44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 20, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I was so engrossed in the question that I forgot I was the one who had to answer it.
It was before my time, but since the Liberals took government in 2015, the Canada child benefit was one of the things we did that was targeted support. The guaranteed income supplement was targeted support. Canada's worker benefit was targeted support, as was raising taxes on the wealthiest Canadians and lowering taxes for the middle class. It is that targeted support that we have been working on. It is slow progress. We are working on it and we are going to keep going there. I would disagree that we have done nothing, but I think we can work together and get more done.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, so much passion coming from all sides of the House on a very important issue is extremely nice to hear.
I am pleased to rise today and participate in this important debate on Bill C-22. I listened with great care to the remarks of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. Since her appointment in 2015 as Canada’s first-ever cabinet minister responsible for persons with disabilities and accessibility, she has worked tirelessly to ensure that persons with disabilities can fully participate in all aspects of society and the economy. She lives it.
Let us be absolutely clear. Bill C-22 is groundbreaking legislation. It proposes the establishment of a new Canada disability benefit that would help reduce poverty for hundreds of thousands of working-age Canadians with disabilities.
In my previous life, I had the opportunity to work and advocate alongside several organizations representing those living with disabilities. The challenges are real, and we all know the pandemic has been especially hard for persons with disabilities. It has brought into clear focus the financial hardships experienced by some of our most vulnerable citizens. In the 2020 Speech from the Throne, we promised to bring forward a disability inclusion action plan, which is being finalized, and a new Canada disability benefit. We are fulfilling that promise today.
As with any legislation, the preamble should clearly articulate the principles that will guide and enable the legislation all the way through to implementation. The preamble in Bill C-22 meets that test and then some. It leaves no doubt that our intention with the Canada disability benefit is to reduce poverty.
We know that far too many Canadians with disabilities live below the poverty line. We also know that persons with disabilities face the real and troubling prospect of losing their basic financial support and other benefits once they are employed and on a payroll. The question then becomes how we design a new benefit that will respond to this challenge, how we find the balance and thread the needle. Should members support this legislation, it will be referred to our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. By the discussions here today, I am sure that will happen and the appropriate outcome will be attained.
I have no doubt that the committee's review will be of considerable interest to stakeholders, including Canadians with disabilities, whose lived experiences can inform us on how the new benefit ought to be designed. That is why a key principle in the preamble specifically refers to “nothing without us” and specifies that “persons with disabilities must be involved in the development and design of laws, policies, programs, services and structures”. I would not be surprised if members wanted to see this bill become law next week or the week after, but we need to get it right.
I would remind my colleagues that members of this chamber and the other chamber were able to review the Accessible Canada Act in a timely and responsible manner. It should also be noted that the Accessible Canada Act was developed following one of the most inclusive consultations in our country’s history. More than 6,000 Canadians and 100 organizations shared their views and ideas on what an accessible Canada meant to them.
The Accessible Canada Act was a historic achievement. It was arguably the most significant piece of legislation on disability rights in Canada since the charter, and it became law on June 21, 2019. The act represents a seismic shift that brings a new accessibility lens to everything we do, challenging us to think differently and to do things very differently. It reaffirms our commitment to making Canada barrier-free and accessible for everyone.
Instead of having to fight for basic access and inclusion after the fact, the new law requires more than 5,000 federally regulated entities, including government departments, Crown corporations and private sector companies, to publish their plans for identifying, removing and preventing barriers to accessibility and inclusion, and to report to all Canadians on their progress in implementing these plans.
At its core, the Accessible Canada Act is about ensuring that all persons with disabilities are treated with dignity and have equal opportunity, autonomy and involvement in their communities. We are making progress. In April, we appointed Stephanie Cadieux as the first-ever chief accessibility officer. Shortly afterwards, Michael Gottheil was named as the first accessibility commissioner to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. These appointments represent two important milestones in implementing the Accessible Canada Act.
Another good example of our progress is the work to create accessibility standards. The Accessible Canada Act established a new organization, Accessibility Standards Canada, which is now developing standards for federally regulated spaces with input from the disability community. Priority standards include the built environment; emergency egress and wayfinding, which is a technology that helps visually impaired persons know where they are and how to get from one location to another; and the built environment procurement.
While the standards developed by Accessibility Standards Canada are voluntary in nature, they are a critical component of realizing a barrier-free country by 2040, as they have the power to support widespread adoption of an inclusive design mindset. Those standards will first be applied to federally regulated spaces, and it is our hope that they will contribute to an undeniable culture shift across Canada towards disability inclusion.
However, the public service is not waiting for the standards. Federal departments and agencies are busy developing their accessibility plans and working to implement a whole-of-government approach under the public service's widespread accessibility strategy.
On the disability inclusion action plan, the third pillar of the plan relates directly to the objectives of the Accessible Canada Act. It focuses on accessible and inclusive communities. Actions under this pillar will include not only ways to address physical barriers in our communities and workplaces but also the barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from fully participating in their communities and the economy.
For example, budget 2022 proposed to make new investments in accessible books, including the creation of a new equitable access to reading program. This new program will help create more accessible books for Canadians with print disabilities, enabling them to better participate in society and our economy.
As we look ahead to the world after the pandemic, it is critical that we do so with the idea of making the recovery as inclusive as possible. This brings me back to the bill before us today. If passed, the Canadian disability benefit would reduce poverty and better support persons with disabilities to fully participate in our economy and our society.
Canadians with disabilities live in every corner of our great country and in every constituency of every member of this House. Today, we have an opportunity to make a real difference and help our most vulnerable citizens. It is time that they receive the support they need. Let us do the right thing. Let us build a more inclusive Canada and a better future for Canadians with disabilities. Let us give all the people in Canada a real and fair chance to succeed. I was told once by an individual who had a severe disability that all of us are only one accident away from having a disability.
I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting this much-needed legislation.
1254 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to first welcome everyone back.
One of the things I have seen today is the great focus on individuals with disabilities and their stories, and I think that is tremendously important. However, we as parliamentarians sometimes gloss past and do not speak specifically enough to the details.
I want to thank the member for Malpeque. His work on the finance committee with me has been very meaningful. He is a very intelligent member, and I want to see if he is concerned, as I am, that there are no numbers in this particular bill.
While the goal of reducing poverty for persons with disabilities is obviously front and centre in the government's communications, it does not actually give a number as to what level of support we would expect across the country. I know that this is a challenging country, but the other part is that the minister can change that amount or a new government can come in and change that amount at any time. Is the member concerned that we are giving too much power to one individual and one government to tell people what level of support they should get?
198 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague on the finance committee, and I certainly hope that we reconvene tomorrow at our first meeting.
It is always concerning when there are no numbers, but I think that the bill before us today is such an important and broad bill that sending it to committee and evaluating it at that level is most appropriate. Also, dealing with the provinces on an individual basis to negotiate the different kinds of issues that may be relevant in the funding agreements within the provinces is most appropriate. I would add that the bill will likely cross the table of the finance committee as well.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.
I want to start by saying that people with disabilities are already grieving because of their disability. There is no way of knowing when an accident is going to happen. People can lose a limb, or they can be born that way.
I am wondering what this bill has to say about eligibility. I know that Mr. Parent, from the organization Finautonome, says that eligibility is a high-priority issue that needs to be addressed. I would like to know what the government is planning to do about it.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I believe the evaluation process that this bill has to go through is broad, and it has to be inclusive. We have to get this right.
This is a one-shot deal to some extent. I believe that, with all the endorsements from all sides and all parties in this House, we will get it right when it is sent to committee for its policy and regulations.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, more than 5.3 million Canadians live with some form of disability and over one million Canadians who live with disability live in deep poverty, yet the Liberal government wasted a year of this Parliament before retabling this empty shell of a Canadian disability benefit act that excludes far too many details.
Who will be eligible for this benefit? How much will this benefit be? When will persons with disabilities start to finally see this benefit?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I believe sincerely in our minister. I think she has lived the experience. I have heard her speak on Prince Edward Island to several groups pertaining to disabilities and organizations. She wears her heart on her sleeve and I appreciate everything she has done.
The former hon. member for Malpeque advocated on behalf of persons with disabilities and developing programs for accessibility across the country, mainly in Atlantic Canada and the Caribbean. I certainly see that as a real benefit to Canada as a whole and persons living with disabilities.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I too would like to speak to this today. What would sum this bill up the best is, “We are the government; just trust us”. That essentially is what this bill is all about. It is an empty shell of a bill. In some ways it is lacking in courage on the part of the government. People might ask me why I say that. Governing is hard work and it takes effort. I would say that this bill has not put in the hard work and has not taken the effort to do what it says it is supposed to do.
On the face of it, it says that this is a disability benefit bill. Those are nice words at the top of an empty piece of paper because we do not know what the benefit is. We do not know who is eligible for it. We do not know how it would affect disability benefits that are already in place across the country. We just do not know a lot of things. Essentially, it is a blank piece of paper with three words on the top: Canada disability benefit. That, to my thinking, is not governing the country. That is not providing leadership to this country. When someone is the government, they get the privilege of providing leadership. They get the privilege of putting forward ideas. They get the privilege of drafting the legislation, putting it forward and opening it up to critique. However, this is an extremely hard bill to critique.
As the official opposition, it is our job to oppose legislation. As the Bible says, “iron sharpens iron”, and it is our job to sharpen it and fix the holes. However, all these things are not in this bill. It is very difficult to say that this bill is going to impact people living in my riding in a particular way because we literally do not know. The bill does not say. It is an empty bill. I would note that when the member for Hamilton Centre, with whom I disagree on a lot of things, calls this bill an empty bill, we are both saying the same thing. I would say that is a unifying thing perhaps in this House.
The fact that the Liberals are not willing to put forward the details of this in many ways seems like a cop-out. It seems like they are putting forward this bill, but they do not want to risk opening themselves up to some criticism around it. Therefore, they are going to let a minister at some point in the future detail out all of the things. That is a challenge. I do not deny that. However, that is the luxury of being the government. They get to put forward and propose the bill. In this particular instance, I do not feel at all that the government has actually proposed the bill. It has just said that these are the notions of what it wants to do and that we should support it in that. We are going to support the bill being sent to committee, and we are hoping that, as this bill goes through the process, some of these things will be fleshed out.
However, it is awfully hard to vote on something on which the government is saying, “Trust us”. Why should we trust the government? We have watched the government operate this country for seven years, and we have learned there are things we should not trust the government on. When it comes to running basic programs in this country, this country is falling apart. Try to get a passport currently. Over the last number of years, that has been an immense challenge. Try to immigrate to this country. My office is inundated with immigration cases and I imagine that my office is not the worst in this country in terms of being inundated. That is a reality. I do not trust the government when it says, “Just trust us”. I want to see what it is actually proposing and I want to know the things I am voting on in specific detail.
Moving on from there, I want to talk a bit about the idea of subsidiarity. It is probably a more Catholic idea. I am a reform guy, but it is more of a Catholic idea. It is the idea that those closest to the individual bear the first responsibility. In that respect, I just want to recognize the organizations, the institutions and the people. What it comes down to is the people who take care of, who help with and who employ folks who live with disabilities.
I will start with the family, for everyone who I know who lives with a disability is an integral part of a family and, in many cases, becomes a defining feature of a particular family. I have a good friend who has a severely disabled son and their son, who is known by the name James, is a defining feature of that family, the particular house that they live in and the particular vehicle that they drive. Many of the vacations they go on are determined by and function around that individual.
I want to thank the families that do this hard work. This is hard work, and families are generally the most well positioned to take care of individuals with disabilities. That is the law of nature. That is the law of reality. In many cases, we see that function amazingly.
When it comes to the broader community, I know that many people are part of a church community. I know that my friend relies heavily on his church community for help in taking care of his son. I know that a big part of how they function is through folks coming in to help out during the week so they can go grocery shopping or these kinds of things. Their church community is a big part of taking care of a person with disabilities.
Then we have employers who reach out. Before I was elected, I worked at the auto mechanic shop, and we have an organization in town called the Blue Heron Support Services Association. They run a day care program for folks with disabilities, and part of that program was to find a job for each one of these individuals.
In the auto mechanic shop where I worked, the Chrysler dealership, they had one of these employees from this program. His name was Wayne. I got to know Wayne very well. It was his job to help out with a whole bunch of tasks, but that gave Wayne a job. When people asked him what he did for a living, he told everybody that he worked at the local mechanic shop. It was a big, fulfilling part of his life, and caused all of us to interact with Wayne on a daily basis, which was a rewarding experience for all of us.
I want to thank places like Stephani Motors, which helped sponsor Wayne in this placement, and Blue Heron Services, which is doing amazing work making sure that these people have a standard of living, are happy and fulfilled in what they do. That is some amazing work that Blue Heron Services and Stephani Motors do in my home town. I also recognize the work that ECHO Society in Whitecourt does with a similar program.
All of these things wrap around to ensure that folks living with disabilities can get jobs, have a place to live, and have an engaging life, as there is often a big recreational component to these programs as well, to ensure that they are a part of the community.
I want to come away from the utilitarian idea of humanity, that one is only as valuable as one's utility. I reject that. I think that we are endowed with dignity because we are human, not because of our utility. I want to mention that, for sure.
Then we want to talk about the broader civil society organizations across the country, the disability rights advocacy groups and things like that, that come and meet with me often. I want to recognize them for their work as well.
I guess I just want to focus a little on a resilient community. They often say that it takes a village to raise a young person. In many respects, that is the case. My experience, and I talked about Wayne already, is how the business community, the church communities and the local families are involved with that. Those kinds of things all wrap around to ensure that these people are part of our community.
I want to mention the feeling the minister talked about at the beginning of her speech, that of being valued. That is an important aspect of whatever we do in this disability space, ensuring that folks feel valued in our society.
Shifting gears a little, I want to talk a bit about the whole idea of poverty and the disability benefit money being given out. Over the last number of years, I have heard it is getting more and more difficult to survive on the benefits the government gives out. In Alberta, we have a system called AISH. I think it is generous enough. There are some issues around the fact that, if people make money, they get a one-to-one dollar clawback, which is a challenge for many people.
However, the inflation that is currently happening, the provincial government really has no control over. The provincial government is responsible for the benefit, but it has no control over the inflation. We are watching things like food, housing and heating going up in price dramatically, and the government benefits are not able to keep up.
Inflation is driven entirely by the federal government. The federal government is responsible for our monetary policy. It is the one responsible for the printing of money in this country. While the provincial government is often responsible for the outlay of service, the federal government is responsible for how much those services cost, given the fact that it has been driving the inflation.
On the one hand, we see the government doing things that are raising the price of other things, and then saying it has to fix the problem. Then it is just handing out more money on the other hand. That is going to have a ping-pong effect, as when there are fewer resources and more money, things are going to get more expensive, and then there has to be more money.
It just seems to me that the government should be focusing on reducing the costs of some of the costs of living, such as food, clothing, shelter and all that kind of stuff. It should work on ensuring that folks who are living on a fixed income could continue to live on that fixed income, rather than have inflation eat away at it and have their housing cost 50% of what they are taking in when it used to only cost 30% of what they are taking in.
This inflation piece is a big part of this disability discussion. Perhaps that is the reason why the government has not laid out a number, because in this dramatically inflationary time, had it laid out a number a year and a half or two years ago, that number may have looked fine then, but today that same number would not look nearly as good, given the fact that housing costs have doubled over the last two years. Maybe that is why the government has left this as an empty bill. Perhaps that is one of the reasons we see this.
For the last point, I want to go back to what the minister was talking about around ensuring that folks with disabilities feel valued. I was elected in 2015, and since the time I got elected, there has been a change in the disability groups' requests and the things that they bring to me to talk about.
I just want to talk about the euthanasia regime in this country and how the disability community is coming to realize that the euthanasia regime that has been put in place, starting in 2017, with significant overhauls in 2020, has changed their sense of value in our Canadian society. I would hope that the minister and the government recognize that the changes they have made to the euthanasia regime in this country has led to that.
I have a number of headlines that have come up across the country, such as “Is Choosing Death Too Easy in Canada?”, “Are Canadians being driven to assisted suicide by poverty or healthcare crisis?” and “Why is Canada euthanizing the poor?”
These are headlines that have come up in my newsfeed over the last few years. These are from the the New York Times, the Guardian and the Spectator, which are all, interestingly, newspapers that are based outside of Canada. It is particularly interesting that it is noted in the article from the Spectator that the CBC had an article saying there is no link between poverty and choosing medically assisted death.
It is interesting that the CBC would choose to report that, given that other countries around the world have been reporting the opposite. In Canada, we have had a case of a veteran with PTSD being offered euthanasia by his case worker. That is not how the Canada I want to represent should be dealing with folks who are living with disabilities. That is not how we want it. Therefore, it is a challenge for me to say that the government is really concerned about folks who are living with disabilities when it has been the architect of a euthanasia regime that is causing people living with disabilities to feel less valued in our society and pushed more toward euthanasia.
The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has highlighted a series of cases that I do not think were ever anticipated when the euthanasia regime was brought in. These are headlines from news articles it has found as well: “Alberta man requested euthanasia based on poverty”, “Veterans Affairs Canada worker advocates euthanasia for PTSD”, “Shopping for a death doctor in Canada”, “Gwen is seeking euthanasia because she cannot access medical treatment”, “Euthanasia, disability and poverty in Canada”, “Euthanasia for long COVID and poverty”, and “Canada's MAID law is the most permissive...in the world”.
These are cases that keep getting highlighted to me by the disability community, which is very concerned about the feelings of value we place on folks who live with disabilities in this country. We want to ensure they are valued in this country and do not feel they need to pursue euthanasia instead of getting the health care treatment or the housing they need. These are documented cases across the country that I think warrant some care and attention given the fact we are here discussing the plight of disabled people across the country.
To sum up, I call on the Liberal government to start governing. This bill is an empty bill. It has some nice words on the top of it, but it fails to outline the details of what we are trying to pursue here with it.
I want to recognize the hard work of the organizations that support the ideas of subsidiarity, family, church, civil society, and the government getting involved to help folks who are in dire straits. I want to recognize the good work of organizations such as the ECHO Society, Blue Heron Support Services and the many organizations across my riding that do good work on this.
I want to also recognize the deep impact inflation is having on folks who live on a fixed income and how they are struggling more and more given the out-of-control inflation the government has caused in this country. I want to recognize the impacts of the carbon tax, in particular how it, and the increased costs of groceries and home heating, really do affect our folks living on a fixed income.
Finally, I want to recognize how the euthanasia regime that has been put in place in this country is causing folks across the country who live with disabilities to not feel valued and to consider euthanasia rather than getting the supports they need. I would tell those who find themselves in that situation to reach out to their local community members and organizations, and their local member of Parliament if need be, so they can help hook them up with the supports they need so nobody in this country feels undervalued.
2812 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/22 4:54:51 p.m.
- Watch
Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore, The Economy; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Government Policies; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Indigenous Affairs.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first I must say that I disagree with the member's conclusions on economic policies with respect to inflation. To imply that provinces and even municipalities do not play a role in inflation is just outright wrong. They do, in fact, have an impact. One only need look at provincial variances, even within provinces. The member used the example of housing. That is something I would expand upon, but it is not what my question is about.
My question is about the legislation. Everyone in this chamber supports Bill C-22. That has been very clear. Yes, there are some issues surrounding the details within the legislation, but there seems to be a general feeling that those issues could be dealt at the standing committee. My friend knows how busy the chamber can get and how limited the time is here, whether it is because of the GST tax credit legislation that will be coming up, opposition days or the dental care legislation. We have a good opportunity to try to pass this legislation so that it at least goes to committee, and then we can have all sorts of debate come third reading.
Would the member not agree, given that everyone seems to be supporting the legislation, that it would be in the best interests of Canadians and people with disabilities to see the legislation go to committee? It seems to me that the principle of the legislation is universally accepted and supported in the House, so why not get it to committee?
256 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the thoughts of the member for Winnipeg North. We get to hear a lot of them.
Nonetheless, yes, it sounds like the sentiment of the bill, a benefit for the disability community in this country, is universally supported in this place. The devil is in the details and that is why we are here to debate things.
I would point out again, as I did at the beginning of my speech, the lack of governance the Liberals are providing by not providing details as to how much the benefit will be, who is eligible and how it will be rolled out. All of these things should be in the bill. Those are the prerogatives of governing, and I would criticize the Liberals again for bringing forward a vacuous bill when they have been promising something like this for over three years.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Peace River—Westlock for his speech.
I want to tell him that, as a Quebecker, I value the right to die with dignity, and I support the non-partisan work that was done in Quebec in that regard. The intellectual shortcut he took from Bill C-22 to the issue of euthanasia is extremely dangerous.
That said, I have a question for the hon. member. The study of Bill C‑22's predecessor, Bill C-35, ended a year ago when the election was called. Incidentally, today also marks the first anniversary of my re-election as the member for Shefford. I want to once again thank the voters in my riding for placing their trust in me.
At present, Bill C‑22 provides for three years of consultations. That is a long time for persons with a disability who need help immediately and who are being affected by inflation right now.
I also want to remind my colleague that I am very involved with disability organizations. My partner and I have done a lot of volunteer work, and a member of my family had a disability and passed away.
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her work. It sounds like we are in agreement that this bill is lacking in details. I was very much looking forward to having details on this bill.
As the member noted as well, this bill was in the works prior to an election that nobody asked for or needed, so I am hoping, like her, that the Liberals will be able to put some details in the window. We will see what we get at committee.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that this bill is lacking. The Liberals have had seven years to put it in place, but there are no details and there always seems to be quick solutions. I will give a couple of examples. Pipelines received $2.2 billion in fossil fuel subsidies, something the Conservatives supported. The Conservatives were in power forever and had years to do something. There is all this money for corporations and all this money for corporate bailouts, but those with disabilities and organizations have to beg for a tuppence.
Now the minister is saying that people have to wait for three years. I have offered a tangible solution. I put forward a bill, Bill C-223, in support of a guaranteed livable basic income that would lift people out of poverty, in addition to current and future government supports. The Conservatives talk about government waste. I can say there is lots of corporate waste that they continually support.
I am wondering if the member supports my bill, Bill C-223, as he is so worried about lifting people out of poverty. It is a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.
197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I must say that very few bills have elicited such a response as Bill C-223. In my constituency office, I have had thousands of people communicate with me over that particular bill. I will not be supporting it. However—
Mr. Matthew Green: Contrary to all the emails.
Mr. Arnold Viersen: No, that is not contrary at all, actually. Most of the emails were calling for me to very much not support that particular bill.
However, I would point out that it is within the NDP's power to change this Parliament, as it has put together a confidence agreement with the government. While NDP members seem to share my disappointment in Bill C-22, I would point out that they are continuing to support the government.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the member for Peace River—Westlock points out, Canadians with disabilities need more than a message. They need funds in the bank. I share his concern that the text of the bill is the exact same as it was in June 2021.
Given the member's support for moving the bill ahead, can he share whether he also supports getting emergency funds to Canadians with disabilities who need it now, recognizing that the bill is not going to see the light of day for quite some time?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not entirely sure what the member means by “emergency funds”, but I would again point out that I am very disappointed that this is such an empty and vacuous bill. The prerogative of the government is that it gets to propose things, but this is hardly a proposal. This is three words on the top of a blank page.
Members keeping saying to send the bill to committee, but I am not exactly sure how the committee will flesh some of these things out. I am sure we will hear from thousands of Canadians on what they think the government ought to do, but regarding how the bill will get fleshed out at committee, given my experience with committee, I am not exactly sure what to expect from that process.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the member brought up a lot of the shortfalls of the bill. The government, over the last few years, has been promising that it would bring it through, but we see that most of the details are being left up to cabinet to decide.
I want to put this to him. Twenty-one regulations would be created through this piece of legislation, but it is leaving it up to cabinet to decide very simple things, such as when the benefit would be paid and what the rules would be for recision, which means how it would get paid back. The one that is most concerning to me is subclause 11(d), which says, “respecting the manner in which a benefit is to be indexed to inflation”. We have a cost-of-living crisis in this country. It is becoming more and more unaffordable, and when we go to the grocery store we see it. It is sticker shock for most people. The people on a fixed income, as the member was saying, are the ones who are hurt the worst, especially at the grocery store but also on their rent. Month after month, it is becoming more difficult to pay those bills, and now we would leave it up to cabinet to decide how this will be fixed in the future, for our benefit.
Could the member perhaps weigh in with his opinion on whether this is a particular area that should be amended in order to provide certainty for persons with disabilities?
259 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the bulk of the bill is on the so-called regulations side of things. Again, I do not know if we can determine in the regulations that the minister should tie this to a particular percentage point or something like that around inflation.
I note that inflation is probably the number one reason that folks from the disability community are communicating with me to say that it is getting harder and harder to live on what they receive. It is interesting that the government would not just put in the bill that this would be indexed to inflation.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
