Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2024

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Manicouagan.

I feel like taking the debate to another level. I would like to recall in chronological order the events that led to the report being brought back from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The Bloc Québécois held a debate this week on the situation our seniors are in, but people with disabilities also deserve a lot more consideration than what they typically get in our parliamentary debates, where this important issue is so often used to play politics.

I commend my NDP colleague who brought the report back from committee. The report is a motion, actually. It fully validates the work we did in committee when studying Bill C‑22. The aim of this bill was to introduce, quite simply, a Canada disability benefit, which would have complemented the measures in place in Quebec and the provinces. It basically emerged from the desire to allow these individuals to become fully contributing members of society. Most of them live in poverty. We must lift them out of poverty so they too can live with dignity. That was the aim of the benefit.

At the time, the Bloc Québécois had raised an objection to the bill. The benefit amount, eligibility criteria and terms of application were to be defined in regulation, by order In council. The Bloc Québécois introduced an amendment at that point calling for the regulations taken by order in council to be brought before the House for debate. If a benefit amount is decided by order in council and through regulation, that means that any minister may change the benefit amount by regulation and by order in council. For example, one minister might set it at $5,000 a year, while another might decide by regulation and order in council that it should be set at $5 a week.

Our amendment calling for the regulation taken by order in council to be brought before the House for debate was one of our major amendments, but it was rejected. The NDP and Liberals voted it down. That being said, it needs to be prescribed by regulation.

When the 2024 budget was introduced, we learned that the disability benefit would be $2,500 a year, barely $200 a month. There is also an eligibility criterion based on the tax credit. That raised the ire of most people with disabilities and those who represent them, in both Quebec and Canada. They were unanimous on the matter. They were also unanimous in saying that the benefit, as well as its terms, conditions and eligibility criteria, should be established by and for people with disabilities.

Two things happened. First, here in the House, we called out the amount announced in the budget. Then, when it came time to adopt the motion in committee, we had the minister responsible in to explain the eligibility criteria. We also called out the fact that the amount would not be enough to meet the stated objective, lifting people out of poverty. The goal is to allow people with disabilities to live with dignity. In addition to their disability, these people have multiple needs in terms of caregivers, medications and support.

There is also mention of employment inclusion but, even in that respect, most of these people live on welfare, at least in Quebec. We have made major strides in Quebec in terms of tailoring the amounts in such a way as to allow people to earn sufficient additional income without losing their benefits. That was the goal of the Canada disability benefit.

Now we see what is happening. The regulation was not passed, people were not consulted, and the amount was simply announced. We learned that the benefit would be in the form of a tax credit. The government decided to align eligibility for the Canada disability benefit with the disability tax credit. We know, however, that thousands of people who should have access to this tax credit cannot get it because of administrative reasons. I will not address these because it would take too long, but tax credits involve some administrative tasks. People need to apply and provide supporting documents. Many people were unable to benefit from the tax credit because they were not registered. We raised this question when the matter of the additional amount equivalent to a one-time CERB payment was raised. That is red tape, and that is why we keep hammering on these issues of red tape and wasted money that could otherwise be given to people.

The government refused to submit the eligibility criteria and the amount in an order in council instead of by regulation so that we could discuss them. No one was consulted and, although we now know the amount, the regulation has not yet been adopted. It was presented as a fait accompli, and we supported the NDP's motion that appears in the report we are discussing.

In particular, we want the federal benefit to be accessible, and we want the tax credit to be reviewed. We also questioned the minister responsible for administering this benefit. After the administrative failures we have seen with passports and other things, will we have to get through a mountain of red tape that has nothing to do with the purpose of the benefit?

That is greed or the inability to implement a program that could strengthen Canadian legislation and enhance what already exists. Here we are again. Once again, people with disabilities will be the ones to pay. We will continue to fight to ensure that the initial objective of the bill is fulfilled. These people must be recognized once and for all as full and equal members of our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, your province of Nova Scotia and others such as British Columbia, Saskatchewan and my home province of Manitoba, as well as one of the territories, have made it very clear they are not going to have any form of clawback with respect to the national program to ensure that people with disabilities are getting a monthly payment.

The question I have for the member is twofold. First, is she aware of the Province of Quebec's position with respect to guaranteeing it will not attempt any sort of clawback of the services it provides? Second, I would be interested in the member's thoughts on how people with disabilities benefit directly because it is a national program, no matter what province they live in today or might move to tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn the question back to the member.

Did the government take the time to consult Quebec and the provinces before announcing the benefit in the budget? I will answer that. The answer is no.

Did the government undertake to ensure that the benefit complements what is being done in Quebec and the provinces? The answer is yes, it is in the bill. The government is therefore responsible for making sure there are agreements and collaborations, and that people with disabilities are not deprived of their benefits because of red tape. It needs to make sure that the amount is sufficient. That is now the government's responsibility. Its bill must complement what the provinces are doing and not involve any clawbacks. I have no doubt that Quebec will not deprive people with disabilities of anything to which they are already entitled.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague made some really important points, particularly in response to the comments made by the member for Winnipeg North, who said that this is a provincial matter.

However, the reality is that this Liberal government, the most centralizing government in Canada, is still not consulting the provinces and territories before passing major legislation.

How can my colleague continue to support the most centralizing government in Canadian history? How can her party suggest that it cares about the well-being of Quebeckers and Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, if members want to talk about the early history of Canada and the Constitution, then I would say that it is rather interesting to see that the Bloc Québécois is always the one that is forced to defend the provinces' jurisdictions.

It is quite astonishing that we are being forced to remind the Conservatives, the NDP and the Liberals to respect jurisdictions, especially when it comes to health, education and dental care.

However, there are some who could care less about carrying on with centralizing programs. I am not talking here about the Canada disability benefit. At some point, history will speak for itself. We will be happy to be an independent country and govern ourselves as we see fit.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into a debate over jurisdictions or centralization. I have a lot to say about that and I know that my colleague likes that topic. I like when she defends the Constitution, it is really interesting.

I would like her to talk about the disappointment in the disability community. There was a promise to lift these people out of poverty and the government came up with peanuts. The Liberal government does not keep its promises.

What are the people in her riding telling her about what they had hoped for and the disappointment they are feeling today?

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

Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of the groups we represent in Quebec and Canada are deeply disappointed. They were also hoping for recognition of “by-and-for”. It is a broken promise.

It is a broken promise because they do not understand what happens next. They do not understand the amount. They do not understand how this will apply. They do not understand why they were not fully involved in this debate. There are a lot of questions and a great deal of disappointment.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about a subject that affects every one of us as elected members of the House. We speak for all our constituents, but sometimes we realize that certain issues affect us personally, because we have first-hand experience.

I would like to thank the NDP for tabling this committee report and allowing us to discuss it today. I also want to thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who did an outstanding job in committee. She demonstrated a thoroughness and empathy that should inspire us all as members of the House.

I would like to go back to some of the things my colleague said about Bill C‑22, which will be implemented by regulation, by order in council. I would like to talk about one of this government's approaches that is clearly harming the public. It is a matter of common sense. That is why we need to talk about the process involved not only in passing this bill, but in implementing it as well. This process penalizes people with disabilities, and I really do not understand the reasoning behind it.

First, as my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville mentioned, the government decided to announce the funding for the benefit in its 2024 budget. That surprised us. It also surprised all the groups that had been closely monitoring developments since the bill's passage.

The government announced an amount without first drafting regulations. The regulations should establish the eligibility criteria, the terms of payment, the amount of the benefit, the method for calculating the amount and the payment periods. Maybe that is how it is done with this bill. It must be done like that with other bills. I think that many members in the House could bear witness to the fact that the government is working backwards.

It announced the amount in a budget. That may have been good for the government's image, but it was only for show. It announced the amount, but we and all the organizations had trouble understanding that amount, because there are no regulations. What calculations did it use to come up with that amount? Ultimately, what everyone wants to know is, how will this amount effectively address the issue of people with disabilities living in precarious circumstances or even poverty?

As I mentioned, the government is doing things backwards, and disability groups are not impressed. It did things backwards in the first step, but in another step as well. It really did everything backwards. It was working backwards when it came to consultations. As my colleagues have said, and I think that my colleague from Shefford mentioned this earlier, organizations in our ridings are wondering why they were not consulted. These organizations are wondering why nobody consulted them if the goal is truly to lift people with disabilities out of insecurity and poverty. The organizations on the ground know these people and what they need. They cannot understand why nobody is consulting them. They wonder how decisions are being made.

Decisions should be made by and for people with disabilities, but in a possibly patronizing way, the government is deciding what their needs are. That is not what the groups want. They want to be consulted first, before the regulations are drafted. The groups want to be consulted so that their feedback informs the regulations, ensuring that they take into account the needs that these groups and their members know all about.

Then, of course, it can be announced in a budget. I am amazed that I have to explain all this, but I think the general public should know that the government did things completely backwards in this case. It did not follow the normal steps in the process.

As my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville also said, the choice to use regulations is a major issue. The Bloc Québécois opposed the regulatory approach, because it could lead to instability in the granting of the benefits. I would go so far as to say that there could be instability in the future of the benefits themselves, because all the power is in the hands of one person, in this case a minister, for example, not in a bill that would ensure certainty, permanence and, as I said earlier, stability and even security. I think that people want security when it comes to their economic situation, especially when their economic situation is precarious, as I said. Unfortunately, these people often end up living in poverty. That is why we would have preferred an alternative to the regulatory approach.

To sum up quickly, there are two issues. First, the government did things backwards, which hurt the people it is trying to help. At the same time, the approach it chose created an insecurity or instability that could raise doubts about whether the measure is permanent. Second, there may be one final element that is very important and that my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville brought up. She did not say it in so many words, but she mentioned red tape getting in the way of accessing the benefit.

If I may get personal for a moment, I myself have a child with a disability. I must say that, although I am a pretty capable person, the red tape can be nightmare to deal with. My little boy has an autism spectrum disorder and motor difficulties, but he was refused disabled status for a long time. That is only one example among many, but it shows that people often have to fight just to have their disability recognized.

Not everyone has the same resources and organizations to help them, and it can get discouraging. Some people do not even know about the benefits or tax credits that are available. As my colleague said, if people do not know about the tax credit, how can they access the benefit? They are inextricably linked. These kinds of accessibility barriers do not give me the impression that the government really wants to help people. It seems to find ways to screen people out, to block and delay them from getting the help they really need right now.

Those are all the points I wanted to reiterate. If the government really wants to help people with disabilities, it has to listen to them and address the needs they have articulated. That must then be consistently reflected in the budget, so that they can truly be lifted out of poverty. It must also give them a way to access these benefits by giving them information and maybe not tying benefits to certain prerequisites, which ends up depriving some people of what they are entitled to.

I urge the government not to work backwards, but to work voluntarily, transparently and honestly with disability groups so that people with disabilities in my riding of Manicouagan, in Quebec and in Canada can get support and live with dignity.

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

Madam Speaker, I am concerned that the Bloc is actually putting its party politics ahead of the interests of people with disabilities in Quebec. I posed the question to the other member in regard to whether she believes that the Province of Quebec should be able to have clawbacks. Instead of making it clear that the Bloc party would not support clawbacks by the Province of Quebec in particular, the member in essence is saying that the Bloc is okay with clawbacks by the Province of Quebec.

Will the member make very clear what the Bloc party's position is in regard to the issue of clawbacks? Does the Bloc party support the disability fund that people with disabilities are receiving in the province of Quebec, or does she believe that the Province of Quebec should have the entitlement to claw back some of that money?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I believe my colleague answered my Liberal Party colleague's question earlier when she simply told him that if he has a question for Quebec, he should ask Quebec directly. I think that is his government's responsibility.

Secondly, Quebec will not be told what to do, as I am sure his government knows. Therefore, if his government has questions to ask Quebec or if it wants to know exactly what Quebec's position is, it should do its job. The Bloc Québécois is not Quebec's go-between. We are the party that truly defends the interests of all Quebeckers. I would ask his government to do its job.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that the member talked about the implications for people living with disabilities in her constituency who are being forced into poverty. Can she share today what she is hearing from her constituents about the $200 a month given through the national disability benefit and whether they feel it is adequate to lift people out of poverty and provide them with the basic human rights they require in order to live with dignity and respect?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to approach this debate from a different angle. As everyone knows, I come from a remote, so-called rural riding, which is vast and where residents face a higher cost of living. This includes the cost of food, clothing, and basic needs like housing, even though the region has no big cities like Toronto or Vancouver. People with disabilities have significant financial needs. While the population's needs may seem high already, for people with disabilities, they are even higher.

Yes, this amount is a pittance. How can a person get by on $200? It falls miserably short of meeting the needs of Manicouagan's residents.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to point out that the Bloc Québécois supported the Canada disability benefit bill at all stages. Even though it was a bare-bones bill, the Bloc Québécois used its power to improve it, especially the member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

I have a question for the member for Manicouagan and the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc Québécois has made two demands of the minority government in exchange for its support to avoid an election, but neither of these demands had to do with increasing and implementing the Canada disability benefit.

Why not? Can that change?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, the two demands that the Bloc Québécois has made a priority are already the subject of two bills that are currently being studied and that will soon be completed. We want to speed up the passage of these two bills because this government could fall at any time.

We have other priorities as well, but we cannot get them all addressed as fast as we would like.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time this afternoon with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

With the cost of living crisis soaring in our country, many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. For Canadians with a disability, who have higher living costs, those costs are disproportionate. In addition to the surging costs of essentials like groceries, fuel, housing and home heating, persons with disabilities also face extra costs for their personal care needs above and beyond other Canadians.

The ever-deepening affordability crisis is unmanageable. All Canadians deserve the opportunity to live full lives and participate fully in society.

The creation of a Canada disability benefit had the potential to significantly improve the financial security and overall well-being of persons with disabilities. The potential was understood across this chamber, and that is why this bill saw cross-partisan support. Any delays in the passage of the bill was at the hands of the Liberal government itself, whether that was the COVID election or its own management, or mismanagement, of the government calendar.

When the Liberals put forward Bill C-22, they proudly boasted repeatedly that the Canada disability benefit would be a once in a generation opportunity to lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. Shamefully, the then-minister for disability inclusion was simply making grandiose promises to Canadians with disabilities that the Liberals simply did not keep. Instead of taking accountability for their broken promises, they are still going around patting themselves on the back.

The 20th report from the human resources committee calls on the Liberal government to address very specific issues around this benefit: that it ensure the benefit will not result in clawbacks of provincial benefits and takes into account its relationship with existing entitlements, including federal ones; that the benefit will be adequate; that it take into consideration the heightened cost of living crisis faced by persons with disabilities; that it will be accessible to those who need it and should be eligible; and that the government will collaborate. All this needs to be said or asked for because it was simply not in Bill C-22.

The Liberal government tabled in Parliament what it had dubbed “framework legislation”. Ultimately, it is legislation that allows Liberals to establish the most important details behind closed doors without the scrutiny of Parliament. By design, they chose to determine all the details of the benefit during the regulatory process, making that a more cumbersome process completely lacking in transparency. That is why Bill C-22 saw so many amendments in the human resource committee and also in the Senate, which the coalition government rejected.

When Bill C-22 received royal assent, the most critical details of the bill were still unknown. Who would be eligible for the benefit? What would the application process be? How would this benefit interact with other provincial programs? All those details were unknown because the government refused to present them. The Liberals wanted to do it all behind closed doors at a snail's pace. These are really pertinent and critical details.

At the time that Bill C-22 was being considered, the then-minister of disability inclusion made statements that the clawbacks of provincial supports would be a red line in her negotiations with the provinces, but there is no legislative guarantee to that. A Conservative amendment that would have prevented clawbacks at the federal level was rejected by the Liberal government members.

The Conservatives put forward amendments to increase transparency in the regulatory process, amendments like broadening consultation requirements and increasing transparency in negotiations between the federal government and the provincial governments. The Liberal government rejected these amendments and, with the help of its NDP coalition, omitted all substantive elements of the benefit from the legislation.

This approach of framework legislation expects us, as parliamentarians, to put our trust in the minister and the Liberal government. However, more important, it expects Canadians with disabilities and advocates to put their trust in the Liberal Government. Of course, we know now with great certainty that the trust was not warranted. It is those who cannot afford it the least who are most impacted by the Liberal government’s broken promises.

The Liberal government’s aversion to timelines, parameters and scrutiny offers little confidence in it and its aspirations. As I speak, the human resources committee is hearing from witnesses on the government’s progress toward its goal of a barrier-free Canada by 2040. What we have heard in this study affirms what we heard more than six years ago when the committee was studying Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act. Witness after witness told the committee that the Accessible Canada Act had great intentions and set really nice goals and ideas, but that the bill itself was devoid of any assurances that it would be enforced or implemented efficiently or, quite frankly, even at all.

The Accessible Canada Act received royal assent more than five years ago, but progress toward a barrier-free Canada by 2040 has been minimal, at best. Witnesses are saying that federally regulated entities are unsure of their responsibilities and requirements. To date, there is only one single legal regulatory obligation, which is to provide an accessibility plan, a plan that does not require timelines or accountability.

We are not going to see progress toward an inclusive and barrier-free Canada with half measures. There needs to be realistic goals established. The expectations on federally regulated entities need to be in plain language. Parliament needs to lead by example. We should not have barriers preventing persons with disabilities from testifying as witnesses in Parliament, but the reality is that we do.

The Accessible Canada Act was an example of the Liberal government making nice promises that sounded great, but when persons with disabilities gave it feedback and pleaded for changes to the bill, they were told to trust the government and then, subsequently, were ignored. The disability benefit is the exact same song and dance just a few short years later.

The disability benefit is not set to be rolled out until July 2025. This means that it will have taken the coalition government five years to decide to provide up to a maximum of $200 a month for recipients who have a valid disability tax credit certificate. The asks in the report from the HUMA committee are certainly not being met by the government. More important, the needs of the disability community are not being met or even heard in a way that is meaningful.

The Prime Minister and the Liberal government have repeatedly broken promises that they have made by failing to live up to the expectation they set for themselves. The cost of living crisis in our country is unmanageable and the costly coalition's harmful policies continue to make everything more expensive. Every Canadian should be able to participate fully in society. They should be able to clothe, house and feed themselves. However, we know that for far too many Canadians that is not the reality, especially those with disabilities.

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

Madam Speaker, the Stephen Harper government promised a national disability act and it failed to deliver it.

At the end of the day, we will find that Conservatives have a hidden agenda when they talk about fixing the budget. They do not want to tell Canadians what they really would do if they were to take power. If they did that, they know they would lose a lot of support.

My question for her is the same question I put to a couple of her colleagues, who did not have the courage to tell Canadians. Will that member guarantee that not one dollar in a reduction will go toward the disability benefit? Is she prepared to give that commitment, unlike her previous colleagues who would not give that commitment?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, the irony of this is that his own minister at the time could not guarantee this. We know that for nine years, the Liberal government has been propped up by the NDP. It is very ironic that the New Democrats have brought this forward today. Those members have voted at every single step to support the Liberals. We know the Liberals have broken promise after promise. At the end of the day, it is fake consultation. When we had advocates, stakeholders and those with disabilities at committee, the Liberals did not listen to them at all. They did not heed any of their warnings or any of their pleas. Frankly, it is fake consultation and broken promises from across the way.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for the work that she does on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I say that because I am especially grateful for the work that this committee did on Bill C-319. I also want to thank her for supporting fairness for seniors. She asked me questions when I appeared before the committee, and I commend her for her work on this file.

Now, I am going to come back to the subject of the report on the Canada disability benefit. As I mentioned, in my riding, there are organizations, like Dynamique des handicapés de Granby et Région, that represent people with disabilities. In the beginning, these people criticized the fact that they had not been consulted. Then they criticized the fact that, when the bill was introduced and they tried to get more information from the department, they did not get any answers. Another one of their criticisms is that it is not easy to keep track of all these credits. People are often unfamiliar with the tax credit and find it difficult to access. It is not getting to all of the people who really need it.

What are my colleague's thoughts on the challenges of making sure that people are aware of the disability tax credits, specifically?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are hearing this right now in real time at the HUMA committee, since we are doing a study on a Canada without barriers. There are so many invisible barriers. A lot of times when Canadians hear of a barrier, they think of a sidewalk, or a stairwell or a lack of a ramp. What about the red tape or the language that is not plain and easily read, understood and accessible? These are things for the departments and government. I am surprised the government is not mandating to ensure the departments are providing service in minimal plain language for those with disabilities so they can access these programs and not have barriers.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with a lot of what the member said. I could not help but reflect on how the member could look constituents in the eye and tell them that a Conservative government would do any better, when the leader of the Conservative Party has clearly stated that he would cut pharmacare and dental care, and that he would make cuts to a national school food program.

When the Conservatives were in power, they made cuts to pensions and child care. How can the member say that they would do any better for people living with disabilities?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised that member can look her constituents in the eye, when she voted and supported at committee the benefit we have today. There were no amendments with regulation, timelines or accountability. I would ask her to look in the mirror.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been very interesting to listen to the debate today. Obviously, folks are passionate about this issue on all sides. As I reflect on this, I think about the university presentations I get a chance to do. I do a lot of presentations talking about, basically, how we define normal. I share stories of my son's life with autism and video clips that we have had a chance to make over the years, where he is being included in musical theatre in school, working in the school library and those kinds of things.

It is interesting; some of the universities I visit are not in the most Conservative places in the country. I can think of some in the GTA where I am not sure how many Conservatives there would be among 500 students. There are probably more today than there have been in the past. Once in a while, they comment on how they do not automatically think of the Conservative Party when they think about those issues. They ask me to explain that a little bit. I explain it by saying that, in this place, we are human beings before our party affiliation, regardless of our party. We all want the best for people with disabilities.

Based on some of the words we hear today, some people would like folks to believe that one party or another party does not care. The reality is that we all care about creating the best opportunities and the best Canada for people with disabilities. Sometimes, we just have different thoughts on how to get there.

I look at the timeline on the bill. It is important, given the tenor of the debate today, to highlight that, first of all, this idea came up in the 2020 throne speech first. It then came to the House, I think, as Bill C-35 in 2021. Of course, the priority for the government of the day, at that point in time, was an election in the summer of 2021. Everything was shut down while we spent $600,000 or $700,000 on the election, or whatever amount of money it was. It was hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars with all of our parties. It was $600 million, not thousands.

Obviously, it was money that could have been spent on other things. We fought that election, and then the government brought back the legislation as Bill C-22. It went through over the course of time. It was not a high priority. It took two and a half years to get it passed. It is really important to point out that, when it did pass, it passed unanimously in the House of Commons.

There is nobody in the House, regardless of what some members want people to believe, who did not support Bill C-22, who did not support the Canada disability benefit. This is a really important fact. On our side, we were concerned about a significant lack of clarity. We have said this over and over again.

There was less information in this piece of legislation than in almost any piece of legislation I have seen, with more left up to the future regulatory process in terms of what that would look like. In this debate today, we are seeing the consequences of that lack of clarity.

Another thing that is really clear right now is that what the Liberals were promising, the expectation that they were creating, was dramatically higher than the reality that came to be when the Canada disability benefit was delivered. I suspect that this is largely because of the issue of priorities. This is the highest-spending government in the history of our country by far, with double the amount of spending of any other government. The amount of debt we have run up is unparalleled. I think the bottom line is that the Liberals are running out of money; even for the things that they say are important, they do not have the money to fund it.

It is also really important to note that, as we are having the debate, we have a situation where the NDP is criticizing the government relentlessly, day in and day out, about everything. Again, everybody in the House is on the same side in terms of the importance of getting things right for Canadians living with disability and the operation of that, in a sense, in terms of the way that it winds up being in the House.

It is not just the Canada disability benefit. It is everything else. I think it would be right for Canadians listening in on this debate to ask this: If this is so important to the NDP, how in the world did they not negotiate what they wanted in their deal with the Liberals?

This has been one of the longest-serving minority Parliaments since the twenties or thirties, maybe in the history of the country. The NDP vote with the Liberals, to support the Liberals, every single day in the House. They endorse the Liberals with their positions and their votes. At any point in time, the NDP could have said that something is the line in the sand. They could have used their leverage to get whatever they want out of the Liberal Party. On this issue, obviously, it was not a priority at the negotiating table for the NDP. We just have to take that context into consideration as Canadians listen to this debate.

One thing I would like to focus on is outcomes. We talk a lot about dollar amounts, with big dollar amounts for some programs. The Liberal defence today has involved talking about how much money the program costs. However, we have to take a look at outcomes.

I think about the outcomes that I want for my son Jaden, who is now 28, Canadians like my son, and people around the world like my son. He was 10 when I was first elected; he will turn 29 in November. He was two and a half years old when he was diagnosed in 1998. We want timely diagnoses for things that can be diagnosed. Obviously, in the disability world, it is not all about diagnosis. We want early help for people when they need it in those early years. We want to make sure that we have an education system that includes people to the maximum. Obviously, this is mostly in the provincial jurisdiction. We want to make sure we have proper housing, employment opportunities, skills development and those kinds of things.

Of course, as parents, we often think about what happens when we are gone. One thing I consider when I think about Jaden and people like him across the country is that we want to make sure we have good programs now. We want to make sure that Jaden and other Canadians who are vulnerable have the supports they need right now. We are also concerned about the future. We want to make sure that the same supports, or better supports, are there for our loved ones when we are gone.

Right now, I am very concerned about the level of government spending overall, at the dramatic record-setting levels of spending we have seen from the Liberal-NDP government, which has recently been supported by the Bloc. When Jaden was diagnosed in 1998, provinces across the country were having difficulty funding diagnosis and early help for people with autism. One reason they were having trouble was that the Liberal government had initiated a 32% cut in 1995. This was a generation after the massive deficits run up by the Trudeau government in the seventies and eighties. It was a real cut, not the fake type of cut that members often allude to, in transfers to the provinces for health, social services and education. I think it was in the $35-billion range overall. This was just gone because of a fiscal situation brought on by the massive debt and deficit run up in the seventies and eighties. I feel as though we are going down that road right now.

I think the people who are most hurt by the inflationary policies of the government in the current circumstances are the most vulnerable people in Canada, including Canadians with disabilities. They are living on fixed incomes. Those populations will be the ones hurt down the road when the real crisis hits because of the fiscal situation the government has created.

I look forward to questions. I hope we can come up with some ideas in this place about how we could actually create better outcomes for Canadians living with disabilities.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member wholeheartedly about one issue: I believe that every member of the House of Commons is, in fact, understanding and sympathetic and wanting to do right by people who have disabilities. I would not exclude anyone from that.

Having said that, one issue surrounding the legislation, as well as the rollout of the program throughout the country, is ensuring that provinces do not use any form of clawback that will take away from people with disabilities. A number of provinces have still not given that public commitment; in western Canada, for example, there is the province of Alberta.

Could he provide his thoughts in regard to clawbacks?

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

Madam Speaker, when we introduced an amendment to deal with clawbacks, they voted against it. On the other topic, what I said was that we want the same thing. We want to help people. However, I also talked about outcomes; I hope he did not miss that part. The reality is that the outcomes we are achieving are not what our country wants right now.

In fact, we are achieving the worst outcomes for vulnerable people in the entire developed world. Life is becoming harder and harder for Canadians with disabilities. I do not have time to read the quote right now, but if members want to check, they can look into what Inclusion Canada had to say. It is at the point where it is easier for Canadians to choose death through medical assistance in dying than it is for Canadians living with disabilities to live. That is shameful. We need to get to a place where that situation does not exist.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that speech, which was both sensible and sensitive. I clearly remember the dark days of the Harper government. The Conservatives cut services to the public, to the poorest and most vulnerable. They cut everything from services for veterans and the unemployed to public services.

The NDP made dental care for people with disabilities a reality, and they have been able to enrol in the program since June. We made real strides for the disability community.

Will my colleague commit, here and now, to maintaining dental care for people with disabilities and to maintaining and enhancing the disability benefit?