Bill C-22

Canada Disability Benefit Act

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

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

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

Sitting Resumed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persons with Disabilities

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persons with Disabilities

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food Day in Canada Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persons with Disabilities

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

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

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

Historic Places of Canada Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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