Bill C-22

Canada Disability Benefit Act

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

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

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I understand the hon. member's point of view, but as he knows, we do allow some latitude on how members talk about certain issues.

However, I would invite the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to get back to the subject of Bill C-22, which we are currently debating.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-22 and, more broadly, to the situation confronting Canadians living with disabilities.

Bill C-22 proposes a new federal financial benefit for Canadians living with disabilities, however, it does not actually define many aspects of the structure of this benefit. I will be voting in favour of the legislation, because I agree with the principle of providing the support, but I am concerned about some of the lacking substance with respect to how this benefit would actually work.

Increasingly, we see from the government a desire to limit the actual work of Parliament in defining the nature and scope of programs. Instead, the government wants a blank cheque from Parliament, legislation that authorizes ministers to shape and define a program independently, according to their discretion.

In general, this is not a good way for governments to operate in a democracy and, in particular, I do not think the Liberal government has shown itself trustworthy when it comes to working out the details of critical programs.

When it comes to the structure of this benefit, the government's message is “just trust us.” From a government that cannot figure out how to deliver passports in a timely manner, cannot address the affordability crisis in Canada and cannot secure our borders, the message of “just trust us” seems rather hollow.

I have two specific concerns about the prospective structure of this program that I do want to highlight.

First, I share the concern of many about how this program would interact with other existing programs, including those provided at the provincial level. If a new federal benefit leads to a loss of eligibility for other existing benefits, then it would leave people worse off overall. It is not inevitable that this would be the case, but this is a matter that will require careful and respectful dialogue with other levels of government and hard work at every stage, hard work that the government has not always been prepared to do.

At this point, the government is passing broad framework legislation without ensuring that it will actually leave Canadians with disabilities better off in every case. The government does not have to wait for this legislation to pass to begin those discussions and I would encourage it to actually engage those discussions now about protecting existing benefits, because aspects of those dialogues may inform suggested amendments.

The second concern I have is that it is critically important that the structure of this benefit program protects access for Canadians with disabilities who are working or are trying to get into work. Even with existing benefit programs at other levels, certain Canadians with disabilities may find themselves in a position where entering the workforce actually leaves them worse off. It is critically important that work always leaves people better off financially.

Supporting Canadians, including Canadians living with disabilities, in being able to access meaningful work has long been a key priority for Conservatives.

Why is this important? Overwhelmingly, Canadians of all backgrounds and circumstances want to be able to work and are happier and more fulfilled if they are able to work. In this context, by work, I do not just mean commodified work, but work of any sort, where individuals exert themselves in order to contribute positively to the world around them.

The science of happiness and fulfillment measurement shows us that work generally makes people happier by providing them with meaning and with a workplace-based community, and with a greater level of power and agency. Quite apart from the notably important income-earning properties of work, work also provides meaning and happiness, totally independent of whether it generates income.

Think tank Cardus has done excellent work on this question of work and disability. It has found that most Canadians living with disabilities want to work or want to work more, but it has also found that the vast majority of public policy, focus and money has been toward income support as opposed to supports that help people get into work.

The critical point about work support and income support is that they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, often, they are necessarily complementary. Some people require income support in order to afford the resources and transportation required to find and get a job in the first place. If income supports are withdrawn immediately once people work or start work, they may not be able to afford vital necessities, as well as the things they need to sustain them in their new job.

Having both fulfilling work and steady income are vital for human happiness and fulfillment. Having income without work or work without income are both, in a sense, problematic.

Of course, having income is not just about fulfillment and happiness; it is about basic survival. Canadians with disabilities need income to take care of their own needs and the needs of those they love.

For most of us, work comes with earning income. However, when benefit programs are poorly structured, people may actually be forced to choose between work and income, because benefits are cut off or income is lost as a result of working. In such cases, given how essential income is for survival, people will understandably choose income over work if they are forced to choose between these things. It is cruel and pointless to force people to make this choice, to choose between the happiness associated with work and receiving the financial support that they need.

Income supports for Canadians with disabilities can and should go hand in hand with workplace support, only peeling those income supports back gradually when it is clear that income support is not required because of the level that an individual is able to work.

We saw an example of this terrible choice between work and income during the pandemic with the poorly constructed CERB program. Unemployed Canadians who were accessing CERB, and who were then offered part-time work, were in many cases actually worse off financially if they took that work because part-time work would push them over the threshold for CERB eligibility, even if they were not earning close to what they would have been entitled to receive under CERB. Thus people were forced to remain out of work in order to access the resources they needed to support their families.

Not only does it make zero financial or economic sense to create a financial disincentive to work, but it also puts people in the painful position of needing to choose between the happiness and dignity that come from work on the one hand and from financial security on the other hand. That is why we feel it is very important that this new federal program be structured in such a way that Canadians with disabilities, many of whom can and do work, or want to work, are not rendered worse off by entering the work force.

There is nothing in the text of the bill that would suggest it could not be structured in a way to ensure that work always pays, but the past record of the government gives us significant cause for concern. In the 42nd Parliament, the member for Carleton, now the leader of the Conservative Party, proposed Bill C-395, a bill specifically designed to address this problem of work sometimes bringing about a loss in benefits for Canadians living with disabilities.

Bill C-395 would have amended the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to ensure that, in negotiations around transfers and the construction of benefits for Canadians living with disabilities, people with disabilities would not lose more through taxation and the reduction of benefits than they gain as a result of working. It would have protected Canadians with disabilities from these kinds of perverse situations where they would have to choose between the happiness that comes from work or the financial security that comes from government benefits.

If Bill C-395 were the law of the land, we could then pass this bill, even as written, with the confidence that the benefits constructed would leave people better off, but when it came to a vote on Bill C-395, Liberals actually opposed it. Liberals opposed the common-sense proposal from our leader to ensure that Canadians who work are better off as a result of the money they earn.

Sadly, Liberals do not seem to appreciate the value, dignity and happiness that comes from hard work. I am not sure if it can be found in the scope of this legislation as written, but I would welcome amendments that would capture the spirit of our leader's past work to protect Canadians with disabilities from being punished for working.

Parenthetically, I want to say something directly to employers about hiring Canadians with disabilities. Research done by Cardus shows that many employers have an exaggerated perception of the cost associated with accommodation. Cardus' work shows that including and accommodating employees with disabilities is often much cheaper than employers initially expect and that funding may be available from different levels of government for businesses, including small businesses, seeking to accommodate customers and employees living with disabilities.

Further, as our leader has previously shared in the context of speaking to Bill C-395, there are many cases of Canadians with disabilities who make incredible, committed and loyal employees who bring unique competencies for the workplace. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that poorly structured benefit programs do not undermine the ability of Canadians to access work, but employers also need to lead in pushing aside stereotypes and recognizing the contributions that Canadians with disabilities can make to their workplace. Many employers are already doing this, and I congratulate those who are doing this already.

Those were the main points I wanted to make on Bill C-22, but it is also very important to speak to the context of the legislation, which is the significant negative impacts on the lives of Canadians living with disabilities that flow from the government's radical ableist approach to euthanasia, the so-called MAID regime. We simply cannot have a conversation about financial benefits separate from a recognition that the biggest threat to the lives of Canadians living with disabilities is that those without disabilities are much more likely to be offered suicide prevention and recovery support, while our brothers and sisters, cousins and friends who are living with disabilities are being denied those supports and actively pushed towards death, even if they are saying they do not want it.

Among those who support legal euthanasia around the world, Canada is still increasingly seen as a cautionary tale, a warning of what not to do. In this vein, I want to start with a bit of history. Euthanasia in Canada started with Bill C-14, which was passed in the 42nd Parliament. This legislation affixed the name “medical assistance in dying” to what had previously been called euthanasia, the process of doctors killing a consenting patient. That legislation sought to define a regime whereby people could choose hastened death if their death was deemed reasonably foreseeable.

I criticized the legislation at the time for, among other things, not being sufficiently clear about what was actually meant by “reasonably foreseeable”. Indeed, there were significant abuses, even in the immediate aftermath of the passage of the legislation, whereby doctors determined someone's death to be reasonably foreseeable based on a string of hypotheticals when a person had nothing approaching a terminal condition.

For example, back in 2016, I highlighted a case in Vancouver where a physician declared a depressed person eligible for euthanasia without examining the individual because that patient “could easily get bed sores and then die of infection”. A person's death was, prior to examination, declared reasonably foreseeable because the person could theoretically die from an as yet uncontracted bed sore infection if they were bed bound as a result of the depression. These were the kinds of perverse outcomes that were possible even in 2016 as a result of a lack of safeguards and the ambiguity around what was meant by “reasonably foreseeable”.

The current rules allow someone also to consult many different physicians before finding two who will approve. Therefore, if 20 or 200 doctors say no, the criteria are not met, but then two say yes, the criteria are met, then the killing of the patient can proceed. The ambiguity and the opportunity to consult multiple doctors before getting the desired result means that, indeed, the holes were, and still are, large enough to drive a truck through. These were the pre-existing problems that were already, in particular, raising concerns of the disability community. The lack of clarity around what were and were not circumstances where death was reasonably foreseeable opened the door for people who were living with disabilities to be encouraged to pursue MAID, even if they did not want to, and even if they were actually not eligible.

Members do not have to take my word for it because the minister responsible for this legislation, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion of Canada, during a subsequent discussion of Bill C-7, said, “I regularly hear from families who are appalled by the fact that they take their child, potentially their older child and are offered unprovoked MAID. I think that has to stop.” That is from a minister in the government. This was already the context following the passage of Bill C-14 and prior to the passage of Bill C-7.

The road to Bill C-7 was much more contrived than the road to bill C-14. The already nebulous reasonable foreseeability clause was challenged and a lower court in one province proposed to overturn this restriction. The federal government could have appealed that lower court decision and, indeed, had a strong basis for doing so. An appeal would, at the very least, have given parliamentarians more time to consider a broad range of legislative options. Instead, the government made a political choice to embrace the lower court ruling and the artificial timeline it created, pushing medical assistance in dying for Canadians with disabilities. This was not about following a court ruling. This was about something the government could have appealed, but wanted to use the court ruling to advocate for a long-standing objective.

Following this contrived process, the government put forward Bill C-7, which was rightly opposed by all of the leading organizations representing Canadians living with disabilities, as well as by domestic and international human rights authorities.

Krista Carr from Inclusion Canada said, “Inclusion Canada has advocated for safeguards in MAID since we intervened in the Carter case. Our biggest fear has always been that having a disability would become an acceptable reason for state-provided suicide. Bill C-7 is our worst nightmare.” She continued, “By having a disability itself under Bill C-7 as the justification for the termination of life, the very essence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be shattered. Discrimination on the basis of disability would once again be entrenched in Canadian law.”

She said further that the “singling out of one particular...group” of people based on their personal characteristics, which happen to be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to use those as grounds to justify the termination of the lives of the people who have those characteristics is just wrong, and that we would never consider doing this for any other group of people, including those who are indigenous, racialized or LGBTQ.

Dr. Heidi Janz from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities said:

People with disabilities are at a higher risk of suicide due to systemic and internalized ableism, yet they face substantial barriers when trying to access suicide prevention services. Medical professionals overlook typical sources of stress. Problems arising from relationship breakdowns, depression and isolation are wrongly attributed to disability. The removal of “reasonably foreseeable” natural death as a limiting eligibility criterion for the provision of MAID will result in people with disabilities seeking MAID as an ultimate capitulation to a lifetime of ableist oppression.

Finally, Bonnie Brayton from the DisAbled Women's Network of Canada pointed out, “Bill C-7, is sadly lacking in any meaningful public consultation with any people with disabilities despite how much more profoundly it could affect anyone who lives with a disability.” The disability community overwhelmingly opposed Bill C-7 and has repeatedly raised concerns about negative pressure and coercion impacting Canadians living with disabilities.

What about autonomy? The government would argue that Bill C-7 provides people with disabilities the option of medically facilitated death, but they do not have to chose that option. It is just another option that people have. To this, I would note that autonomy is always expressed in a social, legal and economic context. The context is that many Canadians living with disabilities struggle to access the key supports and services they need.

We do not have sufficient workplace supports in place and there are gaps in terms of community and income supports. In that context, the law and the medical system say to a person living with a disability that they have a simple way out and they can choose to die. If someone is at a point of existential agony and they have a disability, then the system will offer them death as a supposed solution.

In effect, if a person like me, without a disability, is experiencing existential distress and suicidal ideation, and if I were to discuss that distress with a doctor, I would be offered suicide prevention. However, if a person with a disability, the same as me in every other respect, is experiencing the same existential distress and suicidal ideations, and they discuss their distress with a doctor, they will be offered suicide facilitation by that same medical system.

That difference in the way the law and the health system treat those living with and without disabilities obviously sends a message to everyone involved in those interactions about whose life the law and the health system deem to be more or less worth living. The Liberal government has built a staircase to suicide prevention and a ramp to suicide facilitation.

As much as members opposite would like to say that this is about autonomy, the social and legal context that the government has created is not neutral and it is, in fact, discriminatory. Disability rights groups overwhelmingly see this reality, which is why they have been diametrically opposed to the approach of the government, and so much for “nothing about us without us”.

Canadians with disabilities feel devalued by a system that offers them easy death and does not offer them critical supports to live. Sadly, the mentality of the medical system is changing as well in response to these legal changes. The House has heard from many witnesses at different times and in different communities where patients were repeatedly pushed toward death and even called selfish for rejecting that option.

I will quote the minister again who said herself, “I regularly hear from families who are appalled by the fact that they take their child, potentially their older child and are offered unprovoked MAID. I think that has to stop.”

In response to the testimony we heard, Conservatives sought to amend Bill C-7 to guarantee that a physician or other health care worker would not raise euthanasia or MAID with a patient, unless the patient raises it first. This amendment would have ensured that, for instance, a person with a disability who goes to the doctor for something unrelated would not be offered facilitated death out of the blue. This would have solved the problem the minister identified, but the government opposed this—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle for her speech.

Last month, I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-22. I myself have a family member who lived a good part of his life as a person with a disability, but who has unfortunately passed away. I also had the opportunity to speak with Marie-Christine Hon, who heads up the disability advocacy group Dynamique des handicapés de Granby et région. She told me that the bill currently lacks details.

We just talked about how this benefit must be a complement. It must not be deducted from what is already being offered in Quebec and in the provinces.

Since today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, can my colleague assure us that the federal government will try to deliver this money as quickly as possible and give as many details as possible to the organizations?

I think people with disabilities deserve it.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, when the minister started the debate on the Canada disability benefit act, she stated that a sum would be paid to each person who is eligible for the benefit. The problem with the wording of the bill is that it does not say how much the person would receive or who would be eligible. There is no mention of the eligibility criteria, which will be determined by cabinet.

In the first days of the debate, I mentioned that the Old Age Security Act would be a good example to follow for making amendments to Bill C‑22.

Would the member be prepared to copy some sections and paragraphs from the Old Age Security Act to ensure that persons with disabilities in Canada will be entitled to a benefit similar to the one that was created by the Old Age Security Act?

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

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

As members already know, Bill C-22 is framework legislation that establishes the Canada disability benefit to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities. It sets out general provisions for the administration of the benefit and authorizes the Governor in Council to implement most of the benefit’s design elements through regulations. That is a very important point. It is framework legislation. All of the negotiations and details will be worked out later among the provincial, territorial and federal governments and, most importantly, those who are most affected, namely, people with disabilities. This legislation will also make a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

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

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

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

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

It is often families who take the lead in helping their children, young adults or older relatives with disabilities break their isolation and benefit from educational supports for training, socialization and help with daily tasks.

These people work every single day, for years on end, to provide a better quality of life for their loved ones, and they often do so at the expense of their own physical health and financial security. That is why I think the government has a responsibility to help them, and why Bill C-22 is so important. I believe that other members in the House feel the same way.

I would like to salute all the volunteers and employees who work with people with disabilities in my riding. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Centre multifonctionnel Horizon in Lery, which is a non-institutional resource for people with all kinds of disabilities. It was the life's work of a wonderful mother and advocate for these vulnerable people, the late Lyne Loiselle. This wonderful project, the Horizon Centre, offers stimulating activities and respite stays for dozens of families in our region.

Not far from where I live, in Châteauguay, the Mouvement Action Découverte's mission for the past 40 years has been to increase the individual and collective autonomy of people of all ages with an intellectual disability through educational activities to help youth become more independent.

Les Toits d'Émile in Châteauguay, Chez-nous solidaire in Mercier and Vents d'espoir in Saint‑Rémi were also founded by extraordinary parents who wanted to help not just their own children with disabilities but those of others. Their efforts are not focused on providing just community and social support services, but above all on providing housing to foster their independence in an inclusive community.

However, these charitable organizations alone cannot provide all the solutions. They already struggle to fund their own activities. Since we know that persons with disabilities are twice as likely to live in poverty as those who are not disabled, we, as members of a fair and just society, must ensure that they have the financial support to promote their independence and ability to actively participate in our social economy. That is why our government introduced new legislation that will establish the framework for a new Canadian benefit for persons with disabilities.

It is important to mention that this benefit, the cornerstone of our disability inclusion action plan would complement, not replace existing federal, provincial and territorial support measures to lift hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities out of poverty.

In the spirit of the “nothing without us” principle, we will continue to work with the provinces and territories and with the disability community to ensure that this benefit is designed with their needs in mind.

The Canadian disability benefit will help address the financial difficulties people with disabilities have been facing for a long time. It will create a more open economy and society. The benefit has the potential to significantly reduce poverty among the hundreds of thousands of Canadians in this situation. The benefit will thus become an important component of Canada's social safety net, along with old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada child benefit.

We are not talking about charity here, because we need everyone to be able to participate in our social economy. That is a dream of the people of Châteauguay—Lacolle, and we want to make it come true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from September 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Taxation

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, everybody in the House will have an opportunity very soon to vote in favour of Bill C-22 to make life way more affordable for persons with disabilities living in poverty. They could also make life more affordable by voting in favour of dental for kids with disabilities or rent for low-income persons with disabilities. There are a lot of important decisions to be made. I hope the other side will understand how we can make life more affordable for everyone.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, let me echo the comments of my hon. colleague. Thanksgiving is one of my favourite times. It is an opportunity to be with family and friends. As the hon. member said, we have not had that chance in a very long time, so it makes this a very special Thanksgiving. As the member correctly stated, and we should reflect on this, we really do have an enormous amount to be grateful for in our country. It is a special occasion to give thanks and to be with the people I love. I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family and friends, and with their constituents, over the upcoming constituency week.

With respect to the member's question about when we come back, I will be talking about what we are going to be doing, but first, in answer to this question, we absolutely cannot, and I will say it every time he asks me this question, give up on action on climate. While we take action to make life more affordable, and in a minute I will talk about what we will do over the next coming weeks, we cannot afford to make pollution free again.

We cannot allow pollution to be something that spews into the environment without consequence. We will continue to return that money to Canadians. Eight out of 10 Canadians will see more back. We can fight climate change, we can do affordability and we can do those things at the same time.

I am proud to say that our agenda to make life more affordable for families continues. It continues tomorrow when we take action, again, on the environment with Bill S-5, making important amendments to the Environmental Protection Act to improve and protect our environment, and at the same time take essential action to move forward with Bill C-31, which would provide families right across Canada the opportunity to ensure they have dental care, that this is not something, as life gets globally more challenging, that is left to the wayside. We know how important dental care is to health. I hope the member opposite will be supporting us in that as it comes forward.

On the Monday, when we return from our constituency week, we will continue with debate on Bill C-31, as I referenced earlier, with respect to dental care and support for housing.

On Tuesday, we will move forward with Bill C-22, the Canada disability act, which is critical support to help lift hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are disabled out of poverty. This is essential action to help them, and I hope the Conservatives would support that. I know other parties are.

On Wednesday, we will return to Bill S-5.

Thursday will be an allotted day.

On Friday, we hope to make progress on Bill S-4, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act, COVID-19 response and other measures. We also look forward to advancing Bill C-9, with respect to the Judges Act.

Last, I would like to inform the House that the Wednesday, following question period, there will be a really important opportunity to pay respects and tribute to our friend and former colleague, who we are all mourning, the late Bill Blaikie.

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 is here at a very critical time for millions of Canadians. There are too many Canadians struggling with the rising cost of living and the challenge of keeping rent paid and food in the fridge. As the NDP critic for disability inclusion, I hear from the disability community of the realities of skyrocketing housing and food costs and how it is impacting them disproportionately.

Fifty per cent of food bank users are now persons with disabilities. This is unacceptable and the Liberal government has a responsibility to uphold the human rights of persons with disabilities and ensure that they have an adequate standard of living. That is why Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit, cannot come fast enough for almost a million Canadians with a disability.

Inequality is rising at an exponential rate in Canada and, while grocery chains are bringing in billions of dollars in profits, everyday Canadians are falling further and further behind. Corporate greed is increasing. This crisis of corporate greed is driving inflation and it is affecting everyday Canadians. It affects some more than others. It especially affects persons with disabilities, single mothers and fixed and low-income families. These are long-standing issues. With the current greed inflation, crises are happening now all across communities in Canada and people need help immediately.

Many of them are renters. That is why the renters component of Bill C-31 is so important and why it needs to get out as soon as possible. This housing benefit is a one-time $500 payment for Canadians who qualify, specifically families who earn a net income of less than $35,000 a year. People are already asking me when this will become available.

This payment will help 1.8 million Canadians with the cost of living, and it will make a real difference in their lives. It is something that the government should have brought in months and months ago. Too many renters have had to rely on rent banks throughout this pandemic. Too many people have already lost their rental housing. They are living in their cars, in tents or are couch surfing. This is the reality in communities across Canada. Tents, and I spoke of this yesterday, are now homes for more and more Canadians as they search for stable, affordable rental housing

I want to take a moment here to talk about payday loans. We have so many in my community of Port Moody—Coquitlam who are having to pay their rent through a payday loan, and we know that those interest rates are out of hand. I just want to point out that there is a bill from my colleague here from New Westminster—Burnaby on reducing those interest rates. The interest rates, for the most vulnerable who use payday loans, are criminal.

The need to act cannot wait. We cannot have one more person lose their home because they cannot afford their rent. The NDP is committed to ensure that this legislation gets through quickly, so that people can get this payment by the end of the year.

Let us not forget how Canadians got into a situation where rents are unaffordable. Conservative and Liberal governments have overseen the financialization of housing. Instead of protecting our social housing stock, they encouraged upzoning and gentrification in the name of density. Density dreams are for developers. The financialization of housing is only working for the wealthy and is leaving people behind. The most impacted are renters in need of low- to mid-income affordable homes.

We are losing affordable homes at a rate of 15:1. For every new unit this government prides themselves on building, it has not protected 15 other renters who now find themselves evicted or demovicted from their homes. Truly affordable social housing has been sacrificed to create an asset class for pension funds and for the wealthiest people and companies across the globe.

Even after Bill C-31 passes, the government must immediately act to end the financialization of housing before more Canadians lose their homes, before more children are displaced from their schools and their friends, and before more seniors lose services, as they are forced out of the community in which they raised their children.

The second part of this legislation is related to the cost of living as well, and it will have profound and long-lasting benefits for millions of Canadians. It is transformational and will make a difference for generations to come. It is dental care.

New Democrats have always known that everyone, no matter their income, should have access to basic health care, yet ever since the Canada Health Act was first passed, it has been a project incomplete. It has been a vision unfulfilled. Aspects of our health were not included in the legislation that created universal health care. Things like our eyes, mental health, which we are recognizing this month, and dental care are integral to our concept of health and to our health outcomes. They must be included in Canada's universal health care.

Today, with Bill C-31, we take the next step to universal health care by adding the long-awaited dental care. Thirty-five per cent of Canadians lack proper dental insurance and that number jumps to 50% when we are talking about low-income Canadians. Seven million Canadians avoid going to the dentist because of the cost. It is shameful. It is something that has to change. Canada's most vulnerable face the highest rates of dental decay and disease, and the worst access to dental care. There is something wrong here. It needs to change and New Democrats are going to make sure it changes.

The legislation in front of us begins with getting uninsured children of low- and modest-income families the care they need. Kids deserve it. The most prominent day surgery in hospitals among children is dental care. Shamefully, tooth decay remains the most common, yet preventable, chronic childhood illness in Canada because too many families cannot afford a visit to the dentist's office. It has taken 50 years to protect all children with this dental care plan. We are here now, so let us make it happen.

In closing, New Democrats are in a position to use their power to force the government to immediately make life better for people by providing rent support now and essential dental care in the long term. However, let us not forget why we are here in need of these emergency benefits. It is because of bad policies put forward by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, policies that put corporate profits and tax protections for the ultrawealthy before the social fabric of Canada.

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives turned their backs on investments in housing and health care in favour of a private market-driven model that is not working. In fact, it is hurting people. This decades-long lack of government investment in people is why we need Bill C-31, but make no mistake. It is just the beginning of building back necessary social supports so that all people can thrive. New Democrats will continue to lead that charge and use our power to work for Canadians.

Bank of Canada Accountability Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has not failed. It has served Canadians well. I am getting heckled by the members across the way. Do they not understand the importance of having and respecting the independence of the Bank of Canada? Let us look at the years that it has put into effect sound policy.

At the end of the day, the Bank of Canada is recognized, not only within our borders but internationally, as an institution that has done exceptionally well for our country. Our previous governor actually went on to play an important role outside of Canada, in Europe.

The Bank of Canada is not a new institution. We are talking about going back to the 1930s. In fact, the very first building of the Bank of Canada was right across the street from the Parliament buildings, the old Victoria Building, where members of Parliament have offices today. It has been there since the 1930s, and it has been there for a good reason.

We could talk about the importance of monetary policy, like issues such as inflation. Let us remember the other wonderful idea that today's Conservative leader had on inflation. Instead of saying yes to Canadian currency and yes to the Canada banknotes that the Bank of Canada is ultimately responsible for, and our currency that the Bank of Canada monitors, what did today's leader of the Conservative Party say? He has more faith in cryptocurrency, Bitcoin. He has so much faith in it that he did not tell people to buy up Canadian currency; he told them to buy cryptocurrency, to opt out. He told them that the way to deal with inflation was to buy cryptocurrency.

Wow, what a brainer of an idea that was. Those individuals who followed that advice have lost 20%-plus, and some as high as, no doubt, 50% as a result. I do not know how many Conservative MPs followed that advice. Maybe the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did. I would not want to admit to that.

At the end of the day what I see are economic policies coming from the Conservative Party. Are they serious? Do we want to talk about contrast? Let us look at what the Conservatives are proposing for inflation. The Conservatives are criticizing the Bank of Canada. Do they not realize that for generations the Bank of Canada has been held accountable? There are different ways in which that is done. There are independent audits that are conducted and provided to the government. Do they not realize that there are reports? I will give them a tip. They can get copies of those reports to see what the Bank of Canada has been doing, to provide them assurances that they are independent private audits that are done every year on the Bank of Canada.

Why is this legislation necessary? If anything, the Conservative Party of Canada is doubling down on that bizarre idea of firing the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Does it not realize the consequence of the types of statements it is making? It actually hurts the Canadian economy. It plants seeds of doubt regarding confidence in the Bank of Canada, because technically it is recognized as the official opposition. It is supposed to be the party in waiting. Hopefully it will be many years, possibly decades, that it will be waiting in opposition, based on the types of things we hear coming from it.

Canadians need to be concerned about it. I can assure the members opposite that when I have the opportunity to talk about economic policy and issues, I do not hesitate to talk about some of the bizarre things that we hear coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. We need to establish and support the Bank of Canada as much as we can with respect to building that confidence.

Dealing with inflation, we just spent a couple of hours earlier this afternoon, and we are going to spend more hours this evening, talking about the issue of inflation. As a government, whether it is the Prime Minister or members from across this country, we are concerned about inflation. That is the reason we have legislation such as Bill C-30, which we were debating just an hour ago and which has fortunately passed. It took us a little while to convince the Conservatives to support it, but they did. Kudos to them.

In about an hour from now, we are going to be talking about Bill C-31, again to deal with inflation. The Conservatives still have not come onside with that one, which gives dental benefits to children under the age of 12. It also provides support for low-income renters. I would think they would want to support that too.

We could pass that and then we could maybe go on to Bill C-22 and talk about the disability legislation, which is again legislation that would make a difference and would help Canadians in every region of our country. Instead, the Conservatives are bringing forward bizarre bills like the one the member has brought here before us today, which reinforces statements that the current Conservative leader has put on the record with respect to the Bank of Canada and the lack of confidence they have in it.

Let us get behind good legislation and pass it, and maybe put a pass on this one.