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 .

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

Right.

Mr. Chair, I would first like to thank you for your work as chair of this committee. It is very helpful.

I do agree somewhat with what was said about tone and the way some things are being said this morning. We are here as a parliamentary committee where a minister has joined us so we can ask her important questions.

I would also let the Minister know that if, in future, she wants to receive the questions in advance, we will provide them to her. Again, the tone used in answers can sometimes be questionable. In any event, I hope we manage to get the tone right.

We actually do represent groups, we represent people. Everything is not fine in this world. If it were perfect, we would not be sitting here around this table.

The Accessible Canada Act is five years old. There are provisions that need to be strengthened and corrected.

If no one had any doubts about the Canada disability benefit and everyone had applauded it, we would not be here questioning you, Minister. I am sorry to tell you, however, that this is not the case.

I imagine the path is not perfect and you will be able to give us answers to our questions concretely and objectively.

I am going to refer to the last question I asked you.

Most of us were around the table during the study of Bill C‑22 up to when it was passed. The purpose of that bill is to create the Canada disability benefit. Your predecessor was proud of that bill, and rightly so.

However, we also knew that Quebec and the other provinces do not all have the same supports for persons with disabilities. Those supports are absolutely necessary, because what the federal government is doing is supplementing what is being done in the provinces.

We also had eligibility criteria, so as to lower the poverty line. In any event, I can say that we worked hard here.

Minister, I asked you what discussions have been held with the Government of Quebec. You looked at me and said that the Government of Quebec had not guaranteed that it would not claw back benefits.

I am going to ask you a clear question. If I go and see Quebec's ministerial representatives myself, are they going to give me the same answer?

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.