Debates of May 28th, 2019

Accessible Canada Act

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank a number of members in the deaf community who are here with us tonight: Lisa Anderson-Kellett, Frank Folino, Jessica Sargeant, Wyatt Scott, Darryl Hackett and Robyn Mackie. These are members of the community who are watching this debate. It is very important that they be here, and we welcome them.

The member for Foothills raised an important point about disability tax credits and the registered disability savings plan. What we have seen under the government, sadly, is a real attack on people with disabilities when it comes to their right to the disability tax credits and the registered disability savings plan. I have certainly experienced in my riding that people with disabilities who had been part of the disability tax credit and the RDSP for years were all of a sudden being cut off, and CRA takes them on. CRA does not seem willing to take on overseas tax havens or big corporate tax loopholes, but it is attacking people in the disability community, and it is costing people with disabilities enormous amounts.

I want to get the member's comments on whether he has experienced this in his riding as well and that the government is being very mean-spirited, in fact, through CRA and has hurt people with disabilities.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is getting a little off the Bill C-81 discussion, but I will say that when we look at the Auditor General's report on the call centres with the CRA and seeing millions of calls dropped, there is certainly a concern with how we are servicing all Canadians and not just Canadians with disabilities. However, I would like to keep my focus tonight in respect to the people who are watching and who may be here this evening on Bill C-81.

I would not call Bill C-81 an attack on people with disabilities. I think, as they would say, it is a step in the right direction. The interesting comment I have heard from stakeholders and those who have discussed this with us is that it is better than nothing.

When it comes to legislation, I think we really want to do things right. I did not work extremely hard to get elected to have royal assent on legislation that is better than nothing. I wanted to be here to ensure that when we enact legislation it is the best we can possibly do. However, one of things that we are seeing with some of the concerns that I have raised this evening is that, in some ways, it is not better than nothing. In some ways, it would actually make life more difficult for people with disabilities.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am a father of an adult child who has both cognitive and mobility disabilities. Our daughter, who is now 30, will live with us for the rest of her life. When I read Bill C-81 and think about a barrier-free Canada, I think of barriers in terms of accessibility, but also barriers to opportunity. I hear time and again that we are at the eleventh hour and we are trying to get this done just to get something done, which is better than nothing. It is a step in the right direction, but I would say that we are trying to do the best we can to remove all barriers so that regardless of the disability or encumbrance, people are able to realize every opportunity that comes their way.

One of the things I have noticed in Bill C-81 is that there is no mention of first nations. It is a marginalized community and it is not recognized in Bill C-81. I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment as to why first nations are not mentioned in Bill C-81 and if it was an oversight or intentional.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was not something I had time to raise in my speech, but the member is exactly right. There were stakeholders at committee who raised this very issue. For example, Mr. Neil Belanger, the executive director of the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, was at committee. They were consulted as part of the process of developing Bill C-81, but when he looked at the bill when it was first presented, first nations were not mentioned anywhere in the legislation. My colleague, the MP for Battlefords—Lloydminster, put forward amendments to try to include first nations as part of Bill C-81, but they were refused by the Liberal members on the committee.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Insurance Brokers were on Parliament Hill today, which reminded me of the member for Foothills because I just renewed my insurance with Dusyk & Barlow.

One of my constituents, Michael Huck, a tireless advocate for people living with disabilities, made a submission to the standing committee studying the accessible Canada act. One of the points he emphasized was the importance of promoting this legislation after it is passed so that employers know about it. He also emphasized the importance of recognizing designated entities who are doing a good job of creating a barrier-free environment.

Those of us on the opposition side are often skeptical of government advertising, but I wonder if the member for Foothills would agree with supporting efforts to promote the accessible Canada act.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I may owe my colleague from Regina—Lewvan some money for promoting my family's business in Regina, in Wascana, right beside the office of the Minister of Public Safety. There is a hole cut in the wall so we can spy on him when he is in the riding. I am kidding.

Yes, I would absolutely agree with my colleague from Regina—Lewvan that communicating Bill C-81 is going to be integral to ensure that every federally regulated entity in Canada understands what is going to be asked of them as part of this legislation. What is also important is that they understand that there are no regulations or standards included in Bill C-81 as of yet. It is pretty much a blank slate and that is going to cause a problem with business owners or departments not understanding what is going to be asked of them. When this is given royal assent, there is really nothing enforceable on that first day.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this debate. This is not a debate that is inappropriate, quite the contrary. I will give two reasons why. The discussions and debates we will be having this evening, tomorrow and so on throughout the week are so vitally important.

First, the issue of disability rights in this country has been a marginalized discussion, certainly for as long as I have been in Parliament. We have not had full evenings of debate. We have members of the deaf community here this evening, and they are watching, to see what it is that we bring up about Bill C-81 and how we can improve it.

Second, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier, the issue of regulations and how to improve the bill are extraordinarily important.

The reality is the discussions and the debates that we have on this issue, far from shoving it under the carpet, are vitally important to getting the kind of bill that actually makes Canada more accessible. The government is patting itself on the back tonight, saying that we have bill, and it is weak but the Senate did improve it. The point is exactly thus, the fact that the bill was so weak to begin with that the Senate has already managed to improve it means that if we worked hard and assiduously over the next few weeks, we could make this bill better still. We could actually make it accessible.

The problem for anyone who is aware of the situation for people with disabilities in our country, the appalling situation that people with disabilities live under and the lack of accessibility, means that we have a duty to get this right, not just shove it under the carpet and move on to something else, saying that it is a weak bill that needs more improvement. The reality is we have a responsibility.

I hope that the government takes that responsibility seriously over the next few days as we sit until midnight to actually make those improvements. The government rejected over 100 amendments from the opposition. There was no willingness to improve the bill, despite the fact that there were so many witnesses who came forward and suggested, in very concrete terms, how this bill could be improved.

Fortunately, we have some Senate amendments that add, very appropriately and very importantly, the recognition of American sign language and la langue des signes du Québec as languages that are used by the deaf community. It is very important communication. I know only rudimentary American sign language, but the beauty of the language, when someone is fluent, is quite extraordinary to watch. It is something I deeply appreciate.

As other members of Parliament are sharing their experiences, I would like to share my experiences, coming in as the executive director for the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and working over the years to try to improve accessibility for the services that we offered across the mainland of British Columbia.

As members know, the situation of people with disabilities in this country is dire. Half of the homeless, and the growing number of homeless that we see in our country, are people with disabilities. Half of the people who have to go to the ever-increasing lineups around food banks in this country, just to make ends meet, are people with disabilities. The absence of services means that in many parts of this country, people with disabilities have to hold bake sales to try to fundraise, to get the accessible tools, essential tools, such as a wheelchair.

In Canada, we are far behind the rest of the world in terms of accessibility issues, and Canadians with disabilities pay a terrible price. When I was executive director for the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, I would often drive up early in the morning to get to work. Sometimes, as I came to that building on the west side of Vancouver, there would be a woman or man from the deaf community who had spent the night under the awning at the back of the building, because they had no place to live. They had no place to go, so they went to the one place where they knew services would be provided.

We would try to sort out their situation, to help them, to provide the services they were not getting from a federal government and, at the time, the B.C. Liberal provincial government that simply did not seem to care about housing as a human right.

That is my experience of the disability community, people who are incredibly resilient, but have received very little of the supports that they should be getting as Canadians with rights.

We talk about the billions of dollars given to the corporate community, overseas tax havens and $4 billion for a pipeline. The government seems willing to unleash the faucet as far as resources go, but people with disabilities have been starved of resources for decades and it is time that it changed.

When I was at WIDHH, we worked with other organizations, the Coast Mental Health, the B.C. Paraplegic Association and the CNIB. We created the first province-wide employment program for people with disabilities, the B.C. Employment Network. We established that because we knew that people with disabilities have so much to contribute, but so often doors were shut in their face for employment because there was no bridge, no way for those people with disabilities to get in to see a potential employer, to go through an interview, to learn the job and then to contribute to that business.

When we started the B.C. disability employment network, we started creating those bridges. That meant for a deaf British Columbian when they went to a job interview, there was a sign language interpreter. We have many talented sign language interpreters in this country and they could assure that there was a contact and communication with the employer and then training to make sure that the person learned the job.

For people in wheelchairs, the B.C. Paraplegic Association was a pioneer in this respect. Often it would mean nothing more than simple ramps and accessible doors that allowed people with disabilities to enter and leave the workplace. We provided that bridge, those supports.

For a wide range of other disabilities, we provided those supports to make sure that there was a contact made with the employer. The employers may not have been ready initially to provide those resources. The fact that they were provided for them allowed them to get to know those Canadians with disabilities in a new and meaningful way. What happened? Time after time those employers hired the people with disabilities. Once those people with disabilities learned the job, they stayed longer in employment, so it was a win-win situation by establishing that bridge and making sure that those people with disabilities had access to employment and access to that workplace so they could contribute for many years.

That is my experience in terms of people with disabilities, but let me talk about my experience in another country and that was the first time I went to the United States with a better understanding, thanks to people in the deaf community, of what it meant to have disabilities.

My first trip to Seattle really opened my eyes in terms of how far ahead the United States is in terms of where Canada is. I did not have that much money, we were working at WIDHH, but went to a conference in Seattle and I stayed at a very low-end motel called the Jet Motel. It is the far end of the strip at the Seatac International Airport. It was far away from the airport, a very cheap and low-grade motel. In the room the shower was completely wheelchair accessible. I asked at the front desk about a TTY to communicate and was told there was TTY and a whole range of other accessibility supports. I said, “This is a low-end motel, why do you have all this?” They told me it is because it is the law. It is the law to have accessibility for Americans everywhere in the United States.

Even in some of the highest-end hotels in Canada, we do not achieve that degree of accessibility because it has been built on a volunteer system. We have not built the kinds of accessibility that are so vital to ensure inclusion and to ensure that people with disabilities everywhere in this country can contribute to their full potential. That is what makes me so sad about Bill C-81.

The Liberals are applauding and patting themselves on the back for what is such a small first step. It would not even have been as good as it is without the incredible pressure, thankfully, from people with disabilities who were saying that it was not good enough and applying more pressure to ensure that things improved. Instead of seeing it as something inclusive that all members of Parliament could participate in and accepting the over 100 important amendments and improvements offered by the opposition parties, the amendments were systematically rejected and the potential for an improved bill was lost.

We had something that could have moved us so far along, closer to the model in the United States, where there is an obligation, a duty, to ensure accessibility, and where there is transportation and accommodation right along the line, with an insistence and obligation to open doors for people with disabilities. We could have had that. All of us would have been overjoyed in the House to adopt such legislation. However, the involvement of the opposition parties was stymied. The many amendments that came forward often very thoughtful, extremely well researched and well crafted. They were simply rejected out of hand.

When it comes to Bill C-81, we have a bill that had tremendous potential. That potential has been lost so far because of some government intransigence. People with disabilities in this country deserve better. We have heard some remarkable stories tonight of people who have family members and close friends with disabilities and who have been in the workplace. We have members of Parliament who have disabilities and understand them first-hand. We have far fewer members of Parliament with disabilities than we should have. If this Parliament actually reflected the real division of the population and the number of people with disabilities across this country, we would be talking about having dozens of people with disabilities in the House of Commons.

I see in the gallery members of the deaf community who are extraordinarily eloquent. I hope one day some of them will be on the floor of this House of Commons contributing to its work and making sure that we do build that inclusive society, because that is what would make such a fundamental difference.

We had the bill brought forward by the government. We had some debates initially. As a number of my colleagues have pointed out, everyone supported the principle of greater accessibility. There is not a single member of the House of Commons who said that in principle they disagree with accessibility. Every single member from every single party and every single independent member stood together to say, “Yes, on principle let us pass this, because we all support the principle of accessibility. Let us get it to committee, let us hear from witnesses, let us hear from people with disabilities and let us make a difference there.”

That is when it really came off the rails. It was at that point that many amendments were offered. There were nearly 120 from four of the opposition parties. Those amendments, which were brought forward in a thoughtful and honest way, were turned down.

The bill came back to the House. A number of us, including the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, raised those issues. When witnesses were speaking to the importance of ensuring that this be an obligation, and not just something the government can pick and choose and give exemptions to whole ministries, why not ensure there is a framework and some standardization? A number of my colleagues have spoken to that as well.

When those questions were asked, the government's response was that it was just going to pass the bill through. Then it went to the Senate, and fortunately the Senate started setting some clear objectives. Its members talked about recognizing American sign language, Quebec sign language and indigenous sign languages. Those were all important components.

In the debate we are now faced with, members of the opposition are recognizing that we have made some progress and want to make some more. They want to make the bill even better. They want the bill to put us close to the standards we see in places like the United States. Let us make the bill such that when travellers with disabilities check into a motel, even if it is a low-end motel at the far end of an airport strip in an international airport area, or take any type of transport or deal with a government ministry, they will feel they are a part of those things and not see barriers that stop them from actively accessing and being part of society.

The figures are grim. It is a fact that in our land, where we are seeing increasing concentration of wealth, more and more Canadians are struggling. As I have mentioned before in the House, Canadian families are now struggling with not only the worst debt load in our history, but the worst debt load in the history of any industrialized country. That is the legacy of the last four years.

When we are dealing with this situation, it would seem important that we take a more dramatic step to bring the bill forward and improve it, as it impacts people with disabilities above all others. The lineups at the food banks across this country are getting longer, tragically, yet it is estimated that half of the people in those lineups are people with disabilities.

Is the bill enough? Well, it is only a start. We need to make it even better. We have a number of weeks in which we can to do that. When I think about the growing number of homeless people in our country, half of whom are people with disabilities, I remember, as I mentioned, the tragic cases that I would see on occasion when I walked into the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in the morning. Some people simply did not have a place to stay and went to the institute because they knew they would be helped.

We have to ask ourselves if we are doing enough in Bill C-81, with the Senate improvements, to actually make a difference in their lives. That is the real question we have to ask ourselves honestly, as parliamentarians. This is not a time for any of us to rest on our laurels and simply say there are some good things in the bill and that it is sufficient. Given the dire situation of people with disabilities in this country and what they mandate us to do as members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to go much further.

Earlier tonight, a Liberal speaker talked about regulations, and a number of members of Parliament have raised the notion of having very strong and robust regulations. We also have the ability and opportunity to improve the bill. We have a responsibility to about 15% of the Canadian population. These are people with disabilities who are not, in any number, represented in the House, but who came to committee, offered suggestions and asked for improvements, and who found that the government was not willing to listen.

Here, as parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to listen. We have the responsibility to speak out. We have a responsibility to question the government about why it it did not accept amendments and did not make the bill stronger. Even with the passage of the bill, why are we still so far behind what the Americans with Disabilities Act offers to Americans with disabilities?

Canadians with disabilities deserve better. It is true that we will be voting in favour of the bill, but it is a lost opportunity if we do not take the time that remains in debate to make the bill better, to make the regulations stronger and to make the bill more reflective of what Canadians with disabilities truly need.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and would characterize it as a lament for a bill that perhaps could have been much better. He commented on the self-congratulations by government members in the various speeches we heard earlier tonight. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby commented on the fact the Liberals seemed extraordinarily pleased with their track record on persons with disabilities. Could he comment on that track record, particularly the attention given to the treatment of disabled Canadians by the Canada Revenue Agency in regard to RDSPs?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question, because it goes beyond the intent of the bill into what is actually taking place on the ground for people with disabilities. The member raised the disability tax credit and the registered disability savings plan. Over the last two years there has been a crackdown by the current government on the number of Canadians who have access to the disability tax credit and the registered disability savings plan. We have people with disabilities coming into my office who have been on the disability tax credit and the registered disability savings plan for many years who were cut off all of a sudden, or the government has told them they have to go through the long process of requalifying by going back to their doctors. It is simply unfair to force people with disabilities to go through that, when their situation has not changed, yet we have seen that happen repeatedly. The financial cost is enormous. The disability tax credit is non-refundable, as the member knows. It is not perfect, but at least it is something, as is the RDSP. The government's withholding it from people who qualify shows a tragic myopia as to what people with disabilities really need in support.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate all evening. One of the issues I was wondering about and would like to invite my colleague's comments on is this.

My colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, tabled a private member's bill, Bill C-384. In that bill, she called on the government to create a one-stop shopping system for individuals with disabilities to access federal government programs, such as the Canada pension plan disability benefits, the disability tax credit, the registered disabilities savings plan, the veterans disability pension plan and the opportunities fund. That is to say that instead of having to go through multiple application systems within the federal government, filling out all the forms and providing verification for their disability, they would only have to do it once. Once they had done that, they would then be able to quality for all of those programs under the federal government's jurisdiction. Sadly, the private member's bill proposed by our colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, was defeated by the government members. For the life of me, I do not understand why the government would create barriers to people with disabilities' access to critical programs that all Canadians should have easy access to. That streamlining process would also reduce the bureaucracy within government.

Could my colleague comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver East is a strong advocate for people with disabilities in her riding. I understand how sincere she has been in working to help advance the rights of people with disabilities in her riding and right across the country.

This is another example of just talking the talk. The government brought forward the bill but is not going to improve it, yet it claims it has done something for people with disabilities. Yes, it has, but as I mentioned, there is less access to the registered disability savings plan and there is less access to the disability tax credit.

The point that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh raised when she brought forward her excellent private member's bill was to make it easier, not harder for people with disabilities to attain their rights. The government said no to that.

How can we possibly imagine, understanding a day in the life of a person with disabilities in this country with so little access to accessibility, making it harder for them to go from one agency to the next to try to cobble together the various programs? It just shows again a lack of understanding of the challenges that Canadians with disabilities face, and I am saddened by it.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility)]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member thanked the many people in the gallery from the deaf community and there are others in the gallery as well that represent persons with disabilities, and I too thank them. What they truly want is for us to move forward and pass this historic legislation as soon as possible and start helping people with disabilities.

Let us move forward and make the difference that is needed for people with disabilities in Canada.

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

That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals say they do not want to have any more debate on this because the more debate and discussion there is, the more the shortcomings and the lack of follow-up by the government become evident to the public. That is the problem.

The Liberals should be thinking in the interests of Canadians, not in the interests of the Liberal Party. If they were thinking in the interests of Canadians, they would be seeking to get the strongest regulations possible. If they were thinking in the interests of Canadians and Canadians with disabilities, they certainly would have accepted the over 100 improvements that were offered by people with disabilities to members of the opposition to bring forward at committee. Each of those amendments was denied.

If the Liberals are truly interested, and I certainly hope they are, they will also be listening to the voices and the comments that people have made about improving this bill, making sure that the bill is better. It is not too late. There is an opportunity. We can do things better for Canadians with disabilities.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Independent, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the Senate amendments related to looking at intersectionality in this legislation. Persons with disabilities, persons with racial backgrounds, women, individuals of racial minorities do face disproportionately negative impacts related to their disabilities.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague, who supports this piece of legislation, could speak to the specific improvement from the Senate amendments to this legislation around intersectionality.

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

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians admire the member for the public stance she has taken, and I am one of them. She has been a very passionate advocate for people with disabilities in this country and I commend her for her work.

She has also pointed out one of the Senate improvements. She is absolutely right to say that the issue around intersectionality and how that has an impact on Canadians with disabilities needed to be highlighted. That principle does help to improve the bill. She is absolutely right about this.

There are further improvements we could make to the bill. We could strongly advocate for some strong regulations that would help to reinforce what the Senate has offered.

I would hope that in the course of this debate the government would make solid commitments about the kinds of regulations that it would bring forward so that Canadians can be reassured that the weakness in the bill that was partially addressed by the Senate can be improved even further by strong regulation.

Bill C-81—Notice of time allocation

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, from the debate tonight, it is clear that the opposition will not let this legislation move forward. I just want to reassure Canadians that we will use whatever tools are necessary to ensure that we take this important step forward. Yes, there is more work to do, but this is historic legislation that needs to be passed.

Therefore, I would like to advise the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of certain amendments to Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

It is unfortunate that the opposition finds this humorous. This legislation is not funny. It is important and in the best interests of Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure the House appreciates the notice from the hon. government House leader.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Whitby.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

Second reading and concurrence in Senate amendments

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Independent, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to speak to Bill C-81. I know that we have had a number of individuals who have spoken to this piece of legislation. Even with their criticisms of the legislation, there has been a camaraderie in the House to see it move forward.

One of the reasons I came to be a member of Parliament was to make sure that we were moving forward with legislation that would help those who are most marginalized and vulnerable in our society. I think this legislation does that.

Before I go on, I want to give thanks. We are sitting extra hours and it is almost 11 p.m. I want to thank the pages who are here, one of whom brought me some water which is most appreciated because I will be speaking for 20 minutes. I want to give a special thanks to the individuals who are giving the interpretation up in the gallery. I think that is really important and it speaks to one of the Senate amendments. I want to thank everybody here who is helping to ensure that this beautiful place, the West Block, operates in a fashion that allows us to continue this really important debate.

I want to thank a couple of people who are in the gallery, Nevin and Kyle. They have been with me this evening. They walked me over here. Speaking so late in this place, it could be a bit difficult for individuals to be here. They decided to come here with me tonight. I really want to thank them for being in Ottawa.

When talking about this specific legislation, Bill C-81, with members in this place and the other place, committee members, stakeholders, witnesses, all Canadians, it really speaks to what our democracy is about. It is about the ability for Canadians and legislators to come together to bring forward a piece of legislation that will allow everybody in Canada to feel that this country is more inclusive and that they see themselves in this piece of legislation.

It is not necessarily only individuals who have disabilities, but it is all Canadians who can be proud of this piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that will identify, remove and prevent accessibility barriers, level the unemployment gap and create more inclusive spaces for Canadians within the federal jurisdiction.

I want to applaud the government on this particular piece of legislation. Of course, I was a former member of the government and I appreciate this piece of legislation because it is not just about disabilities.

I have said on my Facebook page and my Twitter feed that I want Canadians, who are watching the individuals in this place from all across Canada, to pay attention to this legislation. It shows the leadership of Canada in this particular area. It shows that not only in the federal jurisdiction, but within workplaces, communities and schools, we need to make our spaces more accessible. We need to make them more inclusive. It is also a demonstration of the collaborative approach where we have hundreds of stakeholders who appear before committee and hundreds of stakeholders who have written in. Many people from my town of Whitby have written and I am going to take the time to name those individuals.

Often we see form letters or campaign approaches to writing members of Parliament. When we look at them and every one is exactly the same, we think that maybe those individuals did not take the time to research or look at the particular legislation when they were writing about. However, we have to look at this with a different lens, which I am happy to do. These individuals took the time to write to their member of Parliament to say that they wanted to ensure the proposed legislation was passed before the House rose. They wanted to ensure that their Canada include them.

I want to thank Thalia Liam Sang, Beverley Dooley, Shafaq Butt, Sylvie Boucher, Jacinth Spenler, Chris Gervais, Fiona Casey and Madison Taylor for taking the time to write me as their member of Parliament and to say that their Canada included them. Their Canada includes people who have disabilities. They want to be represented by their member of Parliament for Whitby. However, to be clear, this seat is a borrowed seat. I have said that I am not running again. I am contemplating whether I will run as an independent, but this is a borrowed seat. Therefore, this seat belongs to the people of Whitby, and I am responsible for ensuring their voices are heard. I am more than pleased to mention these names in this place.

As I have said, I have put this out on my social media platforms and a few people have responded. Dawn Campbell responded on Twitter and said that we needed to push the government.

Government members should not sit in their seats and feel comfortable. I have always said that when people come into my office, I should not feel comfortable. I should be very uncomfortable. The people of Canada and the people of Whitby hold the most powerful voices. They hold the most powerful tool to ensure their governments do what they want to see happen. Their votes are the most important tool they have.

However, Dawn Campbell wrote to me to say that she that digital accessibility was important. I sat on the INDU committee and listened to testimony of individuals who had visual impairments. They still get reports that are not written in Braille. It is 2019. How is that a thing in 2019 that a person could write to the Government of Canada and not get reports written in Braille? If any other constituency in the country were not able to access information from its government in a language that was accessible to it, it would be a little excited about that and would make some noise about it.

On that point, I want to applaud the Senate. For the people in Whitby and across Canada who are watching, one of the Senate amendments was to ensure this legislation would include the use of American sign language, Quebec sign language and indigenous sign language. I have to applaud the government for accepting the amendments. It ensures we have truly inclusive legislation. I do not want to throw shade on the government, but when we talk about diversity being our strength, it has to be more than just a checkbox.

People cannot look at the federal government and think that this is just about a check box. It is about actual active inclusion. Active inclusion involves ensuring that individuals with disabilities in politics, in business, in their communities have access to everything we take for granted on a regular basis.

For example, if a business is going on a company retreat and that retreat is not accessible to every employee, it make the person feel less included in the corporation. It makes those individuals feel like they do not belong. What happens with those individuals? They go to work one morning feeling 100%. When they go to the retreat and find they cannot access it, that feeling goes down to 80%.

I want to reference the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin who talked his son Jaden. I have the ability to speak in the chamber about the fact that our differences make us unique. The member did that quite eloquently today. I want to thank the member because it reminded us of the fact that our differences may make us unique.

When we go to our company retreat and it is not accessible for those with disabilities, how does that make one feel? How does that make one participate in meetings, or events or other circumstances around that business? I had the opportunity of being the parliamentary secretary for international development minister. It allowed individuals to give their full selves. They are allowed to raise their hands and say that it is not accessible. They are allowed to raise their hands and say that this is not appropriate. This place has the largest megaphone in the country. I want to thank the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for his comments earlier today.

I also want to thank the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility. The member of Parliament for Delta had the opportunity to come to Whitby. While she was there, she said something really profound. It made me believe with my whole heart that Bill C-81 was not just paying lip service to people with disabilities, but was really trying to change the status quo, change the landscape of Canada around accessibility issues, not just in Parliament but in businesses, in communities and in schools across the country.

She said that living with a visual impairment had given her the tools to allow her to see what other people could not see. I want members in the chamber to understand this. The Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility is visually impaired, but her life has been built around the ability to see what others cannot see, because of that impairment. Her environment gives her the experience and the skills to talk about legislation like Bill C-81.

When others in companies talk about return on investment or talk in communities or schools, they are able to see things we cannot see. When we talk about making sidewalks more accessible for persons in wheelchairs, it is also making it more accessible for moms. I am a mom of three. It allows my child to ride up the ramps with their bike. It allows seniors to go up with their walkers. It makes communities better.

I would be remiss if I did not speak to one of the greatest organizations in Whitby, brought forward by the former member of Parliament for Whitby, the Hon. Jim Flaherty, the Abilities Centre in Whitby. It is an icon in our community, one in which individuals are not made to feel like they need to be accommodated by our community but are welcomed in our community. I am very proud of that place.

I also want to talk about a couple of other individuals in Whitby, Allyson Partridge-Rios and her husband Andy. They volunteered for me. They are great individuals. Alison has cerebral palsy and epilepsy and Andy has an acquired brain injury. Before I came here, I worked for 10 years. I had a company that was a health care-based research management firm. I was the co-chair of Canada's first epidemiology study around neurological conditions. I worked with individuals who had Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, brain injuries, cerebral palsy. I saw what these individuals could contribute to our community.

They contribute not a disability, but an ability to bring their experience to everything we do, to bring their knowledge, their experience, their insight to our policies, to our return on investment for our companies and to our communities. Alison and Andy wanted me to mention that this legislation would give them peace of mind. It would help ensure inclusivity and accessibility, while supporting each other with their diverse needs. We are discussing exactly that today.

I also want to mention an individual in my riding, Niki Lundquist. She has been a great supporter, a great friend and she has never ceased to speak out about issues that are important to the people of Whitby. She never ceases to speak out about issues that are relevant to ensuring our community is better-off.

I will take this last minute to speak for Nikki, Nikki wants to ensure this legislation passes. She wants to ensure we do everything possible to look after those in our community who are most vulnerable, ensuring they have the support of their government.

I will not have the time to speak to the Senate amendment about intersectionality, but my constituents have spoken to it. They have done so in a way that allows us to understand that as individuals with different intersecting identities move forward throughout our country, they are challenged. With the amendments, this piece of legislation would make it a more inclusive, a more accessible and a more Canadian place.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, I have a reminder to all hon. members.

Of course it is always an honour when we greet Canadians here to view the proceedings here in the House of Commons. I wish to remind hon. members they are not permitted to bring specific attention to members in the gallery either by name or through gestures. Certainly, when that time is needed, members have made general comments about paying tribute to guests who happen to be visiting Parliament Hill and so on, so this is a way they can bring acknowledgement in a general way to our special guests who come to see us here in the House of Commons.

We will now go to questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not going to be a super tough question. Full disclosure: the hon. member for Whitby is a good friend of mine and has been for the last four years as we have worked together on things that we very much care about. She spent her life before politics helping the most vulnerable.

One of my favourite sources of wisdom is John Wooden, a former basketball coach, and one of his pieces of advice was to “surround yourself with smart people who'll argue with you.” That advice is more welcome with some people than others. I very much welcome that advice. I really appreciate the fact that when I sit down and chat with my friend, I may not always agree with her but I am always challenged by her in terms of her ideas.

The question I have is relevant to her situation and her experience here after four years. What we have seen with this legislation is the ability of associations coming together and finding common ground. I would like the hon. member to comment on what lessons we can learn here in this place about the importance of working together on issues like this and finding that common ground in the best interest of Canadians.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Independent, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy sparring with my colleague, if I may so, and he has taught me so much about being in this place. I really want to thank him as it might be one of my last chances to publicly do so.

I want to apologize for drawing attention to people in the House. I wanted to say that they were here in Ottawa and not necessarily in this place.

I mentioned in my speech that this particular piece of legislation brought together the ability to show leadership by stakeholders, the committee and members in this place across the aisles and in the other place, and not just in terms of federal jurisdiction but in terms of Canada at large. As well, we need to ensure persons with disabilities have access and that we honour them in a way that is inclusive and respectful of their ideas and perspectives they bring to not just our policy but our businesses, schools and communities.

It was a collaborative approach that allowed us to see the best of ourselves in this place. It allowed us to work together, talk among each other and say that we agree to disagree but we are going to have common ground. I believe that the member—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the debate on this important bill has been so good and so positive and I am really grateful for all of the MPs who have participated.

In 2013, I was sworn in as minister of state for social development and had the privilege of working with and under the former member for Whitby, the late Jim Flaherty, who was a huge champion for people with disabilities. That was reflected in each and every budget that Conservatives delivered from 2006 right up until 2015.

When I worked on that file, one of the things I was so incredibly inspired by when I worked with people with disabilities, who have amazing abilities, is the focus on the abilities that these wonderful Canadians bring to us in every aspect of life. I remember very clearly that so many of them would tell me that they want to get to work, they want to work, they want the opportunity to have jobs, to participate in the workforce and contribute with their ideas and skills. We have seen some great examples of that over the years.

I am wondering if my colleague from Whitby, who is fortunate to live in the community where the Abilities Centre is located, can talk about people with a wide variety of abilities being involved in the workforce and how we can help them do more of that.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Independent, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are great examples in Whitby. The Tim Hortons in Whitby employs many individuals with various levels of ability in employment. Speaking now not as a member of Parliament, but providing research as my background is in research, we know that individuals with disabilities tend to give more to corporations. They tend to be dedicated, trustworthy and able to be relied upon. I want us to stop talking about these individuals as if they are somewhat different from us. They are better and I want that to be acknowledged in this place.

Before I close, I want to thank Laura and Frank on Twitter for reminding me that services for the deaf are critically important in making sure our spaces are more inclusive.