44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 20, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I completely agree that a lot of the barriers that disable Canadians who have various impairments have been created by social construct. A lot of people are living in poverty in this country because they have been legislated into it and they cannot escape it, or they are afraid of taking that chance.
With this bill we are sending a message that we understand and we will take people beyond that. We are also working, through our disability inclusion action plan, to address the other barriers people face, whether they are barriers to employment or inclusion, like not being able to get in the door to work somewhere, or attitudinal barriers, the assumptions people make and the bias and discrimination that exist in society. Quite frankly, a lot of the laws, policies and programs at all levels in this country discriminate. That is the big picture.
Right now people are living in poverty, and this bill addresses lifting people up, giving them a chance and telling them that they matter and that they should not be living in poverty.
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as it stands, this bill is a promise. It is just a promise, but promises do not put food on the table.
I raised with the minister the issue of adequacy and the need for certainty that this bill will provide adequate standard of living for people with disabilities.
Is the minister prepared to include adequacy in this bill and move it from a promise to certainty?
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her collaboration on this really important piece of work.
There are two fundamental reasons for proceeding in this way with framework legislation. One is because we want to include persons with disabilities and the disability community in this conversation. They are uniquely positioned to know what they need and what barriers they continue to face. The other, of course, is the reality of the dynamic, the interaction, and the need to harmonize benefits.
Absolutely, the goal of this is to reduce poverty. Absolutely, the goal is to lift people out of poverty. As I said in my remarks, we have legislative poverty reduction targets, and we have a legislative poverty line. That is the goal, which is very clear in my mind.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her efforts to ensure Bill C-22 is the first bill debated in this fall session. She said earlier that no person with a disability should live in poverty. Everyone in this chamber would agree with that. However, we also know that this bill has no specificity about the amount of the benefit, who will be eligible for it and what will be done to prevent clawbacks.
I wonder if the minister could share with us what she will do to ensure no person with a disability, regardless of their age, is living in poverty in this country.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, those are the exact points we are laser focused on as we move forward with this bill, and as we move forward into a regulatory process that would allow us the flexibility and public discourse to make sure we actually get where we want to go with this.
We know there is such an important role to be played by provinces and territories. Working-age Canadians with disabilities are the target population. It is the gap we are trying to fill between children with disabilities, who get the Canada child benefit, and seniors with disabilities, who get OAS and GIS. This is the target population.
Nobody, disability or not, deserves to live in poverty. This particular measure targets a specific cohort of the population in Canada that is disproportionately living in poverty.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for tabling this bill, and more importantly, for the extremely well-thought-out and passionate speech she delivered to the House in presenting it.
My question is about the economic impact on people living with disabilities. Before I became involved federally, I was involved municipally in my community, and I was a member of the accessibility standing committee of our city council. One of the things we came to realize very quickly is the economic impact on those with disabilities and what that means in our communities.
I am wondering if the minister could comment on what the impact of lifting people out of poverty will be on this largest minority, as she referred to it, in our economies.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I said, financial security is one part of a four-part approach to disability inclusion in Canada. The second part is employment. There are significant barriers for this untapped labour pool, and in a time of labour shortages, this is a group that could be contributing and sharing their talent and expertise with us more meaningfully.
We know that, if the available pool of persons with disabilities in this country were working, it could bump the GDP between 2% and 3%. What is stopping people is not the lack of ambition, will or talent. It is the entrenched barriers that exist within people's minds and within our systems. The exciting part is that we get to talk about it. We get to celebrate people, the contributions they could be making and the potential that exists out there. This is one piece of it.
The CDB speaks to the other piece, which is financial security, and the reality is that people are living in poverty today, and we need to get them the assistance and support they deserve.
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her advocacy and for being an inspiration in this country.
My question is more technical in nature. This is the second bill we have seen during this Parliament that would do substantial work in the regulations. There is actually not a lot of detail about what the bill would provide in terms of a benefit. I am curious if the minister is concerned about the precedent this sets and how much information we as parliamentarians will have before agreeing to pass this bill.
I do support this bill fully in its spirit. I speak for me and not on behalf of my party, of course.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was concerned, in moving forward with this legislation, that we were not to impose requirements or criteria on a population that has always been imposed upon. I was concerned that we would make it more difficult for provinces and territories to collaborate and harmonize if we were to be too prescriptive.
The whole notion of moving forward collaboratively in almost a co-development fashion is novel, and it feels a little uncertain, but it is the right thing to do. At the end of the day, after we go through this, we could look back and say that we had included people, we had given the provinces and territories the flexibility they needed to stand up and deliver, and people's lives were made better.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak in the House. Before I begin, I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time with another member.
31 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/22 11:34:53 a.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It is certainly a pleasure to be back here in the House once again representing the good people of Calgary Midnapore and, even better, to be here under our new leader, the member for Carleton.
Nobel Prize winner and humanitarian Pearl Buck once wrote, “the test of a civilization is in the way that it cares for its helpless members.” I would certainly say the subjects of this act today are not helpless, but they do need our help. I believe that what Madam Buck was trying to say is how we treat the most vulnerable members of our society reflects the quality of it.
Let me take a moment to reflect on how the government has treated the most vulnerable members of our society.
Frankly, its track record is not very good. At best, there have been false aspirational words, strong statements and, of course, thoughts and prayers, with ultimately very little benefit to anyone. Is that the intention of the legislation here today and of the government here today? Is it a holding document, something the Liberals just want to put in the window but do not intend to deliver on?
It would be easy to argue this, considering the legislation was the last piece of legislation placed before the House in the spring of 2019, right before we went into an election that summer, and the government knew it. It would be easy to think this, given it was the last piece of legislation tabled before our summer recess. It would be easy to assume that this is once again just thoughts and prayers and a hope for Canadians. However, I know the minister and know she wants the best for her community, and I believe her, so I do not think that these are aspirational words meant to simply inspire hope.
That is the best of the legislation we have seen from the government, with this false inspiration; it is not the worst. What has been the worst? It has been legislation that divided Canadians. It has been legislation that left swaths of Canadians behind, to be absent from our society and to be ignored without recourse. Is this legislation the worst legislation we have seen from this government? No, it is not. Canadians have seen the worst and they will not forget.
Where does this legislation today find itself? This legislation finds itself in the mushy middle. Why is it the mushy middle? It is because this legislation wants to help but falls short in convincing all Canadians that it actually would help. We have seen this with legislation before, where details were omitted and left to the regulations, including budgets and how they are able to balance themselves.
There are many concerns with this legislation. For example, there is the eligibility for the benefit. Many are concerned about whether individuals with invisible disabilities would be eligible. When we are walking down the street and meet someone, we do not know what they are dealing with. We do not know if they are dealing with an invisible disability such as cancer or heart disease. We have no idea, and this legislation does not provide clarification as to whether these invisible disabilities would be covered.
Then there is the amount of the benefit that Canadians with disabilities would receive. It is not yet clear how the amount would be determined in conjunction with the existing provincial benefits. Of course, many disability supports are currently provided provincially, but there is no indication as to whether this benefit could be considered income and would therefore disqualify individuals from receiving some provincial benefits.
There need to be assurances that there will be no provincial disparity so that no matter where someone lives in Canada, they are equally supported. “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, the Prime Minister has said, so let us show it.
We need to know how the benefit will be impacted if there are provincial changes to the disability support. Because we do not know how much the benefit would be, how the benefit would be delivered or who would be eligible, we do not know what the cost would be to deliver the benefit. With last week's announcement of the affordability bill, we are now at $56.5 billion in budget 2022. We do not know when or how the benefit would be delivered. Would the benefit be delivered monthly, weekly or at tax time? It simply is not clear or outlined within this legislation.
Another major concern is whether the benefit would be indexed to inflation. With rising inflation, Canadians are already suffering, with an unbelievable rate in June of 4.1%. It is unbelievable that we would even have to consider the impacts of inflation on people with disabilities.
There is the process to appeal for persons with disabilities who are denied benefits. We know that disabilities are unique, and we know that there should be a fair and equitable appeal process for those who have been denied benefits.
When persons with disabilities would start to receive the benefit is another major concern for us with this legislation. As well, right now the coming-into-force date would be determined by an order of the Governor in Council, so even if this legislation passes and receives royal assent, Canadians with disabilities may not receive the benefit for some time, if they receive it at all.
One in five Canadians lives with a disability. They need our support to live full lives and participate fully in society, including in the workforce. The Conservatives believe that all Canadians living with disabilities deserve timely access to these benefits and services and should not be penalized for going to work, as is too often the case today.
They do not need more uncertainty, and I would like to point out, with my apologies, that the rate in June was 8.1%, not 4.1%, as I said previously. They do not need bureaucracy; they need our help. If we want to be seen as a society that Pearl Buck would find worthy, then let us really help.
In conclusion, this is not the worst of the legislation we have seen, but it is not the best of the legislation we have seen, of aspirational ideas and of the slogan “sunny ways”. With the worst of it, the government has consistently wedged, stigmatized and divided. It is the mushy middle, but if we really want to have a society that Pearl Buck would judge as worthy, then let us have an act that actually helps people.
1111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and Liberal members have been very clear. We want an economy that works for all Canadians, and Bill C-22 speaks to that. It would ensure that we give more disposable income to people with disabilities.
The minister talked about how there is a disconnect in the issue of poverty for a person with a disability who is turning 65. The member opposite seems to want to mock the bill by challenging whether it will take effect. The Conservative Party of Canada can recognize what the government has been talking about: enabling Canadians to be actively engaged in the economy as full participants. Let us fight poverty.
Will the member be clear in her indication of support for the bill and its quick passage?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the economy is working for nobody. This is very clear right now, as we had, as I mentioned, an inflation rate of 8.1% in June and have a budget in 2022 of $56.5 billion with the act that was recently announced. Canadians cannot buy groceries right now, they cannot fill up their vehicles with gas at this time and new families cannot purchase homes. The economy is not working for anyone, so I would suggest the member not discuss the economy.
I made it clear in my speech that the Conservatives will be supporting the bill, but it is not super inspirational.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in French, we refer to people “en situation de handicap”, “vivant avec un handicap” or “handicapée”. There are a number of terms that are used. However, there is something that concerns me.
Guillaume Parent, the director of the Centre d'expertise finances et handicap, recently told La Presse that, in Quebec, fewer people considered themselves as having a disability or living with a disability because the French word “handicap” does not have the same scope as the English word “disability”.
Will a distinction be made between the two terms so that people understand what we are talking about and so that they are able to access the services in question?
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I think the intention is the same no matter which term we use. That also means that the bill's shortcomings remain the same. Whatever term we use, I hope that the bill's flaws will be remedied in the regulations.
This bill is just as flawed no matter which term we use.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the disability community has been clear: It needs help now.
How did we get here? It is consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments that have failed the disability community. After seven years in power, the Liberal government has dragged its feet and now tabled a bill that is empty on the critical pieces and critical details of the bill. Who is eligible? When will people get the benefit? How much will the benefit be?
Could the member comment on how, after seven years, a government could table something without details?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is very rich to point to Conservative and Liberal governments when the New Democrats are in fact in a coalition with the Liberals. The member should have done a better job of negotiating if she wanted to see that within the bill.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to return here to the House for a scintillating debate, and it is nice to start on a topic that all parties can agree on: the importance and the need for an increase to the support we are giving people who are living with disabilities.
To start, I wanted to read a letter that I signed with members from all parties that went to the minister to request that we expeditiously get this benefit in place. The letter does a great job of summarizing the desperate need for such a benefit. It states:
We write in support of the immediate re-introduction of the Canada Disability Benefit Act in order to reduce poverty and support the financial security of persons with disabilities.
We also call on the government to ensure that people with disabilities are meaningfully involved in the creation and implementation of the Canada Disability Benefit, and to work with provincial and territorial governments to ensure that the benefit complements provincial and territorial programs.
One in five people in Canada has a disability and over one million Canadians with disabilities live in poverty. People with disabilities in Canada have a higher rate of unemployment and people with severe disabilities earn less than $13,000 per year on average. People with disabilities face many direct and indirect costs from having a disability, including medical expenses, specialized equipment, accessible housing, and reduced earnings. COVID-19 has only exacerbated these inequalities.
The Canada Disability Benefit is an important step in removing the barriers that people with disabilities face in Canada, and it must be part of a comprehensive government approach that includes creating good quality jobs and disability-inclusive spaces.
It is critical that we move forward more quickly to support people with disabilities and, as parliamentarians representing different parties, we are ready to work alongside you to ensure that we build a truly inclusive Canada.
This is the kind of cross-party co-operation that Canadians are looking for.
If we look at the plight of the disabled, I cannot speak to how much in benefits they are receiving in other provinces, but I can tell members I have a continual stream of people coming to my office who are unable to afford to live. In Ontario, they get about $1,200 a month as their benefit.
We can think about the fact that affordable housing is a huge issue in this country. Across the country, Canadians cannot find a place to live that is affordable, but in my riding I would tell members that any place one can find is about $1,000 a month. We know a couple of years ago, before the pandemic started, 60% of Canadians were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills. That was before the pandemic and all the hardships that happened. It was before the subsequent, multiple increases to the carbon tax that the Liberal government put in place, which have increased the cost of home heating and increased the cost of groceries.
There is now an added burden on disabled people. If they have $1,000 to find a place to live in Sarnia and they have $200 leftover for everything else, along with all the increases that have happened, it is no wonder that people cannot afford to live. We are seeing them increasingly trying to go to food banks. We see all these problems they are having.
We also know that the health care system is in disarray in our country. For persons like me, trying to get a medical appointment to see a specialist, or whatever is needed, is difficult enough. However, to navigate that system for many persons living with disabilities is extra complicated and extra expensive. I think we would all agree in this House that there is a great need for the benefit.
When it comes to implementing things, it is important to know the details. I find this document is almost a virtue-signal that this is important to do, and we all agree that it is. How much is it going to cost? There has been out-of-control spending everywhere from the Liberal government. We all agree it is a good idea to spend here. However, how much is it?
The implementation of this also needs to not exclude people. It was I, on a Friday, in the House, who highlighted the problem with the disability tax credit, when the government decided to make 80% of people who used to be eligible for the benefit no longer eligible. Then they denied it. We chased them around for months and months, with the disability stakeholders calling out the government on it. Finally, the situation was remediated, but it was not just about taking away their tax credit. That also made them eligible for the disability pension benefit. If one did not get the tax credit, one did not get the pension benefit. When we are talking about implementing supports for the disabled, it is important we know who is eligible. That is going to be critical.
It is also important that we are not giving money with one hand and taking money away with the other hand. We are saying we are going to top them up, and I would argue the amount of topping up is important. The minister indicated that this would be like GIS, but she also said that people who are on OAS and GIS and are disabled go from 23% living in poverty to, when they turn 65, 9% living in poverty. If no disabled person should live in poverty, that tells me we do not have the right amount for the GIS, so that is going to be an important discussion as well.
The government is going to raise the carbon tax again in January. If one is giving money with one hand, while driving up the cost of groceries and home heating and taking the money away with the other hand, that is not going to be helpful at all. Therefore, that will be very important.
It has to be indexed to inflation. Certainly, we have the highest inflation that we have seen in this country in 40 years. Interest rates are up. People are concerned. If we are not keeping pace with that, it will be problematic. I do hear that, if everybody needs an 8.1% increase, it is going to be another inflationary pressure. It is more important than ever that we prioritize spending in the government and that we know clearly where we are going to spend.
When it comes to helping the disabled, I find that we are not always on the same page. The member for Carleton, who is our new leader, had brought a private member's bill to help disabled people. The minister talked about preventing the clawbacks that happened. His bill was going to address the clawbacks that were happening, but the government did not support his bill and it did not pass.
I think that all of us are looking for ways to help. I do not think we should only help by giving money to the disabled. I think we should be incentivizing their work, making it possible. I know that there are barriers they face in terms of accessibility, and the accessibility act, while well-intended, has not always come to fruition. In my riding, there are still places that were grandfathered under that and are inaccessible. Certainly, some attention needs to be paid there.
In addition, I would say that we need to look at the history of how we have treated the disabled community. The remarks from the minister were very well taken on this. We have a lousy track record. We need to get it right. To do that, we need to not just consult with provinces and territories to make sure they are not clawing back the benefits we are going to give, but I we also need to consult with people in the disabled community so that we understand how they need to receive that benefit.
My colleague from Calgary Midnapore mentioned that it is not clear whether it would be a monthly benefit or if it would come at tax time or what it would come as. People who are struggling to get by definitely need to receive this more regularly, so my opinion is that this would be something to take under consideration.
Certainly we will support this bill in principle, but when it comes to committee and all of the details, I hope that the consultations with provinces and territories have been done so that we can see how much of the benefit we need to put in place, so that we can get a costing on it, perhaps from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I also hope we will be clear on who is going to be eligible and how that is going to be determined, because I would not want to see people fall through the cracks unnecessarily.
In terms of the implementation, it should be accelerated, but it is more important to do it right than to do it fast.
1534 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did hear the minister, in her comments earlier, talk about the consultations with those primarily affected by this, the disabled community. I think that she even indicated that this would be an ongoing thing and would continue to happen. That is to respond to one of the member's last points.
With regard to the issue of trying to hone in on the exact amount, does the member not respect the fact that there are already services provided by the provinces and that one of the things we want to ensure we do not end up seeing is that we just end up transferring money to the provinces and they end up decreasing what they are spending?
We have to ensure that money the federal government puts into this is genuinely redirected to those in need in addition to what they might already be receiving. Would she not agree this is a critical element?
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
