough and disabilities organizations later in July 2021.

Four other round tables have been held. There was a round table with disability researchers and academics in January 2022; one with organizations that work with members of racialized communities, which was also in January 2022; one with national disabilities organizations in February 2022; and one with disability service providers later in February 2022.

In addition, we have engaged with other organizations, such as those representing the private insurance sector, given their role in the broader income benefits landscape in Canada.

Currently, community-led engagement efforts are under way to inform the disability inclusion action plan and the Canada disability benefit. Funding agreements are in place with national disability organizations to lead community-level engagement. It is anticipated that the community-level engagement that is currently under way will take place until spring 2023. Funding through ESDC engagement protocol agreements for national indigenous organizations to provide community consultations is anticipated to continue until spring 2023.

We are also engaging with the provinces and territories, given that they provide key benefits and programs to persons with disabilities. In summer 2021, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for social services and disability met for an initial discussion on the proposed benefit. Bilateral and multilateral engagement with provinces and territories has been ongoing. It is expected that ministers will meet again soon, where the proposed benefit is expected to be a priority item.

If and when Parliament passes Bill C-22, the department has extensive plans to engage all stakeholders through the regulatory process to ensure their views are heard and factored into the draft and, eventually, the final regulations. In fact, the ongoing engagement that is already under way is a key input into the regulatory process.

Mr. Chair, I will stop there.

We'd be pleased to answer any questions you have.

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

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 40 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. There will be members who will be appearing via Zoom.

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

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For those participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” function before speaking. Click on your microphone icon to activate your own mike. For those in the room, it will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. If there is a disruption in translation services, in interpretation, then I would ask you to get my attention and we'll suspend while it is being corrected. I would also like to remind participants that screenshots are not permitted. Should any technical issues arise, as I indicated, we will suspend for a few moments.

Also at this time I'm going to remind members and witnesses who are appearing virtually that if you do not have a House of Commons-approved headset, I will not recognize you. This is for the benefit of the translation services, the interpreters. You can participate in the vote by raising your hand, but if you do not have a House of Commons-approved headset and you are a virtual witness or member of the committee, I will not recognize you.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, October 19, 2022, the committee will proceed to a technical briefing session on Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

I would like to inform all members that the witnesses appearing virtually today have completed the technical tests, and interpretation services have been checked and are fine.

I would like to welcome our witnesses to begin our discussion with a technical briefing for up to 20 minutes, followed by questions. I would indicate to the committee that following the 20-minute briefing, if it takes that long—it's maxed at 20 minutes—we will do one six-minute round, as we normally do, after which I will simply open the floor to any question by any member sitting here today—simply get my attention—rather than continuing to go from round to round, if that's agreeable to the committee members.

From the Department of Employment and Social Development, we have Alexis Conrad, senior assistant deputy minister, income security and social development branch and Policy Horizons Canada; and Krista Wilcox, director general, office for disability issues.

We will start with Mr. Conrad.

Mr. Conrad, go ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak today on Bill C‑9, right after my friend, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I want to begin by entering this debate midstream and responding to some of the comments that I was hearing in the questions and comments period immediately prior to my speech, before shifting into some of the other comments I want to make specifically about this legislation.

A favourite subject of the member for Winnipeg North is legislative timing and the processes of the House, and I must confess that it is a subject I enjoy engaging in dialogue about as well. However, I think he is always selective in his presentation of the story when it comes to the timing or process of legislation. There are a number of different aspects to that. In particular, he is essentially telling my colleague that we should not be debating this bill because he wants the bill to move forward on a certain timeline.

It is important for everybody listening to know that it is the sole prerogative of the government to schedule the legislation it is moving forward for debate in the time slots we have for presenting it, which is the vast majority of the parliamentary calender. The government needs to set aside some time for opposition days, where opposition parties put forward motions, and there is the possibility for members to move concurrence of committee reports. However, those are quite constrained given the time that those debates take. Of course, there is also Private Members' Business.

There are therefore some opportunities outside of government for legislation, policy or motions to be put forward for debate in the House, but the vast majority of the time is available to the government to schedule at their sole discretion. It is the government that makes decisions about which bills are priorities and which bills to put forward. If it wants a bill to advance, then I think it has an obligation to schedule it for enough days of debate so that debate can be brought to a conclusion. That principle applies for Bill C-9, as it does for any other bill.

What we often see the government do is fail to prioritize a bill within its own allocation of time. Then it acts mystified about the fact that it is not moving based on some artificial timeline that it has set. We saw this with Bill C-22, where the government scheduled it for one day of debate, did not schedule it for weeks afterwards and then asked why the bill was not moving forward. Of course, debate concluded the next time it was scheduled, but it would have moved forward faster if the government had chosen to prioritize it.

I detect the same string of argumentation again here from my friend from Winnipeg North. He is keen to see Bill C-9 move forward, apparently, but not keen enough to have successfully lobbied his House leader to schedule this bill and put it forward on a larger number of days. Friday is a very short day relative to the time we get.

I wanted to spend a few minutes on that particular point because I know it comes up again and again, and to pre-empt, in a sense, what I suspect will be a question from my friend from Winnipeg North, although I will say that I did appreciate him tabling a petition relating to Bill S-223 on organ harvesting. I hope that is a bill the foreign affairs committee will prioritize for deliberation and move forward, because as members know, it has been a long time.

Having responded to that, I want to add my voice to the comments by my friend from Battle River—Crowfoot pertaining to the larger issues of trust in our institutions and independence. We are talking today, in the context of Bill C-9, about certain circumstances, events and comments that have impacted trust and faith in the judiciary, and I think we need to affirm the importance of institutions.

We want to see that our institutions are trusted, but we also want our institutions to be worthy of that trust. Sometimes what we hear from some members is a call to trust institutions without being willing to note when there have been significant problems in the conduct of individuals in those institutions. I think the issue raised by the opposition House leader today with respect to interference by the government in a criminal case is another important issue in the ongoing conversation about trust in our institutions and the actions of government. Acts of interference by the government certainly do have an impact on how our institutions are perceived and the degree to which they are trusted. These matters of interference and the independence of institutions are important in their own right, but they are also important in terms of how they contribute to the level of trust that Canadians can reasonably have, in light of the facts, in the institutions that are so critical for holding our public life together.

Bill C-9, the piece of legislation we are debating today, is, on the face of it, a relatively technical piece of legislation, although as members know, every technical piece of legislation has interesting philosophical issues and questions underneath it. The legislation is about making changes to the mechanisms or processes that are in place around judicial discipline, or the discipline of judges. I will just read the summary. It states:

This enactment amends the Judges Act to replace the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council. It establishes a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct that are not serious enough to warrant a judge's removal from office and makes changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made to the Minister of Justice. As with the provisions it replaces, this new process also applies to persons, other than judges, who are appointed under an Act of Parliament to hold office during good behaviour.

It creates mechanisms by which individuals who have been appointed to hold office, pending “good behaviour”, could be considered not to have fulfilled the standards required around good behaviour and could therefore be removed from office and/or face other mechanisms of discipline. I think the details and mechanics of these mechanisms are extremely important, and are things that will be important not only for the House to consider but for committee to go into further.

After reading through the legislation, one thing I found quite interesting was the presence of a review panel of lay people who, by design, cannot have any legal background. It is always interesting to me when there is this balance where, on the one hand, there are aspects of our judicial system where we demand a certain level of expertise, and then on the other hand, there are certain places where, I think for good, understandable reasons, we demand a lack of expertise formally and in practice as a means of saying that we want some people involved in the decision-making who are non-experts.

I recall a quotation from former British prime minister Clement Attlee, who talked about how he wanted his ministers not to be experts on the subjects they were ministers of. I know that is a bit of a parenthetical question, but it is one that has been debated over the years regarding various kinds of appointments.

In any event, this legislation includes a specific, designated role in the termination process for lay people. I want to note as well the justifications by which a judge could be removed from office. Proposed section 80 says, “For the purposes of this Division, the removal from office of a judge is justified only” for these reasons:

(a) infirmity;

(b) misconduct;

(c) failure in the due execution of judicial office;

(d) the judge is in a position that a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would consider to be incompatible with the due execution of judicial office.

These are, in some ways, notionally objective criteria, but naturally there is going to be some level of subjectivity in how they will be applied.

There is a history to the consideration of this issue, and there is a history to the discussion of judicial misconduct that touches on some very important and sensitive issues. In my time as a member of Parliament, there has been a fair bit of discussion specifically around the issue of comments by judges dealing with cases of sexual assault. There was a judge who made some very offensive and outrageous comments in the context of a sexual assault trial that he was presiding over. That provoked a lot of conversation about the reality that someone is not rendered all-knowing and all-virtuous simply by the fact that they have received a judicial appointment, and that maybe there is a legitimate place for saying that someone, by their comments or lack of understanding certain things, is no longer fit to be a judge.

How do we preserve the principle of judicial independence, the principle that judges should be making decisions based on the facts of a case and the law rather than making decisions as democratic legislators do, based on other factors, including public opinion? How do we preserve that principle of judicial independence and also say that there are certain societal norms and values that we would like to see reflected in the conduct and statements of judges? There is a point at which a person can go beyond the pale and simply no longer be suited to that position as a function of some of their comments.

There have been a number of ways of getting at this issue. One was from former Conservative leader Rona Ambrose, who put forward a private member's bill, in 2016 or the first half of the 42nd Parliament, that sought to promote judicial education around sexual assault. That is one way of dealing with comments like this: We can say that maybe it is simply about a lack of knowledge and education.

That bill did not pass in Parliament, but a similar bill was put forward and was passed in the 43rd Parliament. As I said at the time, I think we need to recognize the importance of education around these issues, but also recognize that education is not always the full solution. I think there is a lot of data to suggest that when we mandate certain kinds of training courses, for some people it is a meaningful opportunity for them to learn about the matter at hand, but for other people it is just a matter of checking the boxes that are required. Whether it is a meaningful engagement exercise or a box-checking exercise depends somewhat on the way the material is presented, but a lot of it will depend simply on the disposition of the individual and how willing the individual is to substantively engage with the matter at play.

My conclusion is that the proposal from Rona Ambrose about judicial education was very important and worthwhile, but it does not solve the whole problem of either judicial misconduct or potential issues where a judge is making comments in the context of a trial that are very offensive to the victim and to society at large.

That is some of the history of the issue, but there are also other potential issues. This is not just about comments judges make in trials; it could also be about concerns over personal corruption and other things that could be at play in the context of judicial discipline. This is a piece of legislation that, coming out of that long-running public discussion, seeks to make refinements to the processes around judicial discipline.

One thing I would like to note about this discussion is that it presumes the personal fallibility of judges. Maybe it should be fairly obvious, but with the way some of our Canadian debates have proceeded, maybe it is not so obvious that judges are human beings. They have the potential to develop great expertise, great virtue and commitment to their work.

Judges also, like any other human beings, have the potential for grave errors in reasoning, as well as moral errors of various kinds, including misconduct or corruption. They are human beings, are fallible and can make mistakes in various kinds of situations or ways. The heavy criticism of former justice Robin Camp, some of the subsequent discourse and arguments for judicial education the government has supported, and the very existence of this legislation, affirm the reality of judicial fallibility. However, at other times when we are having debates about criminal justice issues and how we respond to particular kinds of charter litigation, the discourse in the House seems to presume something else, which is the infallibility of judges.

It was very striking to me, when I was first elected as a member of Parliament, that we were, on the one hand, dealing with this whole question of former justice Robin Camp and the issues around judicial fallibility, but on the other hand we had members making comments about at the time Bill C-14, which followed the Carter decision of the Supreme Court, where it was repeated that this was a unanimous court decision. Therefore, our goal as a legislature should simply be to interpret the wisdom we were given from this wise council's vision.

I have a great deal of respect for the role the Supreme Court plays in our democracy, but I also think it is legitimate to disagree with decisions that the courts have made. Part of the process of democratic deliberation is recognizing that, if judges can be personally fallible regarding their own conduct, fallible in the sense of making inappropriate comments in a sexual assault case, then they can also be fallible in there determinations about the appropriate sentence and balance of rights that emerge from a series of arguments about how to interpret given facts in light of the charter.

The fact there is diversity in courts of dissent underlines the potential fallibility of judges, and I think we should, in our Canadian democratic discourse, seek to affirm the importance of judicial independence, and the respect that is owed to that institution, while also recognizing that judges make all kinds of mistakes and that Parliament has a role to deliberate about substantive questions of justice and human dignity and to engage in a constructive and healthy back and forth when it comes to decisions, legislation and how we respond to that.

I could cite other cases that brings this issue to the fore, but I see that I am up against my time to some extent. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the issues around Bill C-9, to share a bit of the history, and to underline that, for me, one of the lessons coming out of this is to let us acknowledge that judges are human beings. They have an important job to do, but it is legitimate to disagree with and debate the determinations that are made, and to use constitutional tools that affirm the rights and the role of the legislature when it comes to establishing and advancing common values that are determined through democratic deliberation.

Opposition Motion—Tax Exemption on Home Heating Fuel

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has gone to work in this Parliament and has pushed the government to put in place supports for dental care, a historic expansion of our health care system, and It is about time. Canadians believe universal health care is our most cherished institution. Our former leader, Tommy Douglas, was instrumental in bringing that about. Now, under the leader from Burnaby South, we have expanded it with dental care this year for children. Right across the length and breadth of our country, parents will be able to provide dental care for their children 12 and under. Inexplicably the Conservatives voted against that measure to help kids. They will have to explain that to their voters whenever the next election is held.

We also forced the government to provide supports to nearly two million Canadians renters through the renter supplement, hundreds of dollars that will make a difference to people in my riding.

Of course, the member for Burnaby South had been pushing for a number of months to get the doubling of the GST credit. That will mean anywhere from $200 to $500 that will go out in the next few weeks. Thankfully, the Conservatives, after initially opposing this NDP position, rallied. I think they finally understood the importance of providing those supports. As a result, we know those cheques will be on the way soon.

Canadians are living in difficult times. They are struggling for affordable housing. They are struggling to pay their health care bills. They are struggling because their wages have not kept up. In this corner of the House, Canadians know they have an NDP leader and an NDP caucus that is resolute about providing supports, and we have the track record to prove it.

Over the course of the last two Parliaments, almost every measure that has had a net benefit to Canadian families has come from the NDP caucus, leveraging in a minority Parliament our 25 voices, and 24 voices in the last Parliament, to make a difference for Canadians.

The fact that we have one leader in the House who has a laser-like focus, ensuring Canadians benefit from decisions made in Parliament, has made a difference in the lives of so many Canadians, but we have so much more to do, and we are going to continue to push. The reality is that we have had seven years of a Liberal government that has basically been paralyzed when it comes to the important decisions that would make a difference in the lives of people.

When we look at the disability benefit, it still does not have any substance behind it. We are going to be pushing, with Bill C-22, to actually have a disability benefit that makes a difference in the lives of people. However, to date, we have not seen the substance or the meat that actually will make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities.

These are the kinds of measures the NDP will continue to push.

On housing, we were able to force the government, in the last budget, to finally start to reinvest in affordable housing, and over the next couple of years 150,000 new affordable housing units will be built. That is a result of the efforts of the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus, again, to leverage our 25 members to make a difference, to push for change for a better life for Canadians.

We are pushing to have put into place all the calls to action on truth and reconciliation. We are pushing for measures that would stop the spread of hate and right-wing extremism that we are seeing. We will continue to push all those elements, because we believe fundamentally, as New Democrats and as members of Parliament, that our responsibility is to make a difference in the lives of people.

We did not see that in the dismal Harper decade, an incredibly dismal period in Canadian history, or in the seven years of paralysis that we have largely seen from the current government, until, with minority Parliaments, the NDP started to leverage and get things done in Parliament. We saw over the course of the Harper dismal decade a massive expansion of overseas tax havens, valuated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer at $25 billion a year, now over $30 billion a year. This is taxpayer money going off shore. The utlrarich, profitable corporations are taking their money offshore rather than providing those investments that would make a difference in the lives of families, students, youth, children, people with disabilities and seniors.

Under both the Conservative regime and the Liberal regime, the immediate thought when a crisis hit, whether it was in 2008 or with COVID in 2020, was what they could do to help the banks. We saw under the Harper government a record $116 billion in liquidity supports given overnight. The Harper government wanted to shore up bank profits. That was its first and foremost priority. It cut pensions and eviscerated a wide variety of services for veterans, seniors and people with disabilities.

It cut a whole bunch of important programs, including, inexplicably even today, the crime prevention programs that reduced crime right across the country. For the Harper government or any person connected to the Harper government, like the member for Carleton, to pretend that it took initiatives that reduced the crime rate when it destroyed the crime prevention centres strikes the heart of rampant hypocrisy. It eviscerated the most important tool in fighting back against crime.

This was the record of the Harper government: destroying services and ensuring that the banks, the ultrarich and the oil and gas industry had record profits. That was its first and foremost objective. Sadly, the new Liberal government has done the same, continuing those practices. We have gone from $25 billion a year under the Harper government to over $30 billion in overseas tax havens under the new government. In the banking sector, it was $116 billion.

We saw the Liberal government, in March 2020, step up in 96 hours with $750 billion in liquidity supports for the banks. This is while people with disabilities were struggling to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table. They are still waiting years later, and we have a bill that does not do anything yet. However, the NDP is going to fight like hell to ensure that it does do something to actually make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities.

What we have had over the last couple of decades is a government that has been focused on the needs of the banking sector and bank profits and that has allowed the grocery industry, the big giants of the grocery sector, to profit from Canadian families, without putting any measures in place to restrict that. With the oil and gas sector, of course we have seen the rampant profiteering, with the price going up on old stock as soon as there is any sort of crisis, as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has pointed out so many times. Both at the beginning and at the end of every crisis, the oil and gas sector reaps record profits.

These are the decisions we have seen from both Conservative and Liberal governments, but now we have an alternative. I want to point out why it is so important for folks in Canada to recognize that. We have a choice between the current government, the official opposition and the NDP. In the coming election, whenever that is, whether next year, the year after or in 2025, at some point this Parliament will come to an end and Canadians will have a choice to make. We have seen what the Liberals and the Conservatives do. They cater to the wealthy, the ultrarich, the banking sector, grocery chain CEOs and the grocery empires rather than dealing with regular people.

The NDP, this week, in our only opposition day of this cycle, brought forward a motion that ultimately forced all parties to support it. It recognized that “Canadian families are struggling with the rising costs of essential purchases” and asked the House to “call on the government to recognize that corporate greed is a significant driver of inflation”, or greedflation, as members know, and to take action, which includes:

(a) forcing CEOs and big corporations to pay what they owe, by closing the loopholes that have allowed them to avoid $30 billion in taxes in 2021 alone, resulting in a corporate tax rate that is effectively lower now than when this government was elected

This is an important point. It was bad under the Conservatives. It is even worse now under the Liberals.

The motion continued:

(b) launching an affordable and fair food strategy which tackles corporate greed in the grocery sector including by asking the Competition Bureau to launch an investigation of grocery chain profits, increasing penalties for price-fixing and strengthening competition laws to prohibit companies from abusing their dominant positions in a market to exploit purchasers or agricultural producers; and

(c) supporting the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in investigating high food prices and the role of “greedflation”

When we introduced this motion, the CEOs of the big grocery chains and big food immediately stepped up to say they were not going to increase their prices anymore; they were going to freeze prices. The NDP had an impact with that motion. This is an important part of what members of Parliament should be doing.

This motion passed unanimously, as members know, because it was good sense that we pushed back as members of Parliament knowing the impact that greedflation has had right across the length and breadth of this country. It has cost Canadians a terrible price. As a result of that, the member for Burnaby South brought forward this motion, which had an immediate impact.

I contrast that with the Conservatives, the official opposition. This is the third time now that they have brought forward essentially the same motion. They did it on June 7, they did it on September 28 and they are doing it today. It is for tackling a price on carbon, as if climate change and the climate crisis do not affect Conservatives. It is quite the contrary. We know that climate change is impacting people right across the country. We know that putting a price on pollution actually helps to alleviate that, yet we have this obsession from the Conservatives where on three opposition days in a row they essentially bring forward the same motion.

The motion does not deal with the issue of affordability, in the same way that the Conservatives in the House and the sound and fury from the member for Carleton do not in any way help Canadians. In fact, the Conservatives cannot really point to anything they have done over the last few years that has helped Canadians.

The NDP can. We can point to dental care. We can point to the housing supplement. We can point to the affordable housing that we forced in the last budget. We can point to the doubling of the GST credit. We can point to all of the COVID supports that we forced in this House. In a minority Parliament situation, we are using the weight of our members of Parliament to make a difference for Canadians.

What can the official opposition point to in the last few years? They can point to nothing, nada. It is so much the worse that it is a repudiation of the commitments made by the former Conservative leader in the election before last. It is important to point out that back in 2019, the Conservative leader, to quote the CBC website, made an “election promise to remove GST from home-heating bills”. To quote Global News, he said he would “cut GST from home heating bills as prime minister”.

Given the opportunity to actually put that forward, the Conservatives failed, and they brought forward the same motion a third time, as if somehow it is a magical third time. It is that triple, triple, triple of putting together the same motion and putting it out to the House again as a rerun rather than dealing with the fundamentals of removing the GST on home heating, which the Conservatives previously promised to do and did not and which the member for Burnaby South has been promoting.

What I am offering today is the opportunity for the official opposition to actually keep a promise. The Conservatives promised in the election campaign that they would take the GST off home heating, so I will be offering an amendment shortly that would do just that. The amendment, which the Conservatives should support because they committed to it, would replace the carbon tax in their opposition motion. Rather than for the third time dealing with the issue of climate change as if it is something that does not exist, we would instead put in place the removal of the GST from home heating. The Conservatives promised that, so they should support this amendment. It would actually have a meaningful impact on Canadians' lives. We know the impact of the GST on home heating, so it would make a fundamental difference.

We have seen that the NDP is really making a difference in Canadians' lives. We have seen it with dental care, housing assistance and affordable housing, measures that we forced the government to include in the last budget along with the doubling of the GST credit. All of these are a win for Canadian families.

Today, we will give the Conservatives the opportunity to keep their promise to eliminate the GST on home heating. We will propose an amendment that will make a real difference in people's lives.

That way, the Conservatives will finally be able to say that they did something to help people, that it was not just talk, that they actually did something. They need to help people instead of just going around in circles.

It is therefore with pleasure that I offer the following amendment on behalf of the NDP, and if good sense and good judgment take place, the Conservatives will support it. I move that the motion be amended by deleting the words “from the carbon tax” and substituting the following: “from the goods and services tax”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We will schedule next Wednesday for officials to come in and give a briefing on Bill C-22.

The second part I want to get through is this. On Monday, which is the 24th, I would like to schedule beginning the first review of the labour report, which you all have a copy of now. If that's agreeable to the committee, at the meeting on Monday we would begin a review of the labour report that the committee did, which you have the first draft of.

To the new members of the committee, there was a study by the committee and a labour shortage report done in the spring session, and that report's first draft was provided to committee members two weeks ago. We have yet to review that, so you have draft one of the committee's report on labour shortages.

If I see a consensus, the committee will move on Monday the 24th to begin the review of draft one of the labour shortages report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I will ask the clerk to speak on that.

We had the discussion. It looks like the earliest we could begin Bill C-22 would be October 31, because of the timeline to notify the witnesses and get them in.

Madam Clerk, do you want to elaborate on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The deadline for witnesses for Bill C-22 will be on Friday at five o'clock.

The second part is that the committee should decide or give direction on the total number of meetings to hear from witnesses. Could I receive some direction on the total number of meetings?

Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

On Bill C-22, which is coming, I am reminding you of the deadline for the submission of prioritized witness lists to the clerk. Did we pick a timeline on that, or do we want to give it now? This is on Bill C-22, which was adopted in the House and will now come to the committee. Do you want the committee to make the decision on a deadline for submitting your witness lists? Do you want to make it this Friday at five o'clock, eastern standard time?

Government Business No. 20—Proceedings on Bill C-31

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and give a speech for Canadians.

Before I begin, I want to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Granville.

Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, is extremely important. I think back to 1967, when Lester Pearson said that no senior should live in poverty. On that principle, which is so important, in 2015, when we came to government, we wanted to make sure that we built the framework necessary to bring Canada forward as a strong country so Canadians would be proud of their country, which is contributing not only to Canada but to the world. Therefore, we brought in the CCB, basically under the principle that no child should live in poverty. That was an extremely important bill we brought forward that has lifted hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of poverty.

In 2018 we worked with the provinces and territories to build a better pension plan, the CPP, for Canadians. As we know, some pensions are worth less as we move forward, so that will be a way of securing them as well.

In 2021 we brought in the child care bill, which has helped all Canadians but will also help the economy, because it will enable more Canadians to work and contribute.

Last month, in September, we brought forward Bill C-22, which we passed today, to support people with disabilities. It was again brought in under the principle that no person with a disability should live in poverty.

Today, we are bringing forward Bill C-31, which is about affordability. It is another very important piece in supporting Canadians as we move forward, and it will ensure that all Canadians have an opportunity to succeed.

No one should be denied dental care. All members of Parliament have access to dental care. All Canadians should have access to dental care.

We are also ensuring that people are not priced out of access to housing. That is why we will be bringing a top-up support of $500.

Bringing in this dental support is a big piece with respect to affordability. It is another piece to help Canadians. Let us be clear. We can connect dental care with health care. It is a direct parallel. They work together to improve the benefits that Canadians can access. In case the House is not aware, one-third of Canadians do not have access to health care. Therefore, this bill will allow Canadians and families—

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑22.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague raises very good points on both accounts. There is a fear factor within the Conservative Party. They tend to want to shy away from anything related to the environment.

In regards to the legislative agenda, when we stop and think about it, the member is right on. With respect to Bill S-5, the Senate has put in a great deal of effort and working with the government, we now have a substantial piece of legislation that we could and should be debating. One of the reasons why the government was not in a position is because we had to deal with legislation, such as Bill C-31, Bill C-30, Bill C-22, all of which are there to put more disposable income in the pockets of Canadians.

Over 11 million Canadians benefit from those three pieces of legislation, and some of it has been very difficult to get through the House because the Conservative Party does not want them to pass. They take up the time of the House to prevent the government from getting some of this important legislation done. That is why I spent as much time out of my 20 minutes refreshing the back benches of the Conservative Party on why they should not be doing this concurrence motion. They should have allowed the debate on Bill S-5. That is what would have been good for Canadians today.