Debates of Sept. 20th, 2022

Canada Disability Benefit Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I hate to cut the member off, because he was doing such a great job of using up all the time that was available to him. I want to thank the member for his intervention.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous comments today about how Bill C-22 is missing the eligibility criteria of who will receive the benefit, yet in Canada we have many insurance companies that provide disability benefits and have a comprehensive list of who qualifies for those.

Has the government consulted with these people, or would the government consider doing that, so that we could include eligibility criteria in Bill C-22?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoyed working with the member opposite on the HUMA committee.

In terms of the criteria she is inquiring about, as we had said earlier, we are going to be developing the criteria through consultation, including with persons with disabilities. I think it was Napoleon who said, he who sits in the saddle best knows where it pinches. In this case I think we should be consulting with the people who are most affected. We certainly are engaged in the process of doing so.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate since this morning, and I think that many members agree on the principle of this bill. However, the bill basically says nothing about the terms and conditions, criteria, process or accountability in particular.

According to my colleague, what mechanism will enable parliamentarians to measure the effectiveness of the regulations that will be enacted to ensure they uphold the fine principle we are discussing this morning?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also had the opportunity to work with the member opposite on the health committee, and I certainly appreciate his contributions in those areas as well.

In terms of accountability, with 30 years of banking experience, in my mind, of course accountability has to be critical. It is important that we set out expected outcomes and that people put together plans that measure against those expected outcomes. I fully expect the government will do so, and I am convinced we will develop a good plan and great criteria once we have finished consulting with people who have disabilities and the organizations that represent them. We will see what is important to the people who would be the beneficiaries of the program, and we will certainly set out to make sure we satisfy those needs.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given the high levels of poverty people with disabilities face, the fact that they are often living shadow lives of what they should be able to because of the fundamental inequities, I am very wary about making promises that cannot be delivered. My question to the member, in terms of this legislation, is about a credible plan to actually get it to people and ensure, particularly in my region of Ontario, that it will not be clawed back by the Doug Ford government. We have seen it go after poor people relentlessly. People are not able to pay their rent. People are not able to live in dignity. What steps can we see in this legislation that would protect people on disability from suffering these provincial clawbacks?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, coming from Ontario, I understand what the member is referring to. I might add that, during the previous campaign, in the town of Newmarket there was one elected on that member's side all the way down in Newmarket, Ontario, so I thought it was great to see that. However, in terms of the experience of having these clawbacks, there have been extensive discussions with all of the ministers within the provincial areas, and this program is intended to be incremental, not substitutional. The negotiations will not go forward until the incremental portion is solidly part of the program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised the bill is basically empty and will await regulations to tell us what we already know. There are already people in Canada on the disability tax credit. They need to have those benefits increased substantially. Why would we impose needs-based testing on people who need help now?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important we focus our resources on where the needs are most critical, and there needs to be a process to do so. In order to do that, there needs to be a needs-based testing program. I understand there is a critical need, and this program is intended to support people who have critical needs, such as people who are marginalized. People with disabilities certainly are highly represented in that area.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

We are here today talking about Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit. I am generally in favour of that and supportive of this draft legislation. We all want to see all Canadian citizens, regardless of their level of ability, able to participate fully in our economy and to be active participants in our society.

To start off, I am going to give a big shout-out to the many great organizations in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove that are doing the important work of helping people with disabilities, organizations like the Langley Pos-Abilities Society, which focuses on people's abilities rather than their disabilities. I was a participant in a competition put on by this organization a couple of years ago at a public event in one of our parks, where one of the tests was for us, in wheelchairs, to negotiate ourselves around some obstacles, such as opening a door, getting through it and pulling ourselves up a ramp. There was another test that required us to put something very technical together while blindfolded. There was yet another test that I recall that required us to do a simple task like putting butter on our toast with our dominant hands tied behind our backs. Coming out of that, I had a new respect for people who struggle with disabilities in their everyday lives, but also for the great organizations that work with them.

When looking at Bill C-22, I was happy to see that it is premised on the constitutional concept of equality, so I thought I would look at this draft legislation from a constitutional perspective. The preamble section, which is a very important part of any legislation, talks about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That document recognizes the “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”. The preamble of the bill also talks about our own Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically section 15, which is our equality section. Section 15 says, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination”, and there is a list of enumerated things that cannot be discriminated against, including mental and physical health, which brings us to Bill C-22.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been with us for 40 years. It is instinctive for us now. It is part of the world view that shapes our sense of justice and how the government should interact with its citizens. However, even though it is instinctive, it does not mean that it is simple. It is a very complicated question. Anytime we talk about equality, it opens up questions like how proactive the government must be to ensure that all citizens have equal opportunities or perhaps equal outcomes of their programs, or does section 15 simply mean that a law, once passed, must not contravene or breach section 15.

To underline the complexity of this principle, which has not just been invented recently, Nobel Prize-winning author from the late 19th century and early 20th century, Anatole France, put it this way, sarcastically of course, in majestic equality, laws “forbid rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” We have an instinct that says that equal treatment is not always fair, and fairness is not always equal.

There is a British Columbia case that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada that really underlined that principle. A young woman, healthy and fully able-bodied, wanted to work for the B.C. forest fire service and passed all the requirements, except for one. She failed the test under the uniform minimum aerobic standards for firefighters. She simply was not strong enough. She challenged this under section 15 of the charter. The B.C. government argued, saying it did not contravene section 15 at all because it applied equally to men and women. The Supreme Court of Canada saw through that and said, no, it has a disproportionate discriminatory effect on women. That case is important for this proposition. Courts should look not only at how a law is applied but also its effect on individuals.

With all of this background, I picked up Bill C-22 with a great deal of interest, to see how it would tackle these complex legal questions, and the answer is that it would not at all. This bill dealing with such an important and complex question is scarcely six pages long. One page is the preamble, which I have already mentioned. There are a couple of pages about some technical things. There are two pages, fully one-third of this draft legislation, that talk about the regulatory power that this Parliament is being asked to give to cabinet.

I was very happy to hear the minister and also the parliamentary secretary say that one of the reasons they wanted to give cabinet such broad regulatory power was to ensure that there would be consultation with people affected by it. I completely agree with that. I might just add as a side note that I was very happy to hear that my friend, Stephanie Cadieux, formerly an MLA from my neighbouring riding, has been appointed to this, so I am somewhat more optimistic that the government is now going to do a good job. However, I am really puzzled as to why, wanting to consult with the community that is going to be most affected by this, the government thinks that it is appropriate to bypass the important work that this Parliament does.

I said that I am supportive of this legislation. I really am. I will be voting in favour of it at second reading, together with my colleagues, to bring this to committee. However, coming out of committee, I would expect that these important questions are going to be answered. They have been raised by many of the previous speakers, including questions like how we should define disability, who qualifies for the benefit, how much the disability benefit is going to be in dollars and cents, what it is going to cost the government coffers, whether there will be means testing and who would get to qualify. We want to help disabled people, but are we going to be helping rich people? Will there be clawbacks?

I was talking to my brother just the other day. He was disabled by Parkinson's, and I told him that we were going to be talking about this topic this week. He said that, whatever we do, we should make sure workers are not disincentivized from working. I happy to hear the minister say that would not be the case, although the legislation does not actually say that. I think she is saying to trust that they are going to do it right.

Parliament has a very important function, which is to review legislation. So far, it looks like what the government is asking for is a blank cheque to be able to do the work behind closed doors, and the Liberals are just saying for us to trust the government to get it right. We are going to be looking to the committee to have a thorough review of this legislation, and we will be looking for answers to these very important questions.

I might add just one more point, which is that my province, and I am sure every province, has some sort of a program to help disabled people. We are not hearing anything about how this Canada disability benefit program would mesh with provincial jurisdictions and organizations. Is there going to be a whole new federal bureaucracy to manage this? These are the questions we need answers to.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, just picking up on the last point that the member made with respect to the provincial jurisdiction and other supports that might be coming from provinces, I am curious. Would the member agree that it is very important that whatever is rolled out from the federal government is not used as an opportunity to roll back at the provincial level? We need to safeguard any benefits that would be coming from the federal level to ensure that those are not just opportunities for the provinces to look for savings, but in fact that this would be something that builds upon anything that might exist within a province. Would he agree that this should be important when considering this legislation?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, under another part of our Constitution, section 92.13 of the Constitution Act, 1867, property and civil rights come under the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces. I would say this is exclusively a provincial jurisdiction. The only way the federal government can get involved in this is to work together with provinces. I would completely agree with the member opposite that whatever the federal government does has to be supplemental to what the provinces are doing and not in substitution thereof. The negotiations need to make that a condition.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was saying earlier that the bill bypasses the work of Parliament by giving cabinet too much regulatory power.

This bill covers an important topic and principles that we all seem to agree on. What is more, the real work of the bill would be done through the regulations. For all these reasons, would my colleague agree to add a clause to the bill to ensure that parliamentarians are able to review the regulations and provide their input?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting proposition. My understanding of the legislative process is that Parliament gives cabinet, the Governor in Council, authority to make regulations. Every bill we pass and review here has a regulations section. This one is just so broad; that is what is unusual about it. Regulations are usually there for setting fees, the application form and appeal procedures if somebody is dissatisfied with a decision of the minister.

I do not know that it is appropriate for cabinet to come back to us with the regulations. What is appropriate is for the legislation itself to have, for example, a good and thorough definitions section that deals with all these things. This is generally what we see in federal legislation. It is what we need to do.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a part that is important for many Canadians who are watching to know is that we really want to see this legislation get to committee. This House expressed itself unanimously just before we broke, to make sure this actually gets done. Canadians have been waiting nearly seven years. Would the member agree that while we look at some of the regulations present within it, we also look at some of the programs of the provinces that the member mentioned for eligibility and that they be adopted by this legislation to ensure that no one is left behind?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. It is this body that should be looking at who qualifies, whether there are going to be clawbacks, how much it is going to cost and what the dollar amount is. These are the sorts of things that should be in the legislation and not in the regulations.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill and debate allow me to bring up a couple of people within my riding. One is my own daughter, who lives with a high-functioning disability, and another is Jenna Wuthrich, an indigenous mouth artist who is confined to a wheelchair and needs to crowdfund to try to get her only way of transportation because, as many know who have adult children who live with disabilities, one ages out of programs.

As with any legislation, the devil is in the details. We need to make sure it is done correctly out of the gate, so we know who is eligible, for how long, and what the needs-based assessment is. This bill is very important. I ask my hon. colleague to further expand on the due diligence being done now and whether Parliament has a say in it.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is Parliament's function to look at exactly those questions about what the qualifications are going to be. The regulations should be limited to the more technical aspects of the functioning of the program. On his example of people who age out, this is exactly what the citizens of this country want. They want to see all people being treated fairly and equally. This is what section 15 of our charter is all about.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

The government is attempting to create a Canada disability benefit to supplement existing provincial benefits for low-income persons with disabilities, modelling it after the Canada child benefit and guaranteed income supplement.

Conservatives, as we heard, will support the Canada disability benefit at this time, because we believe in principle it is the government’s intent to reduce poverty among Canadians living with disabilities. Conservatives believe strongly that the government must do all it can to provide support for the most vulnerable among us.

One in five Canadians has a disability. These people need our help to live their lives to the fullest and to participate fully in society, including in the labour market.

Conservatives believe that Canadians living with disabilities deserve timely access to benefits and services and should not be penalized for going to work, as is so often the case today.

The creation of the Canada disability benefit should consider the complex web of programs currently in place, which, for many Canadians with disabilities, can result in actual benefit cuts and higher taxes because they work.

I know different people on disability for whom just the little work they are able to do helps them financially, but it also helps them psychologically and helps their entire well-being. Too often the Liberal government has pursued an “Ottawa knows best” approach, leaving many Canadians behind as they try to access federal supports and services.

Conservatives believe that the federal government should work with the provinces to ensure that federal programs do not impact or hurt Canadians and are not working at cross-purposes.

We are concerned that applying for the Canada disability benefit may result in difficult and bureaucratic processes. Canadians are at the breaking point with government bureaucracy. There is a Service Canada office in the same block as mine, and every day there are lineups, people waiting for hours oftentimes, to be able to get service, or not. This should not be. That is a concern that we have. If we are bringing this new benefit, there must be timely access.

The ArriveCAN app is another example of bureaucracy. There are bottlenecks in our airports, cutting down tourism and international travel. This is on the Liberal government.

As we await further details on the Canada disability benefit, Canadians believe that the Liberal government must ensure that Canadians who qualify are able to access their benefits in a timely fashion.

Have members ever heard of the Potemkin villages? The Potemkin villages were named after Grigory Potemkin. He was a Russian aristocrat during the time of Catherine the Great, the empress of Russia in the 1700s. He built these villages, as the empress was going to visit Crimea for the first time, to show that people were living very well and that they had nice houses. The only problem was that it was all fake. When the empress stopped for the night, they would move this fake village to the next place, on and on.

What is my point in bringing this forward? There are appearances. My concern is that, with the Liberal government, they have good things, good policies here in place, like we have right now with the disability act, but they are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. So much of what they are doing is actually undermining the most vulnerable of Canadians.

Today it was announced that the consumer price index numbers showed the price of food going up 10.8%. It is a 40-year high. Life is getting harder for Canadians.

There needs to be a little more consistency when it comes to the approach of the Liberal government, supported by the NDP. There needs to be a consistency, because we are not seeing that.

The cost of goods and services is skyrocketing. Inflation is eating away at what Canadians can afford and what they are putting on their tables. The price of gasoline in Vancouver is nearly $2 a litre, double what it was a year ago. We can compare that to Alberta, where it is 70¢ cheaper a litre. A lot of the difference is in the taxes.

I have a suspicion that perhaps the Liberals do not really care about its impact because it is due to “dirty fuel”, but it has an impact. Somebody I care about came over to our place. He has been struggling with disabilities and is finding it hard to make ends meet. He ran out of gas on the way to my place and did not have any money to get more gas.

These taxes, such as the carbon tax, are hurting the most vulnerable. It is putting a lot of pressure on people. We see it in our bills. We also see that it is impacting farmers. They are having to pay these taxes. It goes on to the consumers. Everything is rising more and more. Conservatives have called for no more new taxes. This is it. We need to think of everybody. These consumption taxes, the taxes on CPP and EI benefits, which are just automatically going up, are hurting the most vulnerable.

If they cared, they would stop these taxes and they would watch the way they are spending money. It is really impacting our society. It is not whether one has an increase in their salary, but their net income. Net income is what someone has at the end of the day after all the payroll taxes and other deductions come off, while the cost of living goes up.

We do support this. We support the Canada disability benefit act. It is important. We are looking forward to bringing about improvements. We do not know the details. As the previous member mentioned, we wonder what it is all about. In theory it could be good, and we want to help this along.

Once again, the policies of the Liberals are undermining Canadians. They have another policy with respect to agriculture. They are looking at bringing a 30% reduction of nitrogen in fertilizer, which will have a big impact. I was at the 2022 Cranberry Field Day in my riding. They were saying that it is not like they want to put this nitrogen in, as it is an expensive cost for farmers, but it is important for productivity. It is going to reduce how much they are able to produce. That will mean less produce, which will raise prices for those who especially cannot afford it. Not to mention that nitrogen is the fourth most common element in the universe after oxygen, carbon and hydrogen.

These things are important. It is important to just be more careful about purchasing. The idea of printing money, just printing more and more money, actually devalues what people have and makes things extremely expensive, making rental and housing costs go up. I took this fellow out for lunch who is also on disability. He said he is struggling just to pay for medication. It is hard.

These policies, the lack control and taxes impact the poorest among us, so it would be great to have this act, which we support, but let us make it comprehensive. Let us look at all the different angles.

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we have before us is, in fact, of great benefit for individuals who receive a disability benefit. I am encouraged to hear that the Conservatives, as of late, seem to want to support the legislation.

What really intrigued me was when the member made reference to CPP as a tax. CPP is, in many ways, a source of income for Canadians who are going to retire in future. Yes, CPP premiums are going to be going up, which will allow for those workers in the future, when they retire, to retire with more disposable income.

Can the member be clear about whether he supports CPP increases, or does he believe that it is purely a tax? It actually is to ensure that seniors, when they retire, will have more disposable income.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just with the CPP. It is also with the carbon tax, EI, and these automatic increases. Although I am not a member from Alberta, I know it has put a hold on provincial taxes on gasoline, which has made a big difference.

I have noticed that people, even from my riding, have been moving there because taxes make a difference. People can afford to live. The government is making life unaffordable for everyone. Let us turn the dial.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recently spoke with a constituent in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith who shared with me that, because he was living with a disability, he felt he was being treated as disposable, which is heart-wrenching. It really spoke to me and reaffirmed the importance of the government doing better today.

Would the member agree that it is essential to those living with disabilities that they are not legislated into poverty and are provided with adequate support through the Canada disability benefit today?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were in power in 2015, we brought about the Employment Equity Act, the purpose of which was to achieve equity in the workplace so no one would be denied opportunities for reasons unrelated to ability, and to address workplace disadvantages faced by four designated groups: people with disabilities, women, aboriginal peoples and members of visible minorities. The Conservatives are concerned about Canadians who are struggling who are living with disabilities.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

First, I would be remiss if I did not wish my daughter a happy birthday today.

Second, this is the anniversary for many of us of our election one year ago, and I hope I never take for granted rising in the House. I send my congratulations as well to all those who are marking the one-year anniversary of their first election or a re-election.

My colleague spoke about the vulnerable. Does he have a couple of key ways in which he feels the government has let down the vulnerable and simple ways we might address that?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not wish my granddaughter a happy birthday. It is her third birthday.

Our new leader has proposed that, for every dollar of increased expenditure, we would be looking for savings, and there is a lot of room for savings. My apartment overlooks buildings where I have not seen anybody for two and a half years. I have since found out they are empty government buildings. Let us do something with them.