I sincerely thank the witnesses. Thank you for sharing with us what you are going through as people living with disabilities and for speaking on behalf of the groups you are representing.
I think your message has been heard loud and clear.
I heard one group saying that we should pass the bill without amendments. I also heard the representatives for the MS Society of Canada mention that maybe the bill should be amended to include in the definitions the fact that MS is episodic in nature, as we know.
I would like you to tell us a bit more.
We agree that this should be done by and for people living with disabilities. However, as parliamentarians, it is very unusual to pass a bill when the most important aspects, like eligibility criteria, benefit terms and conditions and benefit amounts, are unknown.
During consultations, we asked for your opinion on these matters, because it seems important to us, especially when everything is to be set through regulations. We also appreciate the urgency of establishing that particular benefit, but we know that regulations can take a long time.
My question is for the representatives of the MS Society.
When you talk about amending the bill to state that some diseases and disabilities are episodic, what are you thinking about specifically?
Why is that important? In which parts of the bill could we make the required changes?