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 .

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for his comments.

What I would say to him is that this is an opportunity for all of us to use our power here to do more. The Bloc Québécois has supported Bill C‑22 at every stage. It now has the power to make demands of the government, which is a minority government. Among other things, the Bloc Québécois can demand that the government fix the Canada disability benefit.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to participate in the debate. I want to start by sharing why the debate is so important. Across the country, 1.5 million folks with disabilities are living in poverty. That is about 40% of the people living in poverty across the country.

This summer, I was at St. John's Kitchen, operated by The Working Centre right in downtown Kitchener. It is a gathering place for diverse folks across our community, a lot of whom are living in poverty, might be living unsheltered or are at risk of homelessness. Time and again I would be chatting with folks and I felt like I had the same conversation over and over. I would learn that someone is living on the Ontario disability support program, and they would share with me how difficult life is living in poverty.

I would start to share with them a bit about the new Canada disability benefit. However, as I did so, they would learn that it is a maximum of only $200 a month, that it is not starting until July of next year and that to access it, they had to apply for the disability tax credit if they did not have it already.

What is involved in applying for the disability tax credit? There is an 18-page form. How do they get that form? They need to find a way to print it and then find a doctor who is willing to complete 16 pages of the 18-page form. They try to find a doctor who might have done it before, because it often the case that if the doctor has not done it before, they are either unwilling or would not know how to complete it. Time and again, I just felt exhausted realizing that these are people who have been provided with a process designed for them to fail.

How did we get here? It was a commitment from the Liberals in their platform in 2021. Their platform stated, “this new benefit will reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in the same manner as the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the Canada Child Benefit.” The minister at the time would later say that this was going to be a generational benefit, the sleeper legacy piece if they were to do it right.

Community pressure from the disability community, and letters both in the House and in the Senate, led to Bill C-22's getting introduced. It was then improved at committee. I am glad to have worked with colleagues to secure five improvements that came from the disability community. This included requiring that the benefit be indexed to inflation and that the disability community be meaningfully engaged in the regulations process, which almost every important decision was left to, including one that would require that the benefit application process be barrier-free.

Sadly, we also attempted to extend the benefit for those over the age of 65, but that was ruled out of order. It continues to be a significant point of contention that a person's disability does not end at 65 and neither should the Canada disability benefit.

As I mentioned earlier, almost every important decision was left to the regulations. That is what we learned just a few months ago when we learned, in the budget, that the governing party was proposing only a maximum of $200 a month for the disability tax credit, and not until July of next year. At the time, I shared in this place that it just felt so unserious. It felt to me like the government was playing politics with the lives of people who have been marginalized for a very long time.

With the rest of my time, I would like to provide solutions with respect to what we could still do with the remaining time in this Parliament to fix the Canada disability benefit. It is included in the regulation I submitted a few weeks ago. There are seven specific items that could be addressed in the Canada disability benefit, all of which come directly from the disability community.

The first is to just remove the barriers to the application process by automatically enrolling folks who are already on provincial, territorial and federal programs, including CPPD, and get rid of the barrier that is the disability tax credit.

Catherine, a person with a disability, shared this with me this summer that “requiring those who may be eligible for the CDB to apply or reapply for the benefit will put significant strain on the already overworked health care professionals who have patient loads so large that paperwork issues are frequently placed as a last priority item by these professionals and will cause significant delays in the delivery of the benefit to those who [need it the most].”

Catherine is right. Here are the stats. The CRA reports that in 2022 alone, it received over 133,000 phone calls from folks having issues accessing the disability tax credit, and only 600 of those calls got redirected to navigators who could help the person.

If the DTC is to be used at all, it should only be used as another method of getting access, an optional item in addition to provincial programs, such as the ODSP, and federal programs, such as the CPPD.

Second is to remove the second barrier, which is another new application process, so that a person does not need to apply a second time for the DTC. In fact, the regulations state that this is going to be an additional application for those who have the DTC, which would need to be repeated if the person were ever needing to reapply for the DTC. We should just get rid of that application altogether and have it as an opt-out so folks with disabilities who have already been assessed through other programs, whether federal or provincial, would directly have access to the Canada disability benefit.

Third, and really important, is that we should supporting the independence and dignity of an individual person with a disability by means-testing to the individual's income and not family income, as the regulations currently propose. Extend-A-Family Waterloo Region, an organization serving folks with disabilities in my community, referred to this measure as “dehumanizing” in its June letter to the minister.

Michael, from my community, who lives with a disability, shared with me, “one of the many issues for disabled people is that they often get trapped in abusive relationships due to income levels. One cannot escape and set up an independent life free of abuse when they have no, or extremely limited, income of their own. Expecting a person's spouse/partner to completely support them not only adds stress to the relationship, but gives an abusive partner a way to trap and control them.” The federal government should acknowledge that folks with disabilities should have the independence of means testing to their individual income alone.

Fourth, and probably one of the most important, is to increase the maximum amount to actually lift people above the poverty line. Here are the numbers we have already: StatsCan reports the low-income measure for the after-tax threshold is just over $28,000 for an individual and over $40,000 for a couple. In Waterloo region, my community, the market basket measure is over $26,000 for an individual and $37,000 for a couple. ODSP in Ontario, for example, is just over $1,300 a month, or less than $16,000 a year. There is not a single provincial or territorial program for folks with disabilities that, when we add $200 from the CDB, even if a person qualifies for the maximum amount, would lift that person above the poverty line.

These words were shared with me by Chad this summer: “$200 a month...isn't going to do much for disabled Canadians”. It is clear that the maximum benefit amount is insufficient and should be the true supplement originally proposed, which, with provincial and territorial programs, would lift someone above the poverty line.

Fifth is to raise the income threshold. As it stands right now, when a person makes more than $23,000 a year, which is below the poverty line, the CDB is going to get rolled back. That amount should obviously be above the poverty line, ideally taking into account the additional costs that a person with a disability incurs.

Sixth, we need to fast-track the benefit. Many folks in the disability community called out that the government moved quickly on CERB, and it could do it again here. The disability community has called it the “disability emergency response benefit,” and the government needs to move quicker with a benefit of some kind. The government could move quicker with the Canada disability benefit and put it into force more quickly as well.

To close, I would like to say to colleagues from all parties that we have a moment here when this could still be addressed. The governing party members could use this as a moment to demonstrate to Canadians that this is a signature priority of theirs, in either the fall economic statement or the budget. My colleagues in other parties could demand this of the governing party for their support in this minority Parliament. As Greens, we are going to continue to prioritize it because the fact is that the disability community has been unwavering in telling the government what it must do. Now is our chance to listen.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to have the opportunity to speak today. I would like to point out that I will be sharing my time with the incredible member for Winnipeg Centre.

I cannot help but notice that the Conservative member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, who just finished his speech, did not answer my question. Nor did he answer the question from the member for Kitchener Centre, who asked whether the Canada disability benefit would be maintained if, by some misfortune, a Conservative government were elected in the next election.

If the Conservatives feel it is inadequate, will they enhance it? Will they maintain pharmacare? Will they maintain the dental care program for seniors and people with disabilities? They are not giving any answers or commitments. All the Conservatives want to do is make cuts, yet they will not tell us what they want to cut. I hope citizens will not have to wait for an election campaign to hear what their platform is.

Right now there is no way of knowing where they will get the savings they need if they are truly interested in reducing the budget and public spending. I am deeply troubled by the attitude of both the leader of the official opposition and the Conservative members in the House, which consists in systematically refusing to answer very clear questions on subjects that will affect the lives of millions of Canadians.

I would like it said, noted and recognized that there is absolutely no response or clear commitment on the part of the Conservatives in the House. I think that at some point they will have to be transparent with people, reveal who they truly are and lay their cards on the table, so that people can make fully informed decisions. We, for our part, have a record of achievement.

For two and a half years we have forced the minority government to do things they had never agreed to do in the past. Examples include the anti-scab bill, sick leave and the basis for a drug plan to reimburse contraceptives as well as drugs for nine million diabetes patients in Canada. There is also the dental care program that has already benefited 700,000 Canadians, including a large majority of seniors.

Let us return to the debate before us today. I commend my NDP colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam on moving this motion to adopt the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in order to discuss an issue of great concern for all of our communities. It affects millions of people and, in particular, one million persons with disabilities who also live in poverty.

I would now like to take the time to read the Committee's recommendation, because no one has done so since this morning and I think it is worth it. It reads as follows:

In the opinion of the committee, the government should safeguard the Canada Disability Benefit from any potential clawbacks and engage in comprehensive consultations with the disability community to ensure the effective implementation of the Canada Disability Benefit by:

(i) ensuring that the Canada Disability Benefit is adequate to lift people living with disabilities out of poverty,

(ii) ensuring that the Canada Disability Benefit is accessible through the reconsideration of the Disability Tax Credit as a barrier to access, and establishing a more equitable and accessible enrolment method,

(iii) acknowledging the multitude of unseen expenses associated with living with a disability, which exacerbates financial strain, particularly amidst escalating costs of living and inflation crises,

(iv) recognizing the adverse impact of benefit entitlement reductions as families earn higher taxable incomes, perpetuating cycles of poverty among lower-income households,

(v) collaborating with provinces and territories to fortify support systems for individuals with disabilities, thereby fostering inclusive and supportive communities across the country.

And the Committee report this to the House.

This is an excellent recommendation, and I am glad that we can discuss it in the House, because it could really fix the mistakes made by the Liberal government. It could also address the broken promise in the legislation resulting from Bill C-22, which is woefully inadequate. The Liberals have been promising concrete measures to lift people with disabilities out of poverty since 2015, but this reminds me of the story about the mountain that laboured and brought forth a mouse. Instead of really strong measures to lift people out of poverty, what did they get? They got 200 bucks a month, which is peanuts. That is nothing. It is more like giving people a few crumbs and telling them they have to make do with it, when what we wanted was a meaningful measure that would lift one million people out of poverty, people who are living in extreme hardship every day.

I wanted to talk about this because for people like myself and many others who do not live with disabilities, it is hard to imagine what life must be like for those who must rely on a wheelchair. This is a rather ordinary example. What I am saying is not terribly original, but over the years, as I worked with groups in my riding, I have learned how much everything we consider normal and easy and take for granted can be difficult and painful—finding a job, for example. Indeed, unemployment among persons with disabilities, an already vulnerable group, is far higher than the overall average. It is harder for them to access the job market. They are less likely to be hired than other groups of people in society, which contributes to their financial difficulties and makes them more prone to poverty.

Special needs housing is expensive. Small things like going to the grocery store, returning home and making something to eat when the person's home has not been adapted for their situation, whether they have to use a wheelchair or are living with other disabilities, are no easy tasks. Small things we do not even think of drive up the cost of special needs housing, and subsidies are not always available. This creates problems. People become dependent on their family, friends and neighbours. Every little activity of daily living becomes more difficult. It costs a massive amount of money to address this issue.

The Liberals had promised to help these people avoid hardship in their daily lives, but no, the problems remain. They have an haphazard, piecemeal approach. They say the promise was kept, but it is all smoke and mirrors, and it will not benefit the people in need. The groups are disappointed. Persons with disabilities are disappointed, angry and frustrated because their needs are not being met.

Another need in the daily lives of persons with disabilities is transportation. Not everyone can afford a car, especially the poor. The measure is insufficient to ensure the availability of adapted public transit. The schedule is a problem because buses do not come often enough. People often have to hire a taxi because the bus or paratransit is unavailable or has broken down, or cannot get there for another three hours, when the person might have a doctor's appointment in 15 minutes and needs to get there fast.

We may not necessarily think of all these small costs and charges. I represent a Montreal riding that includes a handful of subway stations equipped with elevators. Universal access is not a given. Getting into the subway station is one thing, but getting out is another. Sometimes, people have to travel three or four subway stations past their destination just to get to an elevator. Then what? They wait for a bus that takes forever to come.

All these little things add up to make persons with disabilities more vulnerable. We thought that the Liberal government would recognize that, but no. The relevant word here is “disappointment”.

I was talking about that disappointment with groups in my riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, which I am very proud to represent here. There are a dozen or so of them, namely, the Association d'aide et de loisirs pour personnes à autonomie réduite, or ALPAR; the Regroupement des organismes spécialisés pour l'emploi des personnes handicapées; the Association multiethnique pour l'intégration des personnes handicapées du Québec; Compagnons de Montréal; Giant Steps Autism Centre; the Association des Parents pour la déficience intellectuelle, or PARDI; the Regroupement pour la trisomie 21; DéfPhys sans limite—

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank our colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for the tone and substance of his speech; it reminds me of a time, a few years ago here, when we worked together on a letter to push the government to move forward with Bill C-22. We need more of that, as we have seen in recent days, and a different tone in this place.

I think it is fair to ask about what a future Conservative government might do. We know, for example, that the Canada carbon rebate would be taken away. The Conservatives have made that very clear. However, they have not been clear about whether they would fix and deliver the Canada disability benefit at an adequate income level. I know it is something that he cares about.

If there is not a commitment in place already, can he share about what he can do to ensure that a commitment is in place in the near future?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been very interesting to listen to the debate today. Obviously, folks are passionate about this issue on all sides. As I reflect on this, I think about the university presentations I get a chance to do. I do a lot of presentations talking about, basically, how we define normal. I share stories of my son's life with autism and video clips that we have had a chance to make over the years, where he is being included in musical theatre in school, working in the school library and those kinds of things.

It is interesting; some of the universities I visit are not in the most Conservative places in the country. I can think of some in the GTA where I am not sure how many Conservatives there would be among 500 students. There are probably more today than there have been in the past. Once in a while, they comment on how they do not automatically think of the Conservative Party when they think about those issues. They ask me to explain that a little bit. I explain it by saying that, in this place, we are human beings before our party affiliation, regardless of our party. We all want the best for people with disabilities.

Based on some of the words we hear today, some people would like folks to believe that one party or another party does not care. The reality is that we all care about creating the best opportunities and the best Canada for people with disabilities. Sometimes, we just have different thoughts on how to get there.

I look at the timeline on the bill. It is important, given the tenor of the debate today, to highlight that, first of all, this idea came up in the 2020 throne speech first. It then came to the House, I think, as Bill C-35 in 2021. Of course, the priority for the government of the day, at that point in time, was an election in the summer of 2021. Everything was shut down while we spent $600,000 or $700,000 on the election, or whatever amount of money it was. It was hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars with all of our parties. It was $600 million, not thousands.

Obviously, it was money that could have been spent on other things. We fought that election, and then the government brought back the legislation as Bill C-22. It went through over the course of time. It was not a high priority. It took two and a half years to get it passed. It is really important to point out that, when it did pass, it passed unanimously in the House of Commons.

There is nobody in the House, regardless of what some members want people to believe, who did not support Bill C-22, who did not support the Canada disability benefit. This is a really important fact. On our side, we were concerned about a significant lack of clarity. We have said this over and over again.

There was less information in this piece of legislation than in almost any piece of legislation I have seen, with more left up to the future regulatory process in terms of what that would look like. In this debate today, we are seeing the consequences of that lack of clarity.

Another thing that is really clear right now is that what the Liberals were promising, the expectation that they were creating, was dramatically higher than the reality that came to be when the Canada disability benefit was delivered. I suspect that this is largely because of the issue of priorities. This is the highest-spending government in the history of our country by far, with double the amount of spending of any other government. The amount of debt we have run up is unparalleled. I think the bottom line is that the Liberals are running out of money; even for the things that they say are important, they do not have the money to fund it.

It is also really important to note that, as we are having the debate, we have a situation where the NDP is criticizing the government relentlessly, day in and day out, about everything. Again, everybody in the House is on the same side in terms of the importance of getting things right for Canadians living with disability and the operation of that, in a sense, in terms of the way that it winds up being in the House.

It is not just the Canada disability benefit. It is everything else. I think it would be right for Canadians listening in on this debate to ask this: If this is so important to the NDP, how in the world did they not negotiate what they wanted in their deal with the Liberals?

This has been one of the longest-serving minority Parliaments since the twenties or thirties, maybe in the history of the country. The NDP vote with the Liberals, to support the Liberals, every single day in the House. They endorse the Liberals with their positions and their votes. At any point in time, the NDP could have said that something is the line in the sand. They could have used their leverage to get whatever they want out of the Liberal Party. On this issue, obviously, it was not a priority at the negotiating table for the NDP. We just have to take that context into consideration as Canadians listen to this debate.

One thing I would like to focus on is outcomes. We talk a lot about dollar amounts, with big dollar amounts for some programs. The Liberal defence today has involved talking about how much money the program costs. However, we have to take a look at outcomes.

I think about the outcomes that I want for my son Jaden, who is now 28, Canadians like my son, and people around the world like my son. He was 10 when I was first elected; he will turn 29 in November. He was two and a half years old when he was diagnosed in 1998. We want timely diagnoses for things that can be diagnosed. Obviously, in the disability world, it is not all about diagnosis. We want early help for people when they need it in those early years. We want to make sure that we have an education system that includes people to the maximum. Obviously, this is mostly in the provincial jurisdiction. We want to make sure we have proper housing, employment opportunities, skills development and those kinds of things.

Of course, as parents, we often think about what happens when we are gone. One thing I consider when I think about Jaden and people like him across the country is that we want to make sure we have good programs now. We want to make sure that Jaden and other Canadians who are vulnerable have the supports they need right now. We are also concerned about the future. We want to make sure that the same supports, or better supports, are there for our loved ones when we are gone.

Right now, I am very concerned about the level of government spending overall, at the dramatic record-setting levels of spending we have seen from the Liberal-NDP government, which has recently been supported by the Bloc. When Jaden was diagnosed in 1998, provinces across the country were having difficulty funding diagnosis and early help for people with autism. One reason they were having trouble was that the Liberal government had initiated a 32% cut in 1995. This was a generation after the massive deficits run up by the Trudeau government in the seventies and eighties. It was a real cut, not the fake type of cut that members often allude to, in transfers to the provinces for health, social services and education. I think it was in the $35-billion range overall. This was just gone because of a fiscal situation brought on by the massive debt and deficit run up in the seventies and eighties. I feel as though we are going down that road right now.

I think the people who are most hurt by the inflationary policies of the government in the current circumstances are the most vulnerable people in Canada, including Canadians with disabilities. They are living on fixed incomes. Those populations will be the ones hurt down the road when the real crisis hits because of the fiscal situation the government has created.

I look forward to questions. I hope we can come up with some ideas in this place about how we could actually create better outcomes for Canadians living with disabilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about a subject that affects every one of us as elected members of the House. We speak for all our constituents, but sometimes we realize that certain issues affect us personally, because we have first-hand experience.

I would like to thank the NDP for tabling this committee report and allowing us to discuss it today. I also want to thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who did an outstanding job in committee. She demonstrated a thoroughness and empathy that should inspire us all as members of the House.

I would like to go back to some of the things my colleague said about Bill C‑22, which will be implemented by regulation, by order in council. I would like to talk about one of this government's approaches that is clearly harming the public. It is a matter of common sense. That is why we need to talk about the process involved not only in passing this bill, but in implementing it as well. This process penalizes people with disabilities, and I really do not understand the reasoning behind it.

First, as my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville mentioned, the government decided to announce the funding for the benefit in its 2024 budget. That surprised us. It also surprised all the groups that had been closely monitoring developments since the bill's passage.

The government announced an amount without first drafting regulations. The regulations should establish the eligibility criteria, the terms of payment, the amount of the benefit, the method for calculating the amount and the payment periods. Maybe that is how it is done with this bill. It must be done like that with other bills. I think that many members in the House could bear witness to the fact that the government is working backwards.

It announced the amount in a budget. That may have been good for the government's image, but it was only for show. It announced the amount, but we and all the organizations had trouble understanding that amount, because there are no regulations. What calculations did it use to come up with that amount? Ultimately, what everyone wants to know is, how will this amount effectively address the issue of people with disabilities living in precarious circumstances or even poverty?

As I mentioned, the government is doing things backwards, and disability groups are not impressed. It did things backwards in the first step, but in another step as well. It really did everything backwards. It was working backwards when it came to consultations. As my colleagues have said, and I think that my colleague from Shefford mentioned this earlier, organizations in our ridings are wondering why they were not consulted. These organizations are wondering why nobody consulted them if the goal is truly to lift people with disabilities out of insecurity and poverty. The organizations on the ground know these people and what they need. They cannot understand why nobody is consulting them. They wonder how decisions are being made.

Decisions should be made by and for people with disabilities, but in a possibly patronizing way, the government is deciding what their needs are. That is not what the groups want. They want to be consulted first, before the regulations are drafted. The groups want to be consulted so that their feedback informs the regulations, ensuring that they take into account the needs that these groups and their members know all about.

Then, of course, it can be announced in a budget. I am amazed that I have to explain all this, but I think the general public should know that the government did things completely backwards in this case. It did not follow the normal steps in the process.

As my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville also said, the choice to use regulations is a major issue. The Bloc Québécois opposed the regulatory approach, because it could lead to instability in the granting of the benefits. I would go so far as to say that there could be instability in the future of the benefits themselves, because all the power is in the hands of one person, in this case a minister, for example, not in a bill that would ensure certainty, permanence and, as I said earlier, stability and even security. I think that people want security when it comes to their economic situation, especially when their economic situation is precarious, as I said. Unfortunately, these people often end up living in poverty. That is why we would have preferred an alternative to the regulatory approach.

To sum up quickly, there are two issues. First, the government did things backwards, which hurt the people it is trying to help. At the same time, the approach it chose created an insecurity or instability that could raise doubts about whether the measure is permanent. Second, there may be one final element that is very important and that my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville brought up. She did not say it in so many words, but she mentioned red tape getting in the way of accessing the benefit.

If I may get personal for a moment, I myself have a child with a disability. I must say that, although I am a pretty capable person, the red tape can be nightmare to deal with. My little boy has an autism spectrum disorder and motor difficulties, but he was refused disabled status for a long time. That is only one example among many, but it shows that people often have to fight just to have their disability recognized.

Not everyone has the same resources and organizations to help them, and it can get discouraging. Some people do not even know about the benefits or tax credits that are available. As my colleague said, if people do not know about the tax credit, how can they access the benefit? They are inextricably linked. These kinds of accessibility barriers do not give me the impression that the government really wants to help people. It seems to find ways to screen people out, to block and delay them from getting the help they really need right now.

Those are all the points I wanted to reiterate. If the government really wants to help people with disabilities, it has to listen to them and address the needs they have articulated. That must then be consistently reflected in the budget, so that they can truly be lifted out of poverty. It must also give them a way to access these benefits by giving them information and maybe not tying benefits to certain prerequisites, which ends up depriving some people of what they are entitled to.

I urge the government not to work backwards, but to work voluntarily, transparently and honestly with disability groups so that people with disabilities in my riding of Manicouagan, in Quebec and in Canada can get support and live with dignity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Manicouagan.

I feel like taking the debate to another level. I would like to recall in chronological order the events that led to the report being brought back from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The Bloc Québécois held a debate this week on the situation our seniors are in, but people with disabilities also deserve a lot more consideration than what they typically get in our parliamentary debates, where this important issue is so often used to play politics.

I commend my NDP colleague who brought the report back from committee. The report is a motion, actually. It fully validates the work we did in committee when studying Bill C‑22. The aim of this bill was to introduce, quite simply, a Canada disability benefit, which would have complemented the measures in place in Quebec and the provinces. It basically emerged from the desire to allow these individuals to become fully contributing members of society. Most of them live in poverty. We must lift them out of poverty so they too can live with dignity. That was the aim of the benefit.

At the time, the Bloc Québécois had raised an objection to the bill. The benefit amount, eligibility criteria and terms of application were to be defined in regulation, by order In council. The Bloc Québécois introduced an amendment at that point calling for the regulations taken by order in council to be brought before the House for debate. If a benefit amount is decided by order in council and through regulation, that means that any minister may change the benefit amount by regulation and by order in council. For example, one minister might set it at $5,000 a year, while another might decide by regulation and order in council that it should be set at $5 a week.

Our amendment calling for the regulation taken by order in council to be brought before the House for debate was one of our major amendments, but it was rejected. The NDP and Liberals voted it down. That being said, it needs to be prescribed by regulation.

When the 2024 budget was introduced, we learned that the disability benefit would be $2,500 a year, barely $200 a month. There is also an eligibility criterion based on the tax credit. That raised the ire of most people with disabilities and those who represent them, in both Quebec and Canada. They were unanimous on the matter. They were also unanimous in saying that the benefit, as well as its terms, conditions and eligibility criteria, should be established by and for people with disabilities.

Two things happened. First, here in the House, we called out the amount announced in the budget. Then, when it came time to adopt the motion in committee, we had the minister responsible in to explain the eligibility criteria. We also called out the fact that the amount would not be enough to meet the stated objective, lifting people out of poverty. The goal is to allow people with disabilities to live with dignity. In addition to their disability, these people have multiple needs in terms of caregivers, medications and support.

There is also mention of employment inclusion but, even in that respect, most of these people live on welfare, at least in Quebec. We have made major strides in Quebec in terms of tailoring the amounts in such a way as to allow people to earn sufficient additional income without losing their benefits. That was the goal of the Canada disability benefit.

Now we see what is happening. The regulation was not passed, people were not consulted, and the amount was simply announced. We learned that the benefit would be in the form of a tax credit. The government decided to align eligibility for the Canada disability benefit with the disability tax credit. We know, however, that thousands of people who should have access to this tax credit cannot get it because of administrative reasons. I will not address these because it would take too long, but tax credits involve some administrative tasks. People need to apply and provide supporting documents. Many people were unable to benefit from the tax credit because they were not registered. We raised this question when the matter of the additional amount equivalent to a one-time CERB payment was raised. That is red tape, and that is why we keep hammering on these issues of red tape and wasted money that could otherwise be given to people.

The government refused to submit the eligibility criteria and the amount in an order in council instead of by regulation so that we could discuss them. No one was consulted and, although we now know the amount, the regulation has not yet been adopted. It was presented as a fait accompli, and we supported the NDP's motion that appears in the report we are discussing.

In particular, we want the federal benefit to be accessible, and we want the tax credit to be reviewed. We also questioned the minister responsible for administering this benefit. After the administrative failures we have seen with passports and other things, will we have to get through a mountain of red tape that has nothing to do with the purpose of the benefit?

That is greed or the inability to implement a program that could strengthen Canadian legislation and enhance what already exists. Here we are again. Once again, people with disabilities will be the ones to pay. We will continue to fight to ensure that the initial objective of the bill is fulfilled. These people must be recognized once and for all as full and equal members of our society.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been known, particularly over the course of the last couple of years, to be pretty tough on the NDP, which is well-deserved and something I have done rightfully so, frankly.

For the last number of years, Canadians have had to watch in the House of Commons actions by the NDP, actions like we are seeing this morning with a debate it has brought forward to express its outrage and disbelief that the Liberals broke their promise. In this case, it has to do with the Canada disability benefit. I cannot count the number of times I have been in the chamber or watched question period and debates where NDP members have stood and been repeatedly frustrated and angry with the Liberals' announcements or the Prime Minister, who is the best at photo ops, and all these word salad feel-good statements and announcements, yet the NDP's follow-through is an abject failure time and time again.

After nine years of the Liberals, I could spend my entire time going through a litany of their broken promises and of Liberals not following through on their word. The part that is most frustrating is the disconnect between the NDP members' talk and their actions. They stand in the House like they do today in disbelief and outraged at the Liberals, who misled them by insisting they pass Bill C-22 to create a Canada disability benefit.

For years, the Liberals said they were consulting, they were thinking about it, they were working on it and they were doing all of this, only to announce something that the NDP is now devastated and jaw-dropped about, which is that the Liberals are not providing more supports for Canadians with disabilities. The Liberals broke their promise.

Here is the irony, though. For all that outrage, all the debate and all the tough talk by the NDP leader saying that he is fed up with the Liberals, is ripping up the coalition agreement, that people are fed up with the Prime Minister and that he has had enough, here we are at debate today to vote on a motion that is non-binding.

What was binding last week was the question called twice by Conservatives stating that we do not have confidence anymore in the Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal government after nine years. What did NDP members do? They voted with the Liberals. They voted with the Prime Minister to keep the Liberals in office even longer.

Here we are again with the NDP members pretending and trying to have it both ways. For years and dozens and dozens of times on budgets, confidence votes, public accounts and in committees, including on this bill, they have voted with the Liberals.

When Conservatives tried to get amendments in this legislation that would have ensured we received more details in advance so Canadians would know those details, the Liberals refused to do it. We also tried to amend it so the clawbacks for Canadians with disabilities, who constantly face clawbacks from numerous programs, would be stopped. It was the NDP and Liberals who voted that down, and now the NDP stands in here today pretending to be outraged and stunned that the Liberals did not keep their word. It is because of what those two parties have done together over the course of the last few years.

We talk about how tough life is for Canadians, and it is disproportionately even more difficult for Canadians with disabilities. Two million Canadians a month are visiting food banks, housing prices and costs have doubled and rent has doubled. In Montreal, rent has tripled, as an example. That disproportionately affects Canadians with disabilities even more.

The Liberals put a carbon tax in, and their solution now is to quadruple it. If someone with a disability is struggling to make ends meet, quadrupling the carbon tax, driving up inflation and the cost of living and doubling housing costs, everything the Liberals have done while propped up by the NDP, has made life worse. It has made the financial situation for Canadians with disabilities even worse.

I do not buy the fake outrage by the NDP, which is putting this motion forward and telling Canadians it is doing something about it. At the end of the day, what we could do, and what the NDP should be doing, is voting non-confidence in the government. Let us have a carbon tax election so Canadians can decide on the direction of this country.

Instead, what did NDP members do this summer, which they are known to do well? I will call them out: a news release. It was a big, tough news release from the NDP critic for disability inclusion. She had had enough. She was furious with the Liberals and in disbelief. Here was the tough talk: “New Democrats are calling on the Liberals to stop delaying, listen to the advocates and the disability community, and fix this mess.” What would fix this mess? What would stop the delaying? Let us call an election. Let Canadians have their say on what they believe we need to do in this country to get back on track, get the cost of living crisis under control and make housing and rent more affordable.

The key thing I am proud of is the Conservatives' common-sense priorities. We may have said this a time or two in this House so that it is very clear to Canadians, but we are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Those things are very important to any Canadian struggling financially to deal with a disability they have.

NDP members say to fix this mess, but then they turn around when the question gets called. If they have had enough of the Prime Minister, if they have had enough of the broken promises and if they are ripping up the agreement and are fed up with the Liberals, they should not vote confidence in them. However, the NDP did that twice last week.

NDP members need to pick a lane, because Canadians see right through them every time. They cannot stand up here during a debate and be stunned that the Liberals did not keep their word and broke their promises. That has been their legacy for decades. They have been called out for this. The New Democrats propped up the Liberals and voted with them for three years, and they still do.

They stand here today telling the community of Canadians with disabilities that they are outraged, they are not going to take it anymore and they are going to stand up for Canadians. However, the Liberals will not change their ways. They have always been like this. They over-promise and under-deliver. They do not follow through. They say all the word-salad things they need to say, but when it comes to quality of life and affordability for Canadians with disabilities, it has never been worse. The NDP owns that record just as much as the Liberals do.

On this side of the House, my colleagues and I will continue to call out the New Democrats every step of the way, with the virtue signalling, fake outrage and constant surprise. They cannot believe the Liberals did this yet they vote for them time and time again. It is wearing the patience of Canadians pretty thin.

In addition to the common priorities we have stood for in this House, like axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime, I am also proud of our leader specifically for his continued work to make work pay for Canadians with disabilities. However, there are a number of examples in this country of federal and other benefits not working for Canadians.

I will give an example from a Canadian I spoke with last summer. He had a terrible accident on vacation and became quadriplegic. He was an iron worker. When he moved to Toronto and could not work as an iron worker anymore, he went on CPP disability. He then made the determination that he wanted to go to university and become a professor, either at a college or a university. He applied to school, tried to get new employment because he could not do his union iron worker job anymore and was cut off CPP disability. He could not get an education. He could not retrain. So many clawbacks and barriers still exist.

I am proud to be part of a party that does not just talk and talk without delivering, but gives tangible, meaningful ways to help Canadians with disabilities. I am looking forward to the next election. Millions of Canadians are as well. We can give hope to Canadians with disabilities that real change can happen. We can make life more affordable, we can cut down barriers and we can improve the lives of millions of Canadians with disabilities. I look forward to whenever that election will be.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question I heard from the disability community in Waterloo region over the course of the summer on this topic was that they saw that the Conservative Party supported the legislation, Bill C-22. They also recognized, though, that the legislation was devoid of almost every important decision about the benefit, including how much it is going to be, when it is going to be delivered and who is going to be eligible for it.

The member for Kelowna—Lake Country did support Bill C-22 through the committee stage and did seek to improve it at committee stage.

What will the member and the Conservative Party commit to when it comes to lifting the 40% of folks with disabilities living in poverty across the country? What what will they do to lift those folks out of poverty, should they be in government one day?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

I will be splitting my time today with the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

I will start by correcting the record on some of the information that has been given by NDP and Liberal members here this morning. The first has to do with the voting record of the Conservatives on supporting the Canada disability benefit. I would note that on October 18, 2022, the bill passed second reading, which Conservatives supported. On February 2, 2023, it passed third reading, which Conservatives supported. When the legislation came back from the Senate on June 20, 2023, Parliament unanimously passed Bill C-22. I would like to correct the misinformation stated here this morning.

I would also like to bring up the importance of clawbacks not happening. The NDP interventions in particular today talked about clawbacks. I would note that when Bill C-22 was at the human resources committee, the Conservatives offered an amendment, through the legal department at the House of Commons, to protect persons with disabilities from clawbacks in the bill. That amendment was not supported at committee by the NDP, which the NDP brought up in this morning's interventions. I would note that it was Conservatives who tried to amend this legislation by putting forward good amendments to make it stronger, but unfortunately, they were not supported by the NDP and the Liberals.

I will next go through the timeline of this legislation, just to put it into context. There was an announcement by the government in 2020, in its throne speech, and Bill C-35 was tabled in the House of Commons in June 2021. The bill was nullified when the Liberal government called its unnecessary and expensive 2021 election, which stopped the whole process. After the election occurred, the government brought forward legislation again, which was Bill C-22, the Canada Disability Benefit Act, that then worked its way through Parliament. This legislation has been worked on for years. We heard from various stakeholders that previous to 2020, the government was reaching out to the disability community to gain input. This is something the government has been working on for a long time, and when it finally passed in February 2023, it was implemented.

However, during that entire time, the Liberal government kept saying it was doing lots of consultation. It made a lot of announcements with a lot of fanfare. Unfortunately, what transpired is a lot of broken promises. A number of individuals and disability groups have come out strongly stating that this is a Liberal broken promise.

With regard to clawbacks, I want to mention it was the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities who promised a red line on clawbacks at the human resources committee on October 31, 2022. Of course, we have seen that that did not occur.

As well, Conservatives really wanted more certainty in the legislation, because it was very vague. A lot was going to be determined behind closed doors with meetings and within the government itself, and we were trying to ensure that there would be more certainty in the legislation. Unfortunately, that was not supported.

Conservatives really believe that persons living with disabilities are some of those most affected by the cost of living crisis, and the cost of living crisis that has occurred over the last number of years is because of the policies and legislation of this Liberal government that have been propped up and supported by the NDP for nine years.

We know that there has been 40-year-high inflation. Housing costs have doubled. Record numbers of people are going to food banks. We had a different study at the human resources committee that had to do with intergenerational volunteerism. We heard at that study really incredible testimony from not-for-profits saying that their donations were down and that they had lost many volunteers, many of them seniors, because they had to go back to work, and that is putting a lot more pressure on the not-for-profit sector because of the cost of living crisis.

The human resources committee is meeting now. I am here in the chamber because this has been brought up, but right now, the human resources committee is finalizing a study. The topic has to do with disability in Canada. I just want to read part of the study because it does tie in to what we are discussing this morning.

Without reading the whole thing, the study says, that the committee expresses “its concern about the progress made towards the goal of a Canada without barriers by 2040”. It goes on: “[to study] the progress towards the goal of a Barrier Free Canada by 2040; [and] that the committee invite the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities”..

Today is the last day of that study. Unfortunately the minister has chosen not to come to committee, even though it is right in the motion to have her come to committee. She is hiding from the committee. We do not know any reason for that. Perhaps the Liberal members who are in the chamber here today can explain why she is hiding from our committee. This is a study that was originally brought forth—

National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola to speak about a topic on which I know there are a range of views. In a democracy, we can disagree, but I would say that everyone who has spoken tonight believes in helping Canadians, particularly those living in poverty.

I spoke earlier today about how part of being Canadian is trying to help one another. I think many of the sentiments are good; it is just about how best to achieve that. While I certainly take issue with some elements that have been presented here tonight, I want to acknowledge that the member, who has submitted an idea for debate that she feels very strongly about, deserves credit for having brought this issue to the forefront.

Bill C-223 is an act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income, and first of all, it is important to say what this piece of legislation would do. It would not actually enact a guaranteed livable basic income. It is more of a framework to have further discussions so that at some point some sort of report can be done by the minister after discussing such a framework and doing subsequent work on it.

There is lots to discuss. Milton Friedman, a famous American economist and, some would argue, one of the greatest economists of all time, talked about a reverse income tax that would pay people. There is the same type of thing in the bill, so this is not just found in left-wing politics. Some people have mentioned former Senator Segal, who had a long career. This is an area that has advocates on both the left of the political spectrum and the right.

More than anything else today, I will say two things. First of all, I am speaking personally. I follow what political philosopher Karl Popper used to discuss, the use of something called “reverse utilitarianism”. Some may recall that utilitarianism is usually public policy meant to do the most good for the most people, to increase the general happiness for the most people. Reverse utilitarianism is reducing the suffering of those who suffer the most.

Anytime we have a question about universal programs, we have to ask who would be receiving said programs. Universal programs are not cheap. That means that every single person, regardless of their condition, would have the ability, by their choosing, to opt into this framework to receive money from the federal government. However, we do not talk about persons with disabilities, those who have the toughest situations. By giving money to those who are able, we take away resources that could go toward helping those who have the most severe issues so they can live a fulfilling life within society. That is something we would do best to keep in mind.

When the B.C. NDP government established a panel that did a report in 2020, one of its key concerns was that giving out money does not necessarily mean those who need it the most get the exact support they need. The cost of this has been brought up. University of British Columbia economist Kevin Milligan has argued that a universal basic income, whatever name we use, would be enormously expensive. That is something the panel said in its report. It also talked about the need to have some of these discussions.

If we were post-World War II parliamentarians discussing Germany and other countries putting in a welfare state and whether we should consider doing likewise, perhaps after having a discussion as a young country with a tremendous amount of economic growth, our young population would be able to support such a policy. We then would have a legitimate choice between apples and oranges: the apples of the welfare state or the oranges of a universal basic income. However, we are not in that position. Our economic growth is not flowing.

We have something called secular stagnation and the indebtedness of not just G7 and G20 countries, but of aging populations as well. We already see many provinces where businesses are complaining about a lack of workers. We have seen unemployment tick up. At a time where we are saying we need to have more people to build homes, why would we be inducing healthy individuals to take a benefit from the government and just take them out of the work force completely?

I understand the sentiment behind the thinking of the member, but I do not think this is the right policy environment for this type of policy to go forward. Again, with our aging demographics, we want to encourage more people to work. Why is that? After talking to people, it seems that most Canadians think that our old age security system is a pillar that is important to support. It is, again, a transfer from existing taxpayers today, those who are paying taxes, who send their taxes to Ottawa in good faith, and then those transfers go out to what is becoming a larger and larger population of seniors. Suddenly switching the gears to where we are actually pushing people to consider not working, to me, makes it very difficult to support this kind of transition.

Bear in mind that we also need to have a discussion as it is ultimately provinces as well that have a big role to play. Under our Constitution, the provinces are usually responsible for the social welfare of their populations. I do not think it will work for us to suddenly have a new federal program come down, especially with the way it would interact with each individual province and their systems of transfers, systems of grants and systems of programs and services.

If we look to Bill C-22, which was passed in the chamber, it talks about creating a Canada disability benefit. I hope that we can all acknowledge the truth, which is that we have no idea how much someone would get from that particular program. We now know that the government would not give more than $2,000 a year, or $200 a month.

The problem is that we have so many different programs at the federal and provincial levels, and they are already so costly. I just do not think that this is a good use of time and energy, although I appreciate its sentiment. I believe that we need to be thinking about how we can help out our fellow Canadians. This is a country where we look after our own. However, I have my worries about the economic arguments: our aging demographics, the lack of clarity of what provincial programs are doing and the fact that provinces such as B.C. have looked at this and have actually said that they are not proceeding with their own system, similar to what the member spoke of.

Lastly, there is reverse utilitarianism at play. We should not be considering more universal benefits, in my opinion, without first asking ourselves what this would do to those who are suffering the most. I do believe that targeted programs, such as our guaranteed income supplement, should be looked at. We should always be trying to ask ourselves how we can help those who are in the most extreme need, who do not have an income to be able to look after themselves, or those people who, unfortunately, due to some circumstance, have a disability that does not allow them to engage in Canadian society like the rest of us.

I will be voting against this. I do appreciate there are a number of people who have spoken very strongly about this. However, if it comes down to it, I only have two choices, either to support this or not. I reluctantly will just say that I am not going to be in support of a whole comprehensive change to our support programs for the reasons that I have given.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persons with Disabilities

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

Proceedings on Bill C-62

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persons with Disabilities

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present two petitions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The regulatory process is crucial and we must respect it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Diversity]

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

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

Inclusion of People with Disabilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Balanced Budget

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that the member for Don Valley East spoke about needed investments. I know he is a supporter of investing in people with disabilities. We are on the verge of seeing Bill C-22 receive royal assent, but we still do not have any money in the budget to deliver the Canada disability benefit. Can he speak about what he can be doing over the coming months to ensure that in next year's budget we see a historic investment in Canadians with disabilities being lifted out of poverty through the Canada disability benefit?

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would not say “hear, hear” to that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada Disability Benefit Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, the House:

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

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

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

proposes that amendment 3 be amended to read as follows:

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

“Appeals

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

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

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

(c) prescribed by the regulations.””.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the government's position on the proposed Senate amendments to Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act. I do so on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

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

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

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

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

Now I will move on to the amendments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persons with Disabilities

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the passing of Bill C-22 will be a major milestone in our strong and unwavering commitment toward creating a barrier-free Canada.

I assure the member for Kitchener Centre that we share his sense of urgency in seeing Bill C-22 passed into law. We are doing everything we possibly can to ensure Bill C-22 is passed before the summer recess. We are working with all parties to get it done.

Again, I thank the member for his question and his advocacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kitchener Centre for his continued advocacy on behalf of Canadians with disabilities.

All of us are working hard and working together to make sure we restore the pride the member had mentioned, and restore financial security for Canadians with disabilities.

I would like to especially acknowledge the work and advocacy 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.

I assure my colleague that we share his sense of urgency in seeing Bill C-22 passed into law. We are doing everything we can to ensure it is passed before the summer recess. We are working with all parties to get it done.

The passage of Bill C-22 will be a major milestone in our strong and unwavering commitment toward creating a barrier-free Canada. That work began in 2015, with the appointment of Canada's first-ever minister responsible for persons with disabilities.

In 2016, Canada became the 20th country to sign the Marrakesh Treaty, and did so with the support of all provinces and territories.

In 2018, Canada acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

In 2022, Dr. Laverne Jacobs was elected to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It was the first time that a Canadian has held a seat at this important international table.

In 2019, the Accessible Canada Act came into force. The passing of this landmark legislation has undoubtedly been one of the most significant achievements for disability rights in the history of our country. The act has been the foundation for National Accessibility Week and for the establishment of Accessibility Standards Canada.

In October 2022, we released Canada's first-ever disability inclusion action plan. The action plan has four pillars: employment, accessible and inclusive communities, a modern approach to disability and financial security.

Throughout all of our consultations we kept hearing the same thing, that financial security is by far the most urgent priority for persons with disabilities. It is through the pillar of financial security that we will create the historic Canada disability benefit to help significantly reduce poverty and improve financial security for hundreds of thousands of persons with disabilities. That is why we need to get this legislation passed quickly.

I would once again like to thank the member opposite for his question, his continued advocacy and his teamwork.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am back to continue following up on advocacy for the Canada disability benefit in the early morning hours as it comes back up for debate.

I would like to start by reading an email from a constituent with a disability that I received earlier this evening:

I was once extremely proud of being a Canadian, but that pride has been crushed under the boot of poverty. It has been absolutely demolished by the Liberal Party and years of suffering. We do not want platitudes, we don't want condescension, we don't want empty promises or assurances that we “just have to be patient”. People have died. People are dying, and still they don't show any care in the world for our wellbeing.

For my part, I will reiterate what I have said in this House before. It is that if the governing party were serious, it would have done what it did with child care when it was serious. It put funding forward first, then agreements with provinces and territories, and then came legislation.

Of course, with the Canada disability benefit and people with disabilities, it was the opposite.

All that being said, this is still a milestone we are at today. Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit bill, will finally be back up for debate, having come back from the Senate, and it is my hope that parties will agree to support unanimous consent for it to move forward more quickly.

We are going to need to continue to push, though, first of all for the amendments from the Senate to be supported, including one that would prioritize people with disabilities ahead of the insurance industry. The government's response should be public shortly after I finish this speech.

We need to continue to push for strong regulations once Bill C-22 passes into law, hopefully within a matter of days. It would make most of the decisions about the benefit. We are going to have to continue to push for the government to budget the benefit, which it has yet to do.

With my remaining time tonight, I just want to thank the people and organizations that got us to this point. Any progress made on the Canada disability benefit is because of them.

First are the federal organizations: Disability Without Poverty, with people like Rabia Khedr, Michelle Hewitt, Clare Li, Sabrina Latif, Al Etmanski and the rest of their team; the March of Dimes, with Amanda, Victoria and their team; Inclusion Canada, with Jeff Ferguson and the rest of the team; the MS Society, with its strong advocacy from Julie Kelndorfer and others; StopGap Ottawa with Kenzie McCurdy; Citizens for Public Justice, with Natalie Appleyard; Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, with David Lepofsky; Leadnow, with Ellen Trottier, Jesse Whattam and Shanaaz Gokool; Spinal Cord Injury Canada, with Bill Adair; Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, with Rebecca Pauls; Canadian National Institute for the Blind; La Société québécoise de la déficience intellectuelle, with Samuel Ragot; and Michael Prince and Vincent Calderhead. They all pushed, among so many others.

In my community, there is Extend-A-Family, with Al Mills and their team; KW Accessibility, with Edward, Ron and team; Bridges to Belonging, with Donnamarie Dunk; Independent Living Waterloo Region, with Janet, Sheri and others; The Social Development Centre, with Aleksandra Petrovic; and Christian Horizons, with Janet and Dave and team; and people with disabilities in my community and their allies, like Michael K, Alex Y, Mike Ashkewe, Rebecca Munzy, Marina Wahab, Anne Jensen, and Lorna Aberdein.

We are here because of all of you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move:

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

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

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

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

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

be deemed within the principle of the bill; and

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

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

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

Sitting Resumed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persons with Disabilities

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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.

Carbon Pricing

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

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

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

Persons with Disabilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government Priorities

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, we will soon, in this House, have an opportunity to come together once again and make life better for hundreds of thousands of Canadians with disabilities. We are about to embark on a third reading of Bill C-22. I expect and hope that everyone here will understand the severe levels of poverty of our Canadians with disabilities, and we will work together to make life better for them.

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

I would like to thank the staff of the committee and all the committee members from all parties who sat on the committee to review this important and historic piece of legislation.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have a chance to respond to Bill C-32. It pulls together a number of different items, some of which were in the governing party's fall economic statement and some of which date back to the budget introduced in the spring.

I would like to start where I usually do, which is on some of the items I appreciate in Bill C-32.

The first item was in the fall economic statement, and this is the governing party's stated intent to finally fully eliminate interest on Canada student loans. This was set to expire March 31 of this coming year, as it was temporarily waiving interest, but if Bill C-32 were to pass, this would become a permanent measure. This is critical, because the number I have for the average student debt for a student in this country is over $26,000 a year. This is at a time when young people are already dealt a pretty bad hand, whether because of the rising cost of housing while their wages do not keep up, the gig economy they are getting thrown into or the climate crisis, as they are going to have to deal with the repercussions of decisions made or not made in this place and others around the world.

This measure would not be huge, but it would be a significant amount, $410 on average per student per year. That is a step in the right direction. It is something I am happy to support and call out the importance of while encouraging the governing party to go further.

Second, there is inclusion here of a measure from budget 2022, which is the Canada recovery dividend. It was announced last April and would finally be implemented here. It would require banks and life insurance companies to pay a one-time 15% tax on profits above $1 billion over the next five years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a review and found that it would raise $3 billion in revenue, which on its own would be more than enough to pay for eliminating interest on student loans. It is clear that it is possible for the governing party to raise revenue and use it to address really critical needs.

The third point that encouraged me is something that was not in the fall economic statement, and that was talk of a potential further increase for another tax credit for carbon capture and storage. It is a false climate solution and it is going in the wrong direction.

In the budget, the governing party introduced this as a new fossil fuel subsidy to the tune of $8.6 billion a year. Carbon capture has been studied around the world, and 32 out of the 42 times that it has been implemented, emissions have actually gone up. I was glad that, despite all the lobbying from oil and gas companies across the country, at least in Bill C-32 and in the fall economic statement, there was not a further increase to send billions more in a new fossil fuel subsidy.

I would like to turn now to some areas where I would encourage the governing party to consider going further, if not in Bill C-32 then in budget 2023.

I will start with climate, because we have heard it very clearly. Here is a line from the co-chair for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, working group three, from back in April. His name is Jim Skea. He said, “It's now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.” This is at a time when profits from the oil and gas industry are just off the charts.

Imperial Oil, for example, reported profits of $6.2 billion in the first nine months of this year compared to the same period last year of $1.7 billion, which is an almost four times increase in profits. How is it doing this? It is gouging Canadians at the pumps. Wholesale margins, in other words, profits per litre, are up 18¢ a litre.

No doubt, one solution is the same Canada recovery dividend I mentioned earlier that is being applied to banks and life insurance companies. Why not apply that to oil and gas? In fact, thanks to colleagues of ours here, the MPs for Elmwood—Transcona and Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, we know how much this would have raised.

It would have raised $4.4 billion a year that could be used to invest in proven climate solutions on top of the tens of billions dollars we could be eliminating in other subsidies currently continuing to go to the very sector most responsible for the crisis. Of course we cannot expect the arsonist to put out the fire.

I will also point out that eliminating these subsidies is part of the confidence and supply agreement signed between the governing party and the NDP, one line of which mentions a commitment to develop “a plan to phase-out public financing of the fossil fuel sector, including from Crown corporations, including early moves in 2022.” I would love to have seen one of those early moves in Bill C-32. We have about two weeks left to see one of those early moves.

If they were to make those moves, they could invest in renovations across the country, as called for by the Green Budget Coalition, calling for a $10-billion investment in deep energy retrofits so that homeowners can invest in reducing their emissions. As they do so, every dollar they spend would contribute two to five dollars of tax revenue that could be reinvested in climate solutions or invested in ground transportation, for example, which we also would not see in Bill C-32.

The second gap that is really important for the governing party to pay attention to is following through on its promise to address mental health. Mental health is health. Whether we listen to students across the country, housing providers or health care professionals, of course we need to be investing in mental health, yet we have not seen that in either last year's budget or this fall economic statement. A $4.5-billion commitment was made in the Liberal Party's platform. It is incumbent on all of us here as parliamentarians to continue to put pressure on having that commitment realized, recognizing that not one cent of it was committed in last year's budget, nor do we see anything in the fall economic statement.

The third piece that is really important for us to be calling out and encouraging the governing party to go further on is to follow through on addressing the disproportionate rates of poverty experienced by those with disabilities across the country. Over 40% of those living with a disability are living in poverty today. While we are slowly making progress on Bill C-22 that would bring about a guaranteed income for folks with disabilities, I am looking forward to seeing amendments passed at committee to improve Bill C-22. In the meantime, nothing changes for a person with as disability living in poverty.

We know it is possible for parliamentarians to provide emergency supports, because they did it in the midst of the pandemic. I join disability advocates from across the country calling for a disability emergency response benefit to address the gap and provide support today until we move toward a more permanent solution, ideally a holistic one, when Bill C-22 gets passed with improvements.

Last, I will briefly comment on housing. We have heard already this afternoon some speakers mention that, while money is being spent, the results are not there. In my community, homelessness has tripled in the last three years, from just over 300 people living unsheltered to over 1,000. It is obvious more needs to be done. There are some initial measures in Bill C-32, including a tax on those flipping homes in less than a year. If we were to recognize and really be honest about homes needing to be places for people to live and not commodities for investors to trade, there is far more that can and should be done to tilt the market back toward homes for people to live in.

In closing, it is important to be clear that there are some important and timely measures in Bill C-32 and I would strongly encourage the governing party to go further on some of the areas I mentioned.

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, frankly, I think that all it would take is a bit of political will from the government. It has enough support with other members in the House to try to come to some kind of meaningful emergency solution for people living with disabilities. The government has expressed an intent. We saw that in some previous budgets, not in the numbers, but in the flowery language.

The Liberals introduced Bill C-22 in this Parliament, which is a lot like a bill from the previous Parliament. Again, it is frustrating, because it has no details about the amount the government intends to pay or about the eligibility criteria. It is not talking about doing anything in the meantime, so one is forced to wonder whether the government is serious about delivering a benefit to Canadians living with disabilities, who are in dire need right now, or whether these are just talking points.

The political will outside the Liberal Party is adequate in the House in order to implement a solution. We are waiting on the government to care enough to put something on the table so that we can move ahead.

Persons with Disabilities

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Richmond Hill for his tireless work on behalf of all persons with disabilities and all constituents.

In October we launched the first-ever disability inclusion action plan, a road map for our country to remove barriers by focusing on financial security, employment, accessible and inclusive communities and a modern approach to disability. With Bill C-22, we have the framework legislation in place to create the groundbreaking Canada disability benefit.

Tomorrow, today and every day, let us celebrate the accomplishments of persons with disabilities as we work together to build a more inclusive and more accessible Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, we must address the long-standing financial insecurity that is the lived reality of far too many working-age Canadians with disabilities.

Bill C-22 would help us do just that by creating the groundbreaking Canada disability benefit. The CDB has the potential to lift hundreds of thousands of Canadians with disabilities out of poverty. The CDB would be a supplement to existing benefits like the guaranteed income supplement, and it would be paid to people who need it most. Bill C-22 passed second reading with 328 votes to zero and is being studied at committee.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mark the 30th anniversary of the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. Our government is proud to support this year’s theme: “Transformative solutions for inclusive development: the role of innovation in fuelling an accessible and equitable world”.

Since 2015, we have taken bold action to advance the rights of persons with disabilities. We recently launched Canada’s first-ever disability inclusion action plan to remove barriers that persons with disabilities face and to build a more inclusive Canada. Also, with Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit, we have the potential to lift hundreds of thousands of working-age persons with disabilities out of poverty.

In the spirit of “nothing without us”, we will continue working with the disability community on the design and delivery of these programs.

I encourage every member of the House to spend December 3 in celebration of the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

International Day of Persons with Disabilities

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

Madam Speaker, Saturday, December 3 is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, a day to mobilize support for their dignity, rights and well-being, and to promote an understanding of disability issues, and mobilize we must on Bill C-22.

In the 30 years since this day was proclaimed, the disability community have had to do much heavy lifting for their basic human rights. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have not done enough to remove discriminatory barriers, allowing Canadians with disabilities to fall into poverty.

Canada aspires to be a world leader in the eradication of poverty, and the Canada disability benefit is our chance to make that a reality for persons with disabilities. This is an historic opportunity for the opposition parties to hold the government to account by amending and enacting Canada's first federal law to legislate people out of poverty with Bill C-22.

Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. I have a number of petitions to present to the House.

The first petition comes from Canadians living with disabilities who have a number of asks regarding policies within the ambit of the federal government and Parliament that relate to Canadians with disabilities.

The petitioners note that inflation has increased the cost of living and is having the greatest impact on Canadians with fixed incomes, including Canadians living with disabilities. They note disturbing reports of people accessing euthanasia in Canada due to a lack of access to care and support. They also note that Canada's leading disability advocacy organizations had warned that Bill C-7 would threaten the lives and security of Canadians living with disabilities and that a choice to access euthanasia can never be truly free if those who suffer do not have access to the support they require.

The petitioners urge the House of Commons to pass Bill C-22, ensuring that the new Canada disability benefit is accessible to all Canadians who live with disabilities and does not take away existing benefits. They also ask for us to repeal Bill C-7 so that Canadians who live with disabilities are not coerced into accepting euthanasia because they do not have access to adequate support.

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

Mr. Speaker, almost a million Canadians with disabilities are living in poverty. The government has an opportunity to fix that by improving the Canada disability benefit. That is why the NDP proposes to include a minimum income in Bill C-22. This would ensure people living with disabilities could make ends meet and live in dignity.

Will the minister accept the NDP amendment to provide an adequate income for people living with disabilities to lift them out of poverty, yes or no?

Criminal Code

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to rise today to join in the debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

As has been mentioned during the course of this debate, we have heard the government speak about the urgency of the passage of this legislation, but some of the measures in here, certainly, were required long before the COVID pandemic. There are others that raise some concerns about justice, particularly when it comes to respect for victims of crime. I will include victims and their families in that.

In Bill S-4 the consent of the offender is mentioned 10 times. Let us contrast that. How many times does Bill S-4 mention the consent of a victim, the consent of a victim's family in proceeding by way other than an in-person meeting? The answer, not surprisingly, is zero. Not once does this bill mention the consent of the victim or their family, all the while speaking about the consent of an offender.

I would love to say I am surprised, or that maybe there is something we are missing here, but the fact is that this is in line with the overall agenda of the government when it comes to our criminal justice system.

We only have to look at the bills that have come before the House. We only have to look at the selective response to certain Supreme Court of Canada decisions to realize that this is a government that does not put the rights of victims first.

To use an example, we saw yesterday, in the public safety committee, a grand expansion of the law when it comes to going after law-abiding citizens, duck hunters, hunters, our constituents, all of our collective constituents who are law-abiding firearms owners. They do this in the name of combatting crime. We are targeting non-criminals in an effort to combat crime.

If we speak to the experts, if we speak to police, if we speak to big-city mayors, they will tell us that the source of illegal firearms, the source of firearms being used by gangs, is our border, our porous border, and the illegal importation of firearms.

Knowing that the illegal trafficking and importation of firearms is the cause of the firearms being on the street, that law-abiding citizens are not the cause, it would lead us to a logical conclusion that we should target that illegal importation, in direct contrast to what the government is doing in Bill C-22, which is targeting duck hunters, farmers and sports shooters, people who are not criminals and people who are not a threat.

What are we doing about the real threat? What are we doing about the importers, the traffickers?

There is another bill that was just passed through the Senate, Bill C-5. What that bill does is say that if someone has trafficked in a firearm, has used a firearm in the commission of an offence or in extortion, or if someone has fired a firearm with intent, they no longer, as the case has been for years, have to serve time in jail. They can go back onto the street. They can go back into the community where they committed the offence.

Where did this law come from that said a person has to serve time in jail if they commit these offences? Did it come from the previous Conservative government?

The government would love us to believe that this tough-on-crime measure came from the previous Conservative government, but if we bother to look at the facts and the evidence, the evidence says all of those mandatory penalties were in place since the 1970s, since the time of the Prime Minister's father being prime minister. Some of them were introduced when the Prime Minister's father was both prime minister and justice minister.

The Liberals love to say these are unconstitutional mandatory penalties.

What does the Supreme Court have to say about this? There was a recent case from just a couple of weeks ago involving a mandatory penalty for drug trafficking, and the Supreme Court considered that and considered the seriousness in our communities of the crisis, whether it is fentanyl, cocaine or heroin.

The government of the day was a Conservative government, and I am proud to say, in an effort to combat those crimes, we said that if someone were going to traffic, produce or import these serious drugs, they were going to have to serve actual time in jail. The current government has said, in Bill C-5, that it does not believe that, and it believes those people should be able to be back on the street.

What did the Supreme Court of Canada say? The Supreme Court of Canada upheld those provisions. It said they are constitutional and that the seriousness of these offences, when weighed with Parliament's legislative prerogative, means that Parliament was entitled, and that it was indeed constitutional, to have brought in that measure that says if someone imports, traffics or produces cocaine, fentanyl or heroin, they are going to go to jail and be taken off the street.

Does being soft on crime work? We have heard it called “hug a thug”, “soft on crime” or “a revolving door justice system”, in which, if someone commits a crime, there are no consequences and they go back on the street. Does that approach work? Why do we not look at the evidence? The evidence was just released this week, not by the Conservative Party but by Statistics Canada. The evidence says that the homicide rate in Canada has increased for three consecutive years.

The homicide rate in Canada is at the highest rate it has been since 2005. Why is 2005 significant? That was the last year of the previous Liberal government. The Conservative government came to power in 2006, and we had an agenda to straighten out our justice system, to respect victims, to put victims at the forefront and to say to serious offenders, “recidivist”.

What is a recidivist? A recidivist is someone who commits a crime; gets caught; gets tried in a court of law; gets sentenced, whether to jail time or house arrest; goes back on the street and does the same thing again and again. That is recidivism. The courts have said, and we have said, that we have to focus on criminals, and we did that.

Over the last seven years we have seen a Liberal government. The percentage I am about to say should shock all of us in the room and should shock all Canadians. The violent crime rate in Canada, since 2015, has increased 32%. That is not acceptable. That is in our rural communities—

Persons with Disabilities

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-22 and the Canada disability benefit, we have an opportunity in the House to bring about a once-in-a-generation change and lift hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities out of poverty. That is exactly the work that is just wrapping up at committee.

I look forward to having it back in the House for third reading. I look forward to once again having all-party support. This could be transformative for our country.

Government Business No. 22—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in this debate. It has been quite a fruitful conversation that has taken place today, and clearly there are a variety of opinions.

Following on the last commentary, I think it is really important that we have more time to debate. I know that when I was elected in the 2015 election, I committed to the constituents of the riding of Waterloo that I would listen to the diversity of their perspectives and have them represented in this place. There are many different ways to do that, and participating in the debate on the floor of the House of Commons is one such way.

In this chamber we have demonstrated time and again that we can work together; we can find ways forward. We saw that when the member for Fundy Royal moved a motion to ban conversion therapy in Canada and we were able to see it pass swiftly through this chamber and send it to the other place.

We saw just recently the advancement of Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which received unanimous support.

Bill C-22 was referred to, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities. It establishes a disability tax credit, which has been long fought for, wanted and desired. We were able to get that legislation through second reading, and it is now at committee.

To show goodwill would mean seeing legislation move at a pace that delivers for more Canadians. I know it is important that we get to this vote, so I will not stop this House and this chamber from calling the question and making sure we can vote. However, I think something we have seen time and again is that most parties know where they stand on legislation, and they want to talk about it rather than call the question. This motion will provide them the opportunity to keep talking about it, but also to call the question.

With that, Madam Speaker, I hope you call the question really quickly, and if the opposition members want, they can save us the 30 minutes of bells and maybe see us walk in and get to a vote faster with the voting application, so we can all get to doing our constituency work and so forth. The Conservatives have options, should they wish to use them.

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

Madam Speaker, right now we are looking at Bill C-22 at committee. That is the bill around the Canada disability benefit. We know that many persons with disabilities and many people in Canada are struggling right now with the price of goods.

Can the member share if her party believes there is time, right now, to be able to get to Bill C-22 before we break for the end of the year?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the NDP-Liberal attack on parliamentary committees in the form of Government Business No. 22.

This undemocratic motion is a crass attempt at frustrating the work of committees by further limiting their resources. On the face of it, the motion allows the government House leader to extend the hours of any sitting of the House to midnight until June 2023. The Liberals say they are simply seeking more time to debate their legislation, but we must look at the broader implications of the adopting this motion.

With the persistence of virtual Parliament, workplace injuries for interpretation staff have increased ninefold. Since 2019, there has been a 25% decline in the number of interpreters employed by the translation bureau and nearly 40% fewer freelance interpreters available to the House. These unionized professionals work each day to ensure that our business is conducted in both official languages.

The Liberals and NDP dismiss the plight of these workers, demanding that our work continue in a hybrid fashion against the objections of interpretation staff. Due to the lack of interpreters, there is a strict limit on how many parliamentary activities the House administration can facilitate in any given sitting week. As a result, every time the hours are extended in the House, two committee meetings must be cancelled. Put simply, more time for the House equals less time for committees.

Let us keep in mind the government is in complete control of the House agenda. It determines the business each and every day, including which of its bills will be debated. It has tools at its disposal to cut off debate as it deems appropriate. It even designates which days will be allotted for opposition days. With the blind support of the hapless NDP, the Liberals have the votes to pass their legislation.

In other words, the Liberals are in complete control of the House, propped up by the NDP. However, they do not control committees in the same way. Conservatives have secured several committee investigations that are holding the Liberals accountable for their failures. For example, the government operations committee is digging into the $54-million ArriveCAN app, including Liberal misinformation reported to the House that contractors were paid millions when they did not receive a dime. That committee is tasked with answering two key questions: Where is the money and who got rich?

The heritage committee is investigating the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion for providing funding to known racist and anti-Semite Laith Marouf. The procedure and House affairs committee is investigating the Prime Minister who has known for over a year about foreign interference in our elections and has yet to act. The public safety committee is investigating allegations made against the Minister of Emergency Preparedness for political interference in the investigation into the mass killings in Nova Scotia. It is shameful.

The veterans affairs committee is looking into allegations that a government employee recommended medically assisted suicide for a veteran struggling with mental health. The declaration of a public order emergency committee has heard considerable testimony that contradicts the Liberal rationale for invoking the Emergencies Act. The transport committee recommended the repeal of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, a Liberal-made organization that has failed to get any infrastructure built. Conservatives on the foreign affairs committee continue to advocate for the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist entity, so that this brutal regime about to execute 15,000 of its own citizens cannot fundraise and organize in Canada anymore.

These are just some examples of how Conservatives are making parliamentary committees work for Canadians. Under Government Business No. 22, this and all work of committees would be restricted and constrained. The motivation for this motion is clear, the Liberals want Parliament to serve only their purposes. To them, Parliament is only useful when they can control it.

Canadians expect Parliament to hold the government to account, and Conservatives will fight to maintain the dignity of this institution.

There was a time, if we can believe it, when Liberals believed that committee work was essential. In the 2015 election, they made the following promise:

We will strengthen Parliamentary committees so that they can better scrutinize legislation.

Better government starts with better ideas. We will ensure that Parliamentary committees are properly resourced to bring in expert witnesses, and are sufficiently staffed to continue to provide reliable, non-partisan research.

The Liberals made that promise when they still believed they were the party of sunny ways, but after seven years of corruption and cover-ups, the mirage of an open, transparent and accountable government has been exposed.

Last week, in mainstream media, the government House leader justified his motion, claiming that Conservatives were employing tactics that amounted to “parliamentary obstruction by stealth.” The irony of this claim is not lost on me. He is the one, under the pretext of expanding debate in the House, who is attacking committees by stealth. I will address his claim directly.

Conservatives do not obstruct for the sake of obstruction. In recent weeks, we have allowed several bills to proceed in a reasonable time frame. We supported the swift passage of Bill C-30, which provided GST tax relief for low-income Canadians. The government did not need to use time allocation to shepherd that legislation through the House.

On September 29, the Conservative member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, with whom I am splitting my time, secured the unanimous consent of the House to pass the national council for reconciliation act at second reading and send it for study at the indigenous and northern affairs committee.

We allowed for Bill C-22, the disability benefit act, to be sent to the human resources committee after just two days of debate. Again, time allocation was not required.

Just before the last constituency week, Conservatives supported Bill S-5, which will strengthen environmental protection in Canada. No time allocation was required.

Conservatives can be counted on when the government brings forward proposals on which common ground can be found. The government House leader's accusation about obstruction is simply not true.

Having said that, Conservatives are openly opposed to the Liberal agenda. There is no “stealth” about it. We use every tool available in the parliamentary tool box to both expose Liberal failure and corruption and propose our ideas for Canadians to consider as an alternative.

If the government House leader had been paying attention, he would know that the new Conservative leader and our Conservative team are putting the people first: their paycheques, their savings, their homes and their country. We are against deficit-driven inflation. Instead, we demand that all new spending be matched with savings found somewhere else. We are opposed to payroll and carbon tax hikes in the middle of this cost of living crisis.

We defend energy workers against the Prime Minister's attacks on their livelihoods. We would repeal anti-energy laws like Bill C-69 and remove other Liberal-made barriers to producing our natural resources. We oppose the failed climate change plan of this government, which has not achieved a single emissions reduction target. We say no to the oppressive carbon tax and yes to technology in the fight against climate change.

We abhor $6,000-a-night hotel stays for the Prime Minister while Canadians are visiting food banks in record numbers, like 1.5 million in one month. We oppose wasteful spending and the $54-million “arrive scam” app that did not work. We did not need it, and it could have been designed over a weekend for about $250,000.

We are vocal when the Prime Minister is silent about foreign actors interfering in our elections. We reject Liberal inaction while shelves that should be stocked with children's medication sit empty. We stand with victims, not criminals, as the rates of violent crime have spiked in our cities under this government's soft-on-crime policies, and we oppose this outrageous attempt at seizing control of parliamentary committees.

There is no “stealth” about our opposition to the NDP-Liberal government. We proudly oppose the costly coalition on all these fronts, in broad daylight, for all to see.

Fall Economic Statement

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is one of the big disappointments in the fall economic statement. With work being done on Bill C-22 in this place and with the unanimous support that Bill C-22 received at second reading, I would have hoped to see something of an emergency short-term fund to ensure that no Canadian in the disability community is living below the poverty line. We know that all too often people living with disabilities are, in fact, disproportionately part of the community of the lowest-income Canadians.

Yes, we need an emergency short-term support. We do not have to wait for the next budget. It can be brought forward at any time. We know we are going to see a budget implementation act at some point. A budget implementation act would be a good place to see an emergency short-term payment for people living with disabilities until Bill C-22 can come through, be enacted and be fully funded.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in a previous question, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands spoke about a guaranteed basic income. In the House, there is legislation put forward, Bill C-22, that would provide that for Canadians with disabilities who are living in legislated poverty. However, in this fall economic statement, we did not see anything with respect to funding the benefit, nor did we see anything with respect to emergency supports, like what was done with CERB, to address the conditions of those living in poverty and those living with disabilities across the country.

Can she speak more about this opportunity? If it is not in this fall economic statement, how can all parliamentarians work together to continue to advocate to ensure that, if not now, then perhaps by budget 2023 these critical supports can be put in place?

Indigenous Disability Awareness Month

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, November is Indigenous Disability Awareness Month. Many may be surprised to know that indigenous people have rates of disabilities three times higher than the average Canadian, many times without the support that many Canadians enjoy. However, they are some of the most resilient, kind and humble people in our communities.

One particular constituent comes to mind, and I would like to acknowledge Keenan Denny, fondly known in the Mi'kmaq community of Eskasoni as “Jinko”.

Despite having been diagnosed with BBS at the age of 15, Jinko has never let his disability stand in the way of his daily walk with the use of a cane to pick up the mail, or a visit with neighbours while fundraising for the National Institute for the Blind. From time to time, Jinko may fall, but he always gets up. He knows that he has a community that supports him, and so will the government that I am proud to stand with as we put forward the first-ever federal disability benefit in Canadian history with Bill C-22.

For all of the resilient indigenous people with disabilities in Canada, November is our time to recognize them, appreciate them and ensure that we take the necessary steps to help them.

Judges Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) infirmity;

(b) misconduct;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Tax Exemption on Home Heating Fuel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The motion continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citizenship and Immigration

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

Carbon Pricing

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday will be an allotted day.

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

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

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bank of Canada Accountability Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taxation

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, here is an idea. We can support dental care for kids with disabilities. Here is another idea. We can pass Bill C-22 and lift hundreds of thousands of persons with disabilities out of poverty. Those are two really big concrete things that we can deliver together for Canadians.

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, hopefully we can bring the debate back to Bill C-30 and the income support gaps that are hurting people right now in Canada.

These are short-term emergency income support gap measures that the New Democrats support. We know people need help with rent and food. I want to ask the member specifically about the long-term measures that need to be taken, because more Canadians are falling into poverty and homelessness. I speak specifically about persons with disabilities right now. Is this House going to see Bill C-22 come back this week?

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin discussing Bill C-30, I must stop to recognize that indigenous women and girls continue to be violated and marginalized at rates much higher than those in the general population.

Today is the National Day of Action for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. New Democrats add their voices to the collective call to bring an end to the injustices suffered by Canada's indigenous women and girls. I raise my hands to the members for Winnipeg Centre and Nunavut, who continue to advocate and bring understanding to this House of the causes of the systemic abuses that indigenous women and girls continue to experience and to hold the Liberal government accountable for its lack of action.

Bill C-30 is here at a very critical time for Canadians. There are too many struggling with the rising cost of living and the challenge of keeping rents paid and food in the fridge. The fact that there is a need for immediate financial support for millions of Canadians is not an accident. It is a result of bad Liberal and Conservative policies. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have prioritized tax breaks and subsidies for the wealthiest in this country while intentionally eroding the social safety nets that support the well-being of the majority of Canadians. Poverty and homelessness are growing in this country, and they are a reality in every city and town.

While fossil fuel companies and big corporate grocery chains are bringing in billions of dollars in profits, people are falling further and further behind. It is far past time the Liberal government needs to close the long-standing tax loopholes for the superwealthy and finally make large corporations and the largest polluters pay their fair share. It is no secret that corporate greed is hurting Canadians, and it has only increased and magnified like so many other things during this pandemic. While the Liberals and Conservatives protect the profits of the wealthiest corporations, persons with disabilities, single moms, seniors and families on fixed and low incomes are not able to afford to purchase fresh fruit, cheese or meats. Some of the moms I have spoken to in Port Moody—Coquitlam are limiting their meals to one a day so that they can afford to feed their kids.

After too many years of consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments making decisions to put corporations above everyday people, our social safety net is eroded. The social safety net that supports the well-being of Canadians has been eroded to the point that we are here today trying to put patches of immediate support in place.

New Democrats are here to act on this immediate need. We are using our power to get the government to send financial support out to people with Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. I include Bill C-31 because the two bills are connected. They are both offering immediate investments in the well-being of people, investments that never would have come from the government without the pressure from New Democrats.

New Democrats will not stop fighting for people even after these immediate benefits kick in. We will continue to force the government to do the right thing and put people first. We will continue to stop fossil fuel subsidies from going to the largest polluters, close tax loopholes for the wealthiest, stop the exploitation of workers and get our health care system back on track. The health care system is broken. We see it in our communities every day. A broken health care system is hurting people. Nurses have worked tirelessly, as well as doctors and hospital staff, to the extent that they are burnt-out and people who are sick are not getting access to the care they need.

We have all heard the heartbreaking stories in our communities of those who have gone to the hospital for help and have not been able to make it in time or have decided not to go at all with fatal consequences. The government must invest in care workers immediately and increase the health care transfers the provinces have been calling for.

One in five people in this country work in the care economy, and those professionals, personal care workers, nurses and doctors have been exploited. That exploitation comes from discrimination. Gender discrimination has kept wages low in nursing. Nurses, teachers and child care workers are all disproportionately women. The government has not invested in their wages or their pensions, yet it expects them to carry the burden of an overloaded and underfunded economy and underfunded system.

The care economy is underpinned by the exploitation of immigrants as well. More often they are women without secured status. This is unacceptable. Immigrants deserve better. They deserve investment and support. New Democrats will continue to force the government to respect the workers in the care economy by paying them properly, giving immigrant care workers immediate permanent status and giving long-term care workers the protection they deserve with legislation.

We need workers in this country. Labour shortages are happening in every industry. This is a real problem that the government has not brought any solutions to yet. When we think about the labour force, we know that unaffordable housing is exasperating this problem. Workers cannot afford to live where they work. The Conservatives under the Mulroney government and then the Liberals under Chrétien axed housing programs in this country. In fact, the Liberals outright cancelled the national affordable housing program in 1993. That was almost 30 years ago. That is why we have a housing crisis before us.

Bill C-31 has a $500 housing subsidy that is coming for renters. This is a small, good gesture. This housing benefit is a one-time $500 payment to Canadians who qualify. Specifically, it will help families who earn a net income of less than $35,000 a year. There are many people in Canada who earn less than $35,000 a year in this environment. That is 1.8 million Canadians. This renters' benefit will make a real difference at this critical time.

Financialization of housing needs to be addressed immediately. It is contributing to unaffordability. The Conservatives will say that they are there for people on housing, but they do not talk about the need for affordable housing and the right kind of housing. This is not just a supply issue. One in five Canadians are paying more than 30% of their total income for their housing and that is not sustainable. At the same time, for every new unit of affordable rental housing, 15 units are being lost. There are 15 units lost for every new one, and we wonder why we are seeing homelessness on our streets. This is affecting the most marginalized people in the country, pushing them every day to the brink, to a tent pitched in a street.

As the NDP disability critic, I hear from the disability community of the realities of not being able to make ends meet with skyrocketing housing costs and the threat of displacement every day. Food costs are also becoming unmanageable. As they wait for movement on the Canada disability benefit, they are falling further and further behind. Bill C-22 needs to come back to the House immediately so that the long-term support that persons living with disabilities deserve, and should be legislated, can be passed in the House.

Almost one million persons with disabilities are living in poverty. It is a disgrace. It will only take the will of the Liberals and Conservatives, who could have supported the unanimous consent motion from the member for Kitchener Centre last week, to fast-track this benefit. The New Democrats are ready to do so.

Coming back to the cost of food, in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, a disproportionate number of food bank and food rescue recipients are persons with disabilities, and more children are becoming food insecure. Too many schools are having to feed the children of our communities. We are in a country full of natural resources and with a new bursting aspiration to make batteries for electric vehicles, yet we are not investing in food. If it were not for the not-for-profit sector, even more Canadians would be hungry right now.

Failed policies to give to the rich while taking away social safety nets, such as affordable housing, are hurting people in this country. A beacon of the Canadian social safety net is our health care plan. Thanks to the New Democrats, that finally includes a historical dental care plan, which is a profound and long-lasting benefit for millions of Canadians and will be transformational for generations to come. We have heard many times while discussing Bill C-31 that the number one surgery for kids in hospitals is for tooth decay. How is it possible in Canada that kids need to go to the hospital to be put to sleep to deal with their dental care?

With the heavy lifting of the New Democrats, the Liberals have finally taken the first steps to true universal health care by adding long-awaited dental care. It should not have taken this long, and the New Democrats will hold the current government to account for a full rollout to every Canadian who needs it.

I will take a moment here to speak about persons with disabilities and their dental care. There was a woman in my riding who was on disability benefits and had coverage for dental care. However, the clinic she was going to was charging $20 per visit, and she could not go for her second visit because she did not have the $20. It is not acceptable that this is the situation we are putting too many Canadians in.

We know that 35% of Canadians lack proper dental insurance, and that number jumps to 50% when we talk about low-income Canadians. There are seven million Canadians who avoid going to the dentist because of costs. It is shameful and something that has to change. Canada's most vulnerable face the highest rates of dental decay and disease and have the worst dental care. The New Democrats are going to change that. We will not give up until all Canadians have access to the dental care they need. This is health care, and we need to start with kids.

Lastly, when it comes to getting immediate support to Canadians, the New Democrats led the way on Bill C-30, which would double the GST credit. This rebate should have come a lot sooner. In fact, for over six months, the NDP has been calling on the government to double the GST credit. We have relentlessly pushed for this, and now we know that 11 million Canadians who need it the most would get some financial relief, likely before the end of this year. People in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam are asking when they can get it. They are desperately in need of any kind of financial support in these times.

Because of successive Conservative and Liberal governments, we do not have social safety nets to keep people in homes, keep food in the fridge or keep people healthy in this country. With much pressure on the Liberal government from the NDP, and with no help from the Conservatives, the House is in a position to make lives just a tiny bit better for people by providing these very small income supports immediately. New Democrats will always put people first, but the Liberal government needs to start making real investments in people and their well-being in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the first question, I suggest the member sit down and talk with the Minister of Finance. I am sure the minister would be more than happy to provide an explanation as to why it might not be able to be done. I do not know the answer.

With regard to Bill C-22, I can assure the member that the minister responsible for the disability legislation is very eager and wants to see the legislation come back. Unfortunately, with a limited amount of House debate time, there is only so much legislation we can bring in. For example, I would have loved to debate that bill today, but the problem is that we have to get Bill C-30 through and Bill C-31.

There are a number of pieces of legislation. If we had more opportunities to bring forward government bills, that would probably be the ideal. For example, Bill C-30 is universally supported by all members of the House from what I can tell. Right after I sit down, we could pass it and go right to the disability bill. I would be in favour of that.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Winnipeg North that we need to get help to those who need it the most.

I have two questions for the parliamentary secretary. First, refundable tax credits like the GST are indexed annually to inflation. It could be indexed on a quarterly basis, as is the case for seniors' benefits already. Why is it not in this bill?

Second, on the disability benefit, last night on the floor of the House, I asked the parliamentary secretary for a timeline for when Bill C-22 would be brought back to the floor of the House. It has been up for debate once so far. This is about ensuring some trust from the disability community to follow through on the benefit. We are not seeing any demonstration of that yet. Can the parliamentary secretary commit to a date when Bill C-22 will be back for debate on the floor of the House?

Persons with Disabilities

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know we need to address the long-standing financial insecurity that is the lived reality of far too many working age Canadians with disabilities. With Bill C-22, we are clearly demonstrating our commitment to lifting persons with disabilities out of poverty. As we wait for the bill to be passed, we are working diligently with all our partners to lay the groundwork for the next steps.

We will continue building on the success of the past years, such as the Accessible Canada Act and the poverty reduction strategy. We are already working with our partners to iron out all the details so that Bill C-22 can move quickly through the House.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, respectfully, this is not only my advocacy. In fact, it was the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam who put forward a unanimous consent motion in the House calling on the governing party to move more quickly on the Canada disability benefit. Therefore, I will reiterate the five questions I shared, in the hope of getting an answer to at least one of them. I have not heard an answer to any of the five yet.

First, when can the parliamentary secretary commit to Bill C-22 being back on the floor of the House?

Second, where do the negotiations stand with provincial and territorial partners?

Third, why not use existing lists from existing disability support programs?

Fourth, when will the government commit to ensuring the benefit is funded?

Fifth, what will the government do in the short term to provide emergency supports for those who need it most?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend, the MP for Kitchener Centre, for his words this evening, his sense of urgency and his tireless advocacy on behalf of Canadians with disabilities.

As my colleague the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion has already said, we are not playing games. We are not playing games when our fellow citizens are facing poverty. We do not play games; we take action. That is exactly what we have been doing since forming government in 2015.

Our work began with the Accessible Canada Act, which led to the creation of Accessibility Standards Canada. Recently, the act also led to the appointment of Canada's first chief accessibility officer, as well as Canada's first accessibility commissioner to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. What is more, we launched the first-ever National AccessAbility Week in 2019.

When the pandemic hit, we provided a one-time payment of up to $600 to persons with disabilities, a payment that was expanded to include the 1.75 million Canadians who receive federal disability benefits. We are also providing income supports to students. We are making other investments to increase employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.

Allow me to mention that budget 2022 strengthened support for an employment strategy for persons with disabilities. It accomplishes this by providing more than $270 million for its implementation through the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention that we launched Canada's first poverty reduction strategy, which recognizes that, for many reasons, certain groups of Canadians are more vulnerable to poverty. Right now, we are working hard to create Canada's very first disability inclusion action plan. The cornerstone of that plan is the groundbreaking Canada disability benefit. Bill C-22 defines an approach that would establish the Canada disability benefit in legislation.

I understand very much that my hon. colleague would like Bill C-22 to move through the House quickly. I too want nothing more than to see Canadians with disabilities receive the new Canada disability benefit as quickly as possible. That is why, in the spirit of “nothing without us”, we have been working tirelessly alongside the disability community, as well as with the provinces and territories, to ensure that every person who receives the Canada disability benefit will be better off because of it.

It is true there is more work to do. I agree with my colleague that time is of the essence. As the hon. minister has said in the House, I encourage all of my colleagues to work together to pass Bill C-22. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to significantly reduce poverty for hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities. Let us not miss that opportunity.

We know persons with disabilities have waited a long time for this. That is why we are working as quickly and as efficiently as possible to deliver the historic Canada disability benefit. We are proud of this work.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to come back to the need to urgently move forward with the Canada disability benefit. For every day this is not funded, 1.5 million Canadians with disabilities will continue to live in legislated poverty. In my home province of Ontario, for example, the Ontario disability support program is a meagre $1,169. The shelter allowance is less than $500. It is not enough for a single apartment in Kitchener.

Many, of course, are disappointed that this is the same bill tabled back in June 2021, so more than anything else, this is about trust. The governing party needs to demonstrate it is serious about following through on the Canada disability benefit. This includes moving the legislation forward, Bill C-22, with openness to amendments that would improve it, as well as funding the benefit.

Tonight, I have five questions for the parliamentary secretary from the disability community.

The first is whether the governing party is going to demonstrate that Bill C-22 is a legislative priority. We had the first day of debate on this two weeks ago, and it is not projected to be back until we break at the end of this week. We know that every day delayed is another day that Canadians with disabilities live in legislated poverty. Every day matters, so I am hoping the parliamentary secretary will answer when he can commit to having Bill C-22 back for debate in this House.

Second, the minister said that negotiations with the provinces are an issue, so I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can share where the negotiations stand, what meetings have been had and what the sticking points are.

Third, the minister also shared that another slowdown, in her view, is the need to sort out eligibility, yet we know there are existing federal, provincial and territorial programs that the Canada disability benefit would supplement. The question is why this is taking so long. It has been over two years since it was promised in the 2020 Speech from the Throne, and we know that existing program eligibility lists can and should be used as a starting point. Also, the minister continually refers to “working age” Canadians with disabilities when we know that 10% of Canadians over the age of 65 with a disability are living in poverty. Is the intention not to include them as well?

Fourth, let us not gloss over the important need to fund the benefit. If done properly, this would be a significant investment, but as someone who has advocated often about the climate crisis in this place, I know the federal government has recently committed $8.6 billion to oil and gas companies for a new tax credit for carbon capture and storage. The fact is that budgets are about priorities, so the governing party has the opportunity to demonstrate that Canadians with disabilities are a priority. When will it commit to a timeline for funding the Canada disability benefit? Is it the fall economic statement, budget 2023 or something else?

Last, the minister has estimated that this could take 12 to 18 months. Those living with a disability will continue to live in poverty throughout this time. I am hearing from Canadians with disabilities who are applying for medical assistance in dying because they feel they have no other option since they cannot afford to live. The federal government is letting them down when we know from the pandemic that it is possible to move urgently when the moment calls for it. What is the federal government prepared to do to provide emergency funds in the short term?

Opposition Motion—Moratorium on New Taxes

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much we can do, like advocating here in the House. As I said in my speech, I just want all of us to come together. Let us move forward so that we can get Bill C-22 passed.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member for Mississauga—Streetsville for her support of an open letter last April calling on the government to immediately reintroduce Bill C-22 and get support to Canadians with disabilities. In the member's speech, she mentioned some MPs who blocked yesterday's unanimous consent motion, which was disappointing. However, what is also true is that the governing party could bring back Bill C-22 for debate as soon as Monday, but it is not.

What can the member do to press for Bill C-22 to be brought back for debate in the House and for emergency supports for Canadians with disabilities in the meantime?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

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

Today's motion deals with affordability, so I see this as an opportunity to discuss poverty. Recently in the House, we debated Bill C-22. The intent of that bill is to lift Canadians out of poverty and to help make things affordable for persons with disabilities. Allow me to explain why Bill C-22 must continue forward. I am disappointed that the Conservatives stopped a unanimous consent motion to move Bill C-22 to committee yesterday. It is my sincere hope that they will explain their reasoning to Canadians.

In the past, the disability community has often been left out or even forgotten. Since forming government in 2015, we have worked tirelessly to include the disability community in policy-making from the start. We are bold in taking action to ensure that no one is left behind, so that everyone feels like a fully participating member of society. Despite all the efforts and achievements of the past few years, the pandemic has taught us some really hard lessons, one of them being that we need to do more to make life affordable for working-age persons with disabilities. Bill C-22 would help address these issues. It aims to create the Canada disability benefit, which would add to the financial assistance already available from provinces and territories.

Guillaume Parent is the president and founder of the wealth management firm Finandicap, which specializes in financial services for persons with disabilities. Originally founded in Quebec City, Finandicap now operates across Canada.

In an interview with the CBC, Mr. Parent said that people are suffering a lot, especially because of the rising cost of living. His clients often face extra costs for adaptive housing, public transit and personal support workers. As a person living with cerebral palsy himself, this is his lived reality. All of the expenses he lists make life less affordable and push the poverty line higher for persons with disabilities. In Quebec, disability benefits are indexed to inflation and, in Mr. Parent's view, the problem is that these increases take effect long after prices have already gone up. Mr. Parent adds that governments need to recognize and adapt to this reality. This is what we are trying to achieve through Bill C-22.

In my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville, Luso Canadian Charitable Society is an incredible organization that helps Canadians with disabilities and provides critical services to many members of our local community. Luso provides a safe, supportive and caring environment for individuals and supports families living with physical or developmental disabilities. A month ago, I had the amazing opportunity to celebrate one of Luso's members, Paul, who turned 60, which is an incredible milestone to achieve. I was happy to celebrate his birthday with him.

We recognize that we have a responsibility to do more for Canadians. Working-age persons with disabilities need our help. Bill C-22 would supplement, not replace, other government programs. If Bill C-22 moves forward, then the Canada disability benefit would be introduced. The Canada disability benefit would make life more affordable for hundreds of thousands of persons with disabilities by lifting them out of poverty.

We are working hard to give all Canadians a little breathing room. In fact, we recently announced that we will be putting in place additional measures to make life more affordable for Canadians who need them most. Those measures would do things like double the GST credit for six months and provide a one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit to deliver $500 to 1.8 million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing.

The bottom line is that we are doing the work to help make life more affordable for Canadians across the country, and that includes hundreds of thousands of persons with disabilities. In the spirit of affordability and in the spirit of lifting Canadians out of poverty, Bill C-22 must continue to move forward. Working-age Canadians with disabilities depend on it.

For my Conservative colleagues, it is time to get back to work so that we can pass a bill like Bill C-22 to help those who need it most.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, let me thank the member opposite and all Conservative members for their support in advancing Bill C-30, which is critical support at this time on the issue of affordability. I want to thank them for helping to move it to committee and for their work to move it through committee. It will be our priority next week to ensure that those critical supports are passed.

In response to the question of whether we will cease taking action on climate change, I note we will never stop fighting for this planet. We recognize that the climate and the economy are intricately bound. However, I would suggest, as my hon. colleague has suggested, that we have critical supports for vulnerable people. An example is Bill C-22. It needs to be adopted so that those who are disabled in this country can be lifted out of poverty. I would suggest there are families that need dental care, and that is covered in Bill C-31. I would suggest there are people who need support on housing, and that is also covered in Bill C-31.

The good news for the member opposite is there are many ways he can help as we work through the affordability crisis that is hitting across the globe.

On Monday, we are going to continue with second reading of Bill C-31, which I referenced earlier. It is an act respecting the cost-of-living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing.

On Wednesday, we will call Bill S-5 concerning the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I would also like to inform the House that next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Persons with Disabilities

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not have that in front of me right now.

What I can tell this member is that the House leader's office on this side of the House certainly works with the House leaders' offices on all sides of the House. We have a very good understanding and relationship with the NDP. I would encourage the member to encourage her House leadership to push this forward.

She knows just as well as I do that games unfortunately sometimes happen in this House that prevent legislation from going through. Let us work together to get this to committee so that we can have a meaningful impact.

I know my words might ring hollow because she has heard them many times before. I can assure the member that this side of the House is passionate about moving as quickly as possible to get Bill C-22 passed so that we can get those who need it the most the resources they require.

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

Madam Speaker, tonight I have heard a lot of the same goals: quick, efficient and wanting to bring it in as soon as possible.

I see that there is space next week on the legislative agenda. I think there is an opportunity to have Bill C-22 come back to the House so that we could get it to committee. Will this bill come back for debate next week?

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

Madam Speaker, I want nothing more, as does the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, than to see Canadians with disabilities receive the new Canada disability benefit as quickly as possible.

We understand that people have concerns about the timing of the benefit. In the spirit of “nothing without us”, we have been working tirelessly alongside the disability community, as well as the provinces and territories, to ensure that every person who receives the Canada disability benefit would be better off because of it.

Let us be clear. We need the disability community's input at every step of the design of the benefit, as I am sure the member would agree. We also need to work with provinces and territories to ensure that there are no clawbacks to other benefits that already exist, as has come up in debate in this House regarding Bill C-22.

Bill C-22 is, as the member indicated, groundbreaking framework legislation. If it becomes law, we would establish regulations that define the benefit amounts, eligibility criteria and other details. Parliament would have the opportunity to review it three years after it comes into effect. I would note that this time frame is actually shorter than the usual parliamentary review. That is because we are committed to ensuring that the Canada disability benefit meets the needs of working-age persons with disabilities.

Just last summer, with funding provided through budget 2021, we launched extensive consultations with the disability community and with national indigenous organizations, as well as with provincial and territorial governments, to seek their input on their experiences and needs.

It is important to understand the Canada disability benefit is part of a continuum of bold, historic actions that our government has taken to advance accessibility and the rights of persons with disabilities. These actions include the Accessible Canada Act, the Canada poverty reduction strategy and the development of the first-ever disability inclusion action plan. Of course the key component to our action plan is the Canada disability benefit, which would help reduce poverty for hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities.

If passed, Bill C-22 would establish guiding principles and objectives for the new benefit. It would also allow the Governor in Council to implement the benefit's design components through regulation. The sooner Bill C-22 passes, the sooner the Canada disability benefit could be implemented. That means we would be able to help the people who need it the most. We know persons with disabilities have been waiting a long time for this. That is why we are working as quickly and efficiently as possible to deliver this historic benefit.

I would also indicate to the member that I know she asked a question specifically about an amendment. She is asking if the government would work with the NDP, or if the Liberal members would work with the NDP, in committee to make these amendments. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to pre-empt the work that those members would do. I look forward to seeing the report that this member and all members of the committee will bring to the House. I am sure that if what she is recommending makes sense and is a good proposal, it would be taken very seriously by the members of the Liberal Party who sit on that committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I am here to express once again the frustrations of people with disabilities as they continue to wait for a Canada disability benefit. We know they face too many challenges that are only increasing with the rising cost of food and the skyrocketing prices of homes and rent. The situation is dire.

The government must act now to get the Canada disability benefit into people's bank accounts. When will the Liberal government make that happen? New Democrats are ready to do the work to make the Canada disability benefit the best it can be for people. To make sure it truly protects persons with disabilities from a life of poverty, we have proposed an amendment to Bill C-22 that would enshrine adequacy and provide protection.

Right now, people in the disability community are hopeful that they will finally be prioritized by the Liberal government. Will the government prioritize their well-being and accept the NDP's ask for adequacy to be enshrined in this legislation? Persons with disabilities are legally entitled to adequacy, and this new benefit must be accountable to a measurement tool that provides it. That accountability is currently missing from Bill C-22.

The government has an obligation to uphold the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to ensure dignity and full equality for all. This includes necessary income supports. Dire financial circumstances are the reality for too many people with disabilities, and the longer they have to wait for the promised disability benefit, the more they are being abandoned.

Since 2015, the Liberals have spoken about the importance of lifting people with disabilities out of poverty, yet their actions do not match those words. It is beyond time for the government to do better and to use the measuring tools available to ensure that any legislation that is meant to end poverty actually reaches that goal.

I am committed to working with the government to make this happen. Bill C-22 has the potential to be the first and only bill in Canada that actually legislates people out of poverty. Let us imagine that: one bill that can almost cut poverty in half with one or two simple sentences.

Will the Liberal government work with the NDP to turn its aspiration statement into a reality and amend the bill in committee to include an amendment for adequacy that would actually make sure persons with disabilities are lifted out of poverty, and will it do so now?

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 1

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the motion for second reading of Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, be deemed adopted on division, deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Persons with Disabilities

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that working-age persons with disabilities in Canada are twice as likely to live in poverty as those without. That is why we have taken action to build a Canada that is disability inclusive. In 2019, we passed the groundbreaking Accessible Canada Act, legislation that aims to realize a barrier-free Canada. Yesterday, Bill C-22, Canada Disability Benefit Act began second reading.

Can the Hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion please share with the House how the Canada disability benefit will help lift working-age persons with disabilities out of poverty?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House with my colleagues. The petition I am tabling today is quite timely, given that the House is going to debate Bill C-22. The petition, which was started by Jeff Leggat, a constituent of mine in Duncan, refers to the fact that far too many Canadians with disabilities are living below the poverty line. There are about 1.5 million Canadians who are living in a state of legislated poverty. The petitioners who have taken the time to sign this e-petition are calling upon the government to end this current practice and ensure that Canadians living with disabilities have a federal disability benefit of $2,200 per month.

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, beginning on Friday, June 24, 2022, and ending on Friday, June 23, 2023:

(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating remotely be in Canada;

(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House be counted for the purpose of quorum;

(c) provisions in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual and hybrid nature of the proceedings;

(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;

(e) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;

(f) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;

(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:

(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,

(ii) documents shall be transmitted to the clerk by members prior to their intervention,

(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the clerk electronically,

(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;

(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;

(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;

(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or

(ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday,

provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;

(k) if a motion for the previous question under Standing Order 61 is adopted without a recorded division, the vote on the main question may be deferred under the provisions of paragraph (j), however if a recorded division is requested on the previous question, and such division is deferred and the previous question subsequently adopted, the vote on the original question shall not be deferred;

(l) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday, provided that such recorded divisions be taken after the other recorded divisions deferred at that time;

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

(n) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;

(o) recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means through the House of Commons electronic voting application for all other members, provided that:

(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada using the member’s House-managed mobile device and the member’s personal House of Commons account, and that each vote require visual identity validation,

(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House, and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,

(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person take precedence,

(iv) any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system,

(v) following any concern, identified by the electronic voting system, which is raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system, the member in question shall respond immediately to confirm their vote, either in person or by the House videoconferencing system, failing which the vote shall not be recorded,

(vi) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,

(vii) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,

(viii) any question to be resolved by secret ballot be excluded from this order,

(ix) during the taking of a recorded division on a private members’ business, when the sponsor of the item is the first to vote and present at the beginning of the vote, the member be called first, whether participating in person or remotely;

(p) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special, special joint, except the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference, and provided that priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(ii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,

(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,

(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email; and

(q) notwithstanding the order adopted on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, regarding the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, until the committee ceases to exist and where applicable,

(i) the committee shall hold meetings in person only should this be necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act,

(ii) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(iii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iv) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(v) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of the House vice-chairs, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted;

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to undertake a study on hybrid proceedings and the aforementioned changes to the Standing Orders and the usual practice of the House.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this motion and talk about the extension of hybrid provisions for one year and the opportunity for the procedure and House affairs committee members to study the issue of either the use or the non-use of those provisions as they deem through their process and their recommendations thereafter.

I will take us back for a moment to March 2020. As the whole business of the pandemic was unfolding, it was about a week before this House shut down when I had a conversation with the House administration at that time asking what the pandemic plan was and what we had on the books. Of course, those who wrote it had put something together, but it became apparent very quickly upon looking at it that the intersection of what was planned with what happened in real life meant that the plan, frankly, was not of much use.

We then began a process, and I want to thank members from all parties, reflecting back on those early days in March 2020, as we attempted to find a way for Canada's Parliament to continue to do its business and to make sure that, notwithstanding the fact that we had this incredible public health emergency that sent people to their homes, Canadians knew that the seat of their democracy continued to function, continued to get bills passed and continued to put supports out there for them.

Before I talk about some of those supports, I want to take a moment to thank the House administration and officials who worked with us to create these tools and innovations to allow our democracy to continue to function. In an incredibly short period of time, an ability was developed to participate and vote virtually. This eventually led to a voting app and other refinements that have enabled members, whether or not they are sick, whether or not they are unable to be at the House for medical or other reasons, to continue to participate in the proceedings of the House and to make sure they are not disenfranchised and their constituents continue to be represented.

Members would remember that Canadians and businesses were reeling in those early days of COVID, and some three million jobs were lost. There was a real state of folks not knowing where things were going to go. Small businesses were left unable to serve their customers and wondering what their future would be. It was specifically because of the provisions we put in place, which all parties worked on with the House administration, that we were able to still get those supports adopted and make historic support available to make sure that businesses and individuals did not fall through the cracks.

Now we see the economy roaring back, and 115% of jobs lost during the pandemic have come back, compared to below 100% for the United States. We see us being a world leader in economic growth, number two in the G7 and trending towards being number one next year. It is absolutely evident that the supports that were put in place to make sure that Canadians did not fall through the cracks were what got us there.

When we think of the bravery of people opening a small business, taking a chance and putting themselves out in the world, putting their shingle out and hoping to survive, there are a lot of things they have to prepare for, such as the possibility that their product may not be as popular as they had hoped, or the long hours that they, and the people they employ, will have to put in to try to make the business successful. Of course, it is not reasonable for folks to expect that a global pandemic will be the thing that shuts them down. It was, in fact, those hybrid provisions that enabled people to get that work done.

The pandemic continues, but before I talk about the continuing pandemic, I will take a moment to talk about all the things that we got done, and not just those historic supports.

As the pandemic came and went, as we thought it was over last November and we thought that things might be returning to a sense of normalcy but we got hit by omicron, the flexibility of Parliament meant that we were able to continue to get the job of the nation done. We can take a look at how much Parliament was able to accomplish from January to June: 14 bills, not including supply, were presented, and we introduced seven bills in the Senate on a range of important issues. Many of the bills that we are passing now or that have just passed through the House are going to the Senate, and it is our hope and expectation, particularly with the great work that was just done on Bill C-28, that the Senate will be able to get that done as well before it rises for the summer. This was all done using the hybrid provisions.

Let us take a look at some of those bills.

Bill C-19 is critical to grow our economy, foster clean technology, strengthen our health care system and make life more affordable for Canadians in areas such as housing and child care.

Bill C-18 would make sure that media and journalists in Canadian digital news receive fair compensation for their work in an incredibly challenged digital environment.

Bill C-11 would require online streaming services to contribute to the creation and availability of Canadian stories and music to better support Canadian artists.

Bill C-21 would protect Canadians from the dangers of firearms in our communities, making sure that we freeze the market on handguns, attack smuggling at the border and implement red flag provisions to address domestic violence.

Bill C-22 was brought forward to reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in Canada and is part of a broader strategy that has seen more than one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. That is particularly remarkable when we think that it was this government that set the first targets ever for poverty reduction. After we set those goals, we have been exceeding them every step of the way, and Bill C-22 is a big part of that strategy.

Bill C-28, which I talked about a minute ago, deals with the extreme intoxication defence. It is a great example of Parliament in a hybrid environment being able to work collaboratively to ensure that we close an important loophole to make sure that the extreme intoxication defence is not used when murder has been committed.

These are just some of the bills that we have been able to put forward, and we have been able to do so in a way that empowered all members of Parliament to be able to participate, whether they had COVID or not.

To give members a sense of the challenges, not only was all of this done using the hybrid system and during the middle of a pandemic, but it was done while dealing with obstruction. We saw all the times the Conservatives obstructed government legislation. In fact, 17 times over the past 14 weeks, the Conservatives used obstruction tactics, using concurrence motions and other tactics to block and obstruct, in many cases, legislation that was supported by three out of the four official parties here. They took the opportunity to obstruct, yet despite that, we have been able to make great progress.

The Conservatives support Bill C-14, yet we ended up spending a night because they were moving motions to hear their own speakers. At the MAID committee looking at medical assistance in dying, where there was incredibly sensitive testimony, witnesses were not able to testify because of the tactics and games that were happening here in this place. However, despite all that, in a hybrid environment we have been able to move forward.

Let us look at last week. Last week there were five members of the Liberal caucus who had COVID, and one of these people was the Prime Minister. I do not know how many members there were in other caucuses, but all were still able to participate in these proceedings. Every day, unfortunately, thousands of Canadians across the country continue to get COVID. Sadly, many of them are in hospitals and, even more tragically, many of them are dying. This pandemic is still very much a reality.

What we have seen over the last two years is that every time we try to start a parliamentary session, we spend weeks debating whether we should or should not continue using the hybrid system. Parliament deserves stability. People are still getting COVID. They have the right to be able to participate in this place, and as has been demonstrated by the incredible amount of work we have been able to get done during the pandemic, from historic supports in the deepest, darkest time of the pandemic to the more recent times dealing with a whole range of legislation that is absolutely critical to Canadians, these provisions allow us to continue to do the work of this nation in extraordinary times.

I do not think we should be in a position such that every time we start Parliament, we continue to have this debate. Canadians need predictability, as we do not know where this pandemic or public health circumstances are going. Canadians need predictability until the House of Commons, through a committee process, can evaluate the utility and usefulness of the provisions outside of a pandemic reality to see if they should be extended or used. We need to have a proper, thorough debate in that venue, hearing from witnesses, hearing from parliamentarians, taking a look at what was accomplished and at what could be done better or differently.

We are already seeing big improvements in everything, from the services that are being delivered to interpretation. I look forward to PROC's work to see whether or not these provisions have utility, but until then, this measure would give us the stability for PROC to do its report and for Parliament to continue to function in incredibly challenging times.

That is why I think it is only prudent to pass this measure now. It is so that Parliament will have the stability to do its work, so Canadians will know this work will not be interrupted, and so we can focus instead on the business of the nation.

Persons with Disabilities

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, since 2015, we have done so much as a government to help persons with disabilities, and I was honoured to reintroduce Bill C-22 in the House several weeks ago. We are working with the disability community to ensure that their needs and wants are reflected in the bill and that we lift as many people out of poverty as we can with the new Canada disability benefit.

We are about to release our first-ever disability inclusion action plan. Financial security is a key pillar of that plan, as is employment. We are going to make sure we get this done.

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

Madam Speaker, since 2015, we have taken historic steps toward building a barrier-free Canada. In addition to the $112 million from budget 2021, with budget 2022 we are investing nearly $300 million in disability inclusion, including an employment strategy for persons with disabilities and funding to support the creation of materials for persons with print disabilities.

Moving forward, we are committed to implementing the disability inclusion action plan, which would establish a robust employment strategy and enhance eligibility for government disability programs and benefits, and to introducing the Canada disability benefit act to address poverty among Canadians with disabilities. We all benefit when everyone participates equally in society.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians with disabilities continue to disproportionately live in poverty across the country. Earlier this month, the government finally reintroduced the Canada disability benefit, but it has not allocated any time to debate it, nor has it introduced any emergency supports.

We have been here before. The same bill was introduced last June and died when the election was called within months. We now have eight sitting days left before we rise for the summer, while those living in legislative poverty will not get any break.

Will the governing party demonstrate that it is not playing games with the disability community and prioritize Bill C-22?

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise again on Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, this time at third reading. I would like to start with what I appreciate, specifically about the work that was done at committee. If Canadians and neighbours in my community watch only question period, they might wonder whether anyone here gets anything done at all. The fact is that there are plenty of opportunities at committee for parliamentarians from all sides to come together to improve legislation. That is really important to highlight.

First, I want to point out one really critical amendment that was unanimously passed, which would ensure that all Canadians living with type 1 diabetes, of whom there are over 300,000 across the country, will now be able to access the disability tax credit. This is going to help ease the financial burden caused by unavoidable and necessary life-saving expenses.

The original bill had the foreign homebuyers ban, but there was no date set for when it would come into force. It was left up to the governing party's discretion. Through committee, there is now a hard date set. It is longer out than I would prefer, all the way out to January 1, 2023, but it is an improvement at least to have a date within the legislation. As I have said before, in my community, the extent to which all levels of government work to address the skyrocketing cost of housing will define us over the coming years.

I wish there was more in the budget implementation act, and certainly we need more. Investments like those in co-op housing in the budget, for deeply affordable and dignified housing, are a step in the right direction. Having a date in place for when this foreign homebuyers ban will come into force is an improvement.

That being said, these tweaks are insufficient, given the moment we are in. I would like to take this opportunity to share five significant and urgent priorities of my neighbours that are still missed by Bill C-19 and are the reasons why I cannot support it.

First, when it comes to the climate crisis, no doubt this is our last chance at a livable planet. The most recent report from the IPCC defines it as “an atlas of human suffering”. We know that if we want even a 50% chance of staying below a 1.5°C increase in global average temperatures, which, as scientists from the IPCC tell us, is required if we want to hold on to the possibility of a livable future for our kids and grandkids, and if we are to do our fair share, that means 86% of Canada's proven fossil fuel reserves need to remain unextracted. The UN Secretary-General went on to say that “the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.”

Of course, I was disappointed that in Bill C-19 and in the budget there is nothing for a prosperous transition for workers, which we so desperately need when it comes to retraining and career support, when it comes to pension bridging, and when it comes to compensation. In the budget, instead, what we saw was $7.1 billion between now and 2030 for a new subsidy in the form of a tax credit for carbon capture and storage. A recent study of this technology from the Netherlands found that in 32 out of 40 projects they looked at worldwide that implemented carbon capture and storage, emissions actually went up. It is one of the reasons why 400 academics penned a letter to our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance saying this is a false climate solution.

Unfortunately, the only time climate is even mentioned in Bill C-19 is when it speaks about the fact that an annual climate incentive is now going to be received by Canadians once a quarter, certainly not the kind of change that reflects the moment we are in, that reflects the crisis we are in, and that reflects the urgency of action required to meet this moment.

The second priority that continues to be missed is with respect to addressing the disproportionate number of Canadians with disabilities who are living in poverty across the country. We know that back in 2020, the governing party first promised the Canada disability benefit, a guaranteed livable income for every Canadian with a disability across the country, which would lift up, or it could if done well, 1.5 million Canadians with disabilities across the country.

We already know that 89% of Canadians support the Canada disability benefit. They are way ahead of parliamentarians here. However, we also need to recognize that emergency funds are required to address the very real, direct and urgent needs of Canadians with disabilities who are living in poverty across the country. Both in the budget and in this budget implementation act, there is no mention of emergency funds. There is no mention of the Canada disability benefit. It was, instead, introduced as Bill C-22. The same as last year, though, all of the major decisions on eligibility and the amounts are left to regulation.

It is going to be really critical for all of us to continue to put the prioritization, the urgency and the advocacy behind ensuring that we get support to Canadians with disabilities across the country, the Canadians who need it the most. We already know that it has support. In fact, 103 parliamentarians from all parties have now asked not only to bring it forward in the legislation that has now been done through Bill C-22, which I am glad to see, but to fast-track it and ensure that the experiences of Canadians with disabilities are heard every step of the way.

The third priority I want to mention tonight is with respect to mental health. In the budget, the only real mention was with respect to a wellness portal. So many parliamentarians in this place recognize, as is so important to do, that mental health is health. If that is the case, we need to be looking at organizations like the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health and their calls for legislation that would put in place a framework for the Canadian federal government to collaborate with and support provinces and territories and bring about parity in mental health support and funding. That is not in Bill C-19. As I mentioned, it was only tangentially mentioned in the budget. I will continue to advocate and encourage the governing party to meet the moment when it comes to addressing mental health.

Just last week, I spoke about the need to honour promises made when it comes to long-term care. This is because so many neighbours of mine have shared their stories, whether they are caregivers who are not in a position to deliver the care that is necessary or those who have a parent waiting in a hospital bed for months on end, hoping that their parent might one day have a spot in long-term care. We have to recognize the wait-lists. The research I saw last summer said that there were 52,000 people on a wait-list. We still have not seen this promised safe long-term care act. It was mentioned in the confidence and supply agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party, and I continue to encourage the urgency to be placed on that legislation being moving forward, given that it is not in Bill C-19. In fact, long-term care is mentioned in the budget only once, as it relates to funding that was promised back in 2021.

In closing, the last critical priority that is urgent and needs sufficient prioritization in this place relates to addressing indigenous reconciliation, specifically following through on the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. According to the Yellowhead Institute's most recent report on the calls to action, only 11 of 94 have been completed to date. In my view, that is another significant gap. If we are not doing enough to move sufficiently quickly to follow through on all of the promises made, to follow through on all 94 calls to action, this is another critical moment to do so.