Debates of Oct. 17th, 2022

Canada Disability Benefit Act

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

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to share a few thoughts in regard to the importance of the legislation, and one of the roles the federal government has to play is to support Canadians directly. Through Bill C-22, we would see substantial support for people with disabilities. I am wondering if my friend could provide his thoughts in terms of the important role governments, and particularly the Government of Canada, play in supporting the people of Canada.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, the income supports the federal government provides make a world of difference to many different people. We see over $60 billion delivered to seniors between old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. The lowest poverty rate among any demographic we see in this country is among seniors as a result of that. Should we do more to help seniors? Of course we should, but the work the federal government does, in particular the income supports that are provided, is instrumental in ensuring we are reducing the poverty rate among seniors, as we have.

Similarly, the Canada child benefit has demonstrably dropped the child poverty rate in this country. We are now spending $30 billion and more to deliver for families with kids, but for both working-age Canadians, those on the Canada workers benefit, there is still much to do. For people with disabilities, who are disproportionately represented in those national poverty numbers I referenced in my speech, we absolutely need to do more. When we look at the transformation of poverty in seniors with respect to the guaranteed income supplement, if we do the very same thing for people with disabilities through the benefit contemplated in Bill C-22, we are going to make a world of difference there as well.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know full well that my colleague has been passionate in advocating for this disability benefit. I would like to hear from him about the criticism or the approach that some people have that this is charity and should be done outside of government, or that this is something that does not belong to a government program.

I would like to hear the hon. member on that and have his thoughts on just how important it is to help disabled people have financial autonomy.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on that question of autonomy, because fundamentally this legislation is about dignity and ensuring that every single person in our society can live a life of dignity. That comes with ensuring that an individual has enough support to realize their own passions and to realize their own endeavours. It comes with that kind of autonomy.

There is an old quote from Dostoyevsky that says, “Money is coined liberty”. That kind of freedom is not freedom from something, but it is freedom to do something. If we do not realize that kind of freedom for everyone in society, especially people with disabilities and in some cases people who are unable to provide for themselves despite their working age, then we are missing an absolute foundational core component of what governments ought to be delivering for our society. We, as a government, need to provide that minimum floor and social safety net, so that no person, whether it is someone with a disability or not, falls below.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today as the representative of the people of Châteauguay—Lacolle to speak to Bill C-22.

As members already know, Bill C-22 is framework legislation that 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. That is a very important point. It is framework legislation. All of the negotiations and details will be worked out later among the provincial, territorial and federal governments and, most importantly, those who are most affected, namely, people with disabilities. This legislation will also make a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

As mentioned by my colleagues during this debate, the following benefit components are some of the ones that will be established through regulation: the eligibility criteria for a Canada disability benefit, the conditions that must be met in order to receive or continue to receive the benefit, the amount that recipients of this benefit will receive, the manner in which a benefit is to be indexed to inflation, the payment periods and the amount to be paid for each period, and the application process for the benefit.

In my region, Bill C-22 is music to the ears of people with disabilities and all those who work to improve their quality of life. I am therefore pleased that there is unanimous consent in the House to move this bill forward as quickly as possible. That demonstrates that all political parties understand the importance of the Canada disability benefit for some of the most vulnerable Canadians in the country.

Everyone understands that people with disabilities face unique barriers and situations, especially when it comes to health care, welfare and financial security. According to one interesting statistic I read, nearly one in four Canadians—21% of us—has a disability. Some of those people are members of Parliament. I think that, one way or another, we will all find ourselves in that situation at some point. The difference is that those of us in the House are financially privileged, which is not necessarily the case for people who are born with a disability or who acquire a disability at a young age due to an accident. Clearly, this can have a huge impact on their financial independence. We can make a big difference in their lives by providing the financial tools that enable them to participate more fully in society. This is about independence and human dignity.

In my riding, Châteauguay—Lacolle, and I suspect across the country, the community has long been aware of challenges facing persons with disabilities. We have created a number of volunteer and non-profit organizations to meet some of their needs.

It is often families who take the lead in helping their children, young adults or older relatives with disabilities break their isolation and benefit from educational supports for training, socialization and help with daily tasks.

These people work every single day, for years on end, to provide a better quality of life for their loved ones, and they often do so at the expense of their own physical health and financial security. That is why I think the government has a responsibility to help them, and why Bill C-22 is so important. I believe that other members in the House feel the same way.

I would like to salute all the volunteers and employees who work with people with disabilities in my riding. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Centre multifonctionnel Horizon in Lery, which is a non-institutional resource for people with all kinds of disabilities. It was the life's work of a wonderful mother and advocate for these vulnerable people, the late Lyne Loiselle. This wonderful project, the Horizon Centre, offers stimulating activities and respite stays for dozens of families in our region.

Not far from where I live, in Châteauguay, the Mouvement Action Découverte's mission for the past 40 years has been to increase the individual and collective autonomy of people of all ages with an intellectual disability through educational activities to help youth become more independent.

Les Toits d'Émile in Châteauguay, Chez-nous solidaire in Mercier and Vents d'espoir in Saint‑Rémi were also founded by extraordinary parents who wanted to help not just their own children with disabilities but those of others. Their efforts are not focused on providing just community and social support services, but above all on providing housing to foster their independence in an inclusive community.

However, these charitable organizations alone cannot provide all the solutions. They already struggle to fund their own activities. Since we know that persons with disabilities are twice as likely to live in poverty as those who are not disabled, we, as members of a fair and just society, must ensure that they have the financial support to promote their independence and ability to actively participate in our social economy. That is why our government introduced new legislation that will establish the framework for a new Canadian benefit for persons with disabilities.

It is important to mention that this benefit, the cornerstone of our disability inclusion action plan would complement, not replace existing federal, provincial and territorial support measures to lift hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities out of poverty.

In the spirit of the “nothing without us” principle, we will continue to work with the provinces and territories and with the disability community to ensure that this benefit is designed with their needs in mind.

The Canadian disability benefit will help address the financial difficulties people with disabilities have been facing for a long time. It will create a more open economy and society. The benefit has the potential to significantly reduce poverty among the hundreds of thousands of Canadians in this situation. The benefit will thus become an important component of Canada's social safety net, along with old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada child benefit.

We are not talking about charity here, because we need everyone to be able to participate in our social economy. That is a dream of the people of Châteauguay—Lacolle, and we want to make it come true.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, when the minister started the debate on the Canada disability benefit act, she stated that a sum would be paid to each person who is eligible for the benefit. The problem with the wording of the bill is that it does not say how much the person would receive or who would be eligible. There is no mention of the eligibility criteria, which will be determined by cabinet.

In the first days of the debate, I mentioned that the Old Age Security Act would be a good example to follow for making amendments to Bill C‑22.

Would the member be prepared to copy some sections and paragraphs from the Old Age Security Act to ensure that persons with disabilities in Canada will be entitled to a benefit similar to the one that was created by the Old Age Security Act?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I know that this is a very important issue for him.

We want this benefit to be a supplement, not a replacement. We understand that each province has its own system and its own programs, that there are tax credits, that programs are sometimes established based on very complex criteria, and so on.

That is why it is important to get this framework legislation in place first. Then we can negotiate the amounts. We certainly want it to provide an additional, adequate and reasonable income.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle for her speech.

Last month, I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-22. I myself have a family member who lived a good part of his life as a person with a disability, but who has unfortunately passed away. I also had the opportunity to speak with Marie-Christine Hon, who heads up the disability advocacy group Dynamique des handicapés de Granby et région. She told me that the bill currently lacks details.

We just talked about how this benefit must be a complement. It must not be deducted from what is already being offered in Quebec and in the provinces.

Since today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, can my colleague assure us that the federal government will try to deliver this money as quickly as possible and give as many details as possible to the organizations?

I think people with disabilities deserve it.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague across the way. I think we share a basic principle: We must not act in others' stead.

I would like to offer my condolences on the death of her loved one. I understand how hard it is for families, because I know someone in the same situation near where I live. It is very difficult for friends and family.

We know one thing for sure, though. As much as possible, people with disabilities want to have their say, so it is not up to the federal government to tell people how it will work. We need to talk with stakeholders and with our provincial partners.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, indigenous peoples with disabilities face extra challenges when trying to access services and, I am sure, will have extra challenges trying to access this benefit once it is available to them.

I wonder if the member could agree that indigenous peoples with disabilities will need to get special provisions in trying to access these services, especially when they prefer to speak or be heard in their indigenous languages like Inuktitut, which is not a federal official language.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is something that I am seeing in my riding, and it is not something that was obvious. We neighbour Kahnawake, which is a very proud and independent nation, but our local organization has been able to partner with social services at Kahnawake to provide projects such as supportive housing for youth in transit, because, of course, the youth are mobile across the territory. However, there are indigenous, certainly Mohawk, social workers and support staff who are working within the project. There was no go-ahead unless we had the shared partnership of our two communities.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Before we resume debate, I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-22 and, more broadly, to the situation confronting Canadians living with disabilities.

Bill C-22 proposes a new federal financial benefit for Canadians living with disabilities, however, it does not actually define many aspects of the structure of this benefit. I will be voting in favour of the legislation, because I agree with the principle of providing the support, but I am concerned about some of the lacking substance with respect to how this benefit would actually work.

Increasingly, we see from the government a desire to limit the actual work of Parliament in defining the nature and scope of programs. Instead, the government wants a blank cheque from Parliament, legislation that authorizes ministers to shape and define a program independently, according to their discretion.

In general, this is not a good way for governments to operate in a democracy and, in particular, I do not think the Liberal government has shown itself trustworthy when it comes to working out the details of critical programs.

When it comes to the structure of this benefit, the government's message is “just trust us.” From a government that cannot figure out how to deliver passports in a timely manner, cannot address the affordability crisis in Canada and cannot secure our borders, the message of “just trust us” seems rather hollow.

I have two specific concerns about the prospective structure of this program that I do want to highlight.

First, I share the concern of many about how this program would interact with other existing programs, including those provided at the provincial level. If a new federal benefit leads to a loss of eligibility for other existing benefits, then it would leave people worse off overall. It is not inevitable that this would be the case, but this is a matter that will require careful and respectful dialogue with other levels of government and hard work at every stage, hard work that the government has not always been prepared to do.

At this point, the government is passing broad framework legislation without ensuring that it will actually leave Canadians with disabilities better off in every case. The government does not have to wait for this legislation to pass to begin those discussions and I would encourage it to actually engage those discussions now about protecting existing benefits, because aspects of those dialogues may inform suggested amendments.

The second concern I have is that it is critically important that the structure of this benefit program protects access for Canadians with disabilities who are working or are trying to get into work. Even with existing benefit programs at other levels, certain Canadians with disabilities may find themselves in a position where entering the workforce actually leaves them worse off. It is critically important that work always leaves people better off financially.

Supporting Canadians, including Canadians living with disabilities, in being able to access meaningful work has long been a key priority for Conservatives.

Why is this important? Overwhelmingly, Canadians of all backgrounds and circumstances want to be able to work and are happier and more fulfilled if they are able to work. In this context, by work, I do not just mean commodified work, but work of any sort, where individuals exert themselves in order to contribute positively to the world around them.

The science of happiness and fulfillment measurement shows us that work generally makes people happier by providing them with meaning and with a workplace-based community, and with a greater level of power and agency. Quite apart from the notably important income-earning properties of work, work also provides meaning and happiness, totally independent of whether it generates income.

Think tank Cardus has done excellent work on this question of work and disability. It has found that most Canadians living with disabilities want to work or want to work more, but it has also found that the vast majority of public policy, focus and money has been toward income support as opposed to supports that help people get into work.

The critical point about work support and income support is that they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, often, they are necessarily complementary. Some people require income support in order to afford the resources and transportation required to find and get a job in the first place. If income supports are withdrawn immediately once people work or start work, they may not be able to afford vital necessities, as well as the things they need to sustain them in their new job.

Having both fulfilling work and steady income are vital for human happiness and fulfillment. Having income without work or work without income are both, in a sense, problematic.

Of course, having income is not just about fulfillment and happiness; it is about basic survival. Canadians with disabilities need income to take care of their own needs and the needs of those they love.

For most of us, work comes with earning income. However, when benefit programs are poorly structured, people may actually be forced to choose between work and income, because benefits are cut off or income is lost as a result of working. In such cases, given how essential income is for survival, people will understandably choose income over work if they are forced to choose between these things. It is cruel and pointless to force people to make this choice, to choose between the happiness associated with work and receiving the financial support that they need.

Income supports for Canadians with disabilities can and should go hand in hand with workplace support, only peeling those income supports back gradually when it is clear that income support is not required because of the level that an individual is able to work.

We saw an example of this terrible choice between work and income during the pandemic with the poorly constructed CERB program. Unemployed Canadians who were accessing CERB, and who were then offered part-time work, were in many cases actually worse off financially if they took that work because part-time work would push them over the threshold for CERB eligibility, even if they were not earning close to what they would have been entitled to receive under CERB. Thus people were forced to remain out of work in order to access the resources they needed to support their families.

Not only does it make zero financial or economic sense to create a financial disincentive to work, but it also puts people in the painful position of needing to choose between the happiness and dignity that come from work on the one hand and from financial security on the other hand. That is why we feel it is very important that this new federal program be structured in such a way that Canadians with disabilities, many of whom can and do work, or want to work, are not rendered worse off by entering the work force.

There is nothing in the text of the bill that would suggest it could not be structured in a way to ensure that work always pays, but the past record of the government gives us significant cause for concern. In the 42nd Parliament, the member for Carleton, now the leader of the Conservative Party, proposed Bill C-395, a bill specifically designed to address this problem of work sometimes bringing about a loss in benefits for Canadians living with disabilities.

Bill C-395 would have amended the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to ensure that, in negotiations around transfers and the construction of benefits for Canadians living with disabilities, people with disabilities would not lose more through taxation and the reduction of benefits than they gain as a result of working. It would have protected Canadians with disabilities from these kinds of perverse situations where they would have to choose between the happiness that comes from work or the financial security that comes from government benefits.

If Bill C-395 were the law of the land, we could then pass this bill, even as written, with the confidence that the benefits constructed would leave people better off, but when it came to a vote on Bill C-395, Liberals actually opposed it. Liberals opposed the common-sense proposal from our leader to ensure that Canadians who work are better off as a result of the money they earn.

Sadly, Liberals do not seem to appreciate the value, dignity and happiness that comes from hard work. I am not sure if it can be found in the scope of this legislation as written, but I would welcome amendments that would capture the spirit of our leader's past work to protect Canadians with disabilities from being punished for working.

Parenthetically, I want to say something directly to employers about hiring Canadians with disabilities. Research done by Cardus shows that many employers have an exaggerated perception of the cost associated with accommodation. Cardus' work shows that including and accommodating employees with disabilities is often much cheaper than employers initially expect and that funding may be available from different levels of government for businesses, including small businesses, seeking to accommodate customers and employees living with disabilities.

Further, as our leader has previously shared in the context of speaking to Bill C-395, there are many cases of Canadians with disabilities who make incredible, committed and loyal employees who bring unique competencies for the workplace. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that poorly structured benefit programs do not undermine the ability of Canadians to access work, but employers also need to lead in pushing aside stereotypes and recognizing the contributions that Canadians with disabilities can make to their workplace. Many employers are already doing this, and I congratulate those who are doing this already.

Those were the main points I wanted to make on Bill C-22, but it is also very important to speak to the context of the legislation, which is the significant negative impacts on the lives of Canadians living with disabilities that flow from the government's radical ableist approach to euthanasia, the so-called MAID regime. We simply cannot have a conversation about financial benefits separate from a recognition that the biggest threat to the lives of Canadians living with disabilities is that those without disabilities are much more likely to be offered suicide prevention and recovery support, while our brothers and sisters, cousins and friends who are living with disabilities are being denied those supports and actively pushed towards death, even if they are saying they do not want it.

Among those who support legal euthanasia around the world, Canada is still increasingly seen as a cautionary tale, a warning of what not to do. In this vein, I want to start with a bit of history. Euthanasia in Canada started with Bill C-14, which was passed in the 42nd Parliament. This legislation affixed the name “medical assistance in dying” to what had previously been called euthanasia, the process of doctors killing a consenting patient. That legislation sought to define a regime whereby people could choose hastened death if their death was deemed reasonably foreseeable.

I criticized the legislation at the time for, among other things, not being sufficiently clear about what was actually meant by “reasonably foreseeable”. Indeed, there were significant abuses, even in the immediate aftermath of the passage of the legislation, whereby doctors determined someone's death to be reasonably foreseeable based on a string of hypotheticals when a person had nothing approaching a terminal condition.

For example, back in 2016, I highlighted a case in Vancouver where a physician declared a depressed person eligible for euthanasia without examining the individual because that patient “could easily get bed sores and then die of infection”. A person's death was, prior to examination, declared reasonably foreseeable because the person could theoretically die from an as yet uncontracted bed sore infection if they were bed bound as a result of the depression. These were the kinds of perverse outcomes that were possible even in 2016 as a result of a lack of safeguards and the ambiguity around what was meant by “reasonably foreseeable”.

The current rules allow someone also to consult many different physicians before finding two who will approve. Therefore, if 20 or 200 doctors say no, the criteria are not met, but then two say yes, the criteria are met, then the killing of the patient can proceed. The ambiguity and the opportunity to consult multiple doctors before getting the desired result means that, indeed, the holes were, and still are, large enough to drive a truck through. These were the pre-existing problems that were already, in particular, raising concerns of the disability community. The lack of clarity around what were and were not circumstances where death was reasonably foreseeable opened the door for people who were living with disabilities to be encouraged to pursue MAID, even if they did not want to, and even if they were actually not eligible.

Members do not have to take my word for it because the minister responsible for this legislation, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion of Canada, during a subsequent discussion of Bill C-7, said, “I regularly hear from families who are appalled by the fact that they take their child, potentially their older child and are offered unprovoked MAID. I think that has to stop.” That is from a minister in the government. This was already the context following the passage of Bill C-14 and prior to the passage of Bill C-7.

The road to Bill C-7 was much more contrived than the road to bill C-14. The already nebulous reasonable foreseeability clause was challenged and a lower court in one province proposed to overturn this restriction. The federal government could have appealed that lower court decision and, indeed, had a strong basis for doing so. An appeal would, at the very least, have given parliamentarians more time to consider a broad range of legislative options. Instead, the government made a political choice to embrace the lower court ruling and the artificial timeline it created, pushing medical assistance in dying for Canadians with disabilities. This was not about following a court ruling. This was about something the government could have appealed, but wanted to use the court ruling to advocate for a long-standing objective.

Following this contrived process, the government put forward Bill C-7, which was rightly opposed by all of the leading organizations representing Canadians living with disabilities, as well as by domestic and international human rights authorities.

Krista Carr from Inclusion Canada said, “Inclusion Canada has advocated for safeguards in MAID since we intervened in the Carter case. Our biggest fear has always been that having a disability would become an acceptable reason for state-provided suicide. Bill C-7 is our worst nightmare.” She continued, “By having a disability itself under Bill C-7 as the justification for the termination of life, the very essence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be shattered. Discrimination on the basis of disability would once again be entrenched in Canadian law.”

She said further that the “singling out of one particular...group” of people based on their personal characteristics, which happen to be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to use those as grounds to justify the termination of the lives of the people who have those characteristics is just wrong, and that we would never consider doing this for any other group of people, including those who are indigenous, racialized or LGBTQ.

Dr. Heidi Janz from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities said:

People with disabilities are at a higher risk of suicide due to systemic and internalized ableism, yet they face substantial barriers when trying to access suicide prevention services. Medical professionals overlook typical sources of stress. Problems arising from relationship breakdowns, depression and isolation are wrongly attributed to disability. The removal of “reasonably foreseeable” natural death as a limiting eligibility criterion for the provision of MAID will result in people with disabilities seeking MAID as an ultimate capitulation to a lifetime of ableist oppression.

Finally, Bonnie Brayton from the DisAbled Women's Network of Canada pointed out, “Bill C-7, is sadly lacking in any meaningful public consultation with any people with disabilities despite how much more profoundly it could affect anyone who lives with a disability.” The disability community overwhelmingly opposed Bill C-7 and has repeatedly raised concerns about negative pressure and coercion impacting Canadians living with disabilities.

What about autonomy? The government would argue that Bill C-7 provides people with disabilities the option of medically facilitated death, but they do not have to chose that option. It is just another option that people have. To this, I would note that autonomy is always expressed in a social, legal and economic context. The context is that many Canadians living with disabilities struggle to access the key supports and services they need.

We do not have sufficient workplace supports in place and there are gaps in terms of community and income supports. In that context, the law and the medical system say to a person living with a disability that they have a simple way out and they can choose to die. If someone is at a point of existential agony and they have a disability, then the system will offer them death as a supposed solution.

In effect, if a person like me, without a disability, is experiencing existential distress and suicidal ideation, and if I were to discuss that distress with a doctor, I would be offered suicide prevention. However, if a person with a disability, the same as me in every other respect, is experiencing the same existential distress and suicidal ideations, and they discuss their distress with a doctor, they will be offered suicide facilitation by that same medical system.

That difference in the way the law and the health system treat those living with and without disabilities obviously sends a message to everyone involved in those interactions about whose life the law and the health system deem to be more or less worth living. The Liberal government has built a staircase to suicide prevention and a ramp to suicide facilitation.

As much as members opposite would like to say that this is about autonomy, the social and legal context that the government has created is not neutral and it is, in fact, discriminatory. Disability rights groups overwhelmingly see this reality, which is why they have been diametrically opposed to the approach of the government, and so much for “nothing about us without us”.

Canadians with disabilities feel devalued by a system that offers them easy death and does not offer them critical supports to live. Sadly, the mentality of the medical system is changing as well in response to these legal changes. The House has heard from many witnesses at different times and in different communities where patients were repeatedly pushed toward death and even called selfish for rejecting that option.

I will quote the minister again who said herself, “I regularly hear from families who are appalled by the fact that they take their child, potentially their older child and are offered unprovoked MAID. I think that has to stop.”

In response to the testimony we heard, Conservatives sought to amend Bill C-7 to guarantee that a physician or other health care worker would not raise euthanasia or MAID with a patient, unless the patient raises it first. This amendment would have ensured that, for instance, a person with a disability who goes to the doctor for something unrelated would not be offered facilitated death out of the blue. This would have solved the problem the minister identified, but the government opposed this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the hon. member. We have a point of order from the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, he is completely off topic. We are talking about financial assistance for persons with disabilities, but he has spent the last 10 minutes talking about medical assistance in dying, which is a totally different subject.

I hope our colleague will get back on course.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I understand the hon. member's point of view, but as he knows, we do allow some latitude on how members talk about certain issues.

However, I would invite the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to get back to the subject of Bill C-22, which we are currently debating.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I will continue to exercise the rights I am given by the House to speak about this pertinent issue, which fundamentally relates to this legislation.

The government does not want to hear the many concerns raised by Canadians living with disabilities. This is critically linked to their quality of life. The structures the government has put in place are denying vital supports to Canadians who need them and pushing them toward this widening door the government has offered when it comes to facilitated suicide.

Again, the minister said, “I regularly hear from families who are appalled by the fact that they take their child, potentially their older child and are offered unprovoked MAID. I think that has to stop.”

Of course, the government wants to go even further. Next year in March, euthanasia for those with depression or other mental health challenges will become explicitly legal and the government is now studying euthanasia for children. In a world imagined by the current trajectory, a parent could bring a teenager suffering from depression to a counsellor and find that the teenager is being offered suicide facilitation instead of suicide prevention support.

Recently, Dr. Louis Roy from the Quebec College of Physicians recommended that euthanasia be legalized for infants with certain disabilities. Imagine that someone would actually come to a parliamentary committee in Canada and recommend the killing of young children because of their disability. So much for autonomy. I hope the government would have denounced the vile views expressed by Mr. Roy, but it has not so far.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I invite the hon. member to bring us back to Bill C-22, as we are going into a totally different bill, and the hon. member has one minute left.

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

Madam Speaker, I expect better when it comes to ruling on the rules. You know that there is broad latitude. I have a 20-minute speech. I spent the first half of the speech discussing financial benefits, and I said that I would spend the second half of the speech discussing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I will interrupt the hon. member to remind him that I was very broad in my interpretation of how the rules work, and the member had ample time to expose, precisely, the arguments he has been bringing forth. He has one minute left in his speech, and I would like to remind him to bring it back to Bill C-22. That is all I am saying.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, what I find to be extremely offensive about what just took place toward you is that the member pointed at you and said he expected better from you. That is not the way that any member of this House should treat the Chair, and not even the individual but the respect that is supposed to be shown to the Chair. I would encourage that member to apologize to the Chair.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for his care, but we in the chair know that we are subject to displeasing members.

The hon. member may proceed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that members of the government, like members of the Bloc, do not want to hear about the subject that is a pressing priority for Canadians living with disabilities. They would prefer to talk about how they are introducing generic framework legislation with no particulars. They do not want to talk about the fact that they have been called out by every disability rights organization in this country for the fact that they have put in place a framework that is denying vital supports to Canadians with disabilities while widening the push, for Canadians facing disabilities, toward facilitated death.

People living with disabilities have a great deal to contribute to society, and they need to be offered workplace supports alongside income supports. We also need to recognize that a person's dignity is not dependent on their circumstances, their context, their perceived productivity or their ability to contribute. Human dignity is inherent in all human beings.

I will vote for Bill C-22 while maintaining extreme concern about the way the government views and treats Canadians living with disabilities, and about its apparent lack of desire to hear from parliamentarians and to hear the legitimate concerns that organizations are repeatedly raising.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was going to make a joke about figures of speech and the need to educate my friend about figures of speech after reading his Twitter feed, but what I want to ask him about is specifically around the quantum that he thinks should be realized. He spoke about the vagueness of the legislation, the punting of some of the eligibility criteria and the punting of the quantum to the regulations. It is a fair criticism, and in the Old Age Security Act we do not do that as Parliament.

Having said that, would the member support a submission to finance, for the coming budget cycle, that says the amount should be no less for people with disabilities of working age than it is for low-income seniors?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not prepared to name a specific number on the fly, but I do agree in principle with my colleague that it would be legitimate to submit recommendations from parliamentarians to try to provide parameters around the appropriate numbers. I think that should be done in the context of not just saying a specific number for a benefit, but prescribing how the federal benefit would interact with benefits at other levels and how it would interact with the issues I raised about the need to provide appropriate support for Canadians entering the workforce.