44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 20, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I will, in fact, review the member's bill. However, it is important to recognize that in Manitoba we have actually seen some movement from the province toward an income support program for people with disabilities. This is why I say it is so critically important. It is an opportune time to start looking at what other provinces have and to look for willing provinces with whom to sit down and try to negotiate.
I would like to say that Manitoba could potentially be the first province to have an agreement dealing with this legislation and some of the measures that the Province of Manitoba is taking. Hopefully all provinces and territories will be able to come on board, and that is why it is so critically important and why this legislation is timely. Let us get the job done by seeing it ultimately pass through the House.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to express my support for the second reading of Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act. Debate commenced earlier today in the House.
We have taken a huge step toward securing the right for every Canadian to fully participate in society through unimpeded access to basic services, in particular opportunities for long-term and adequate employment. This bill, as a framework legislation, would enact a Canada disability benefit for working-age persons with disabilities as a federal income supplement.
Elements of the benefit that will be established through regulation include eligibility, application and payment processes, and many other questions my colleagues have raised over the morning session of this House. The Canada disability benefit will become an important part of Canada’s social safety net, alongside old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada child benefit. It has the potential to significantly reduce poverty for hundreds of thousands of Canadians with disabilities.
Among many other benefits, the three most significant advantages of this bill to my constituents in Richmond Hill are as follows: First, the bill would take a concrete step towards eradicating deep-seated poverty for persons with disabilities through the establishment of a comprehensive financial benefit plan; second, it would not disrupt eligibility for other income supplements, thereby supporting persons with disabilities at no cost to other available benefits; finally, it would promote an inclusive dynamic in which people of all abilities are able to collaborate and contribute in a meaningful way to their economy.
The creation of an inclusive community is strongly influenced by the advancement of accessibility, which calls for the mitigation of various obstacles that the six million people with disabilities in Canada may face on a daily basis. These obstacles include, but are not limited to, the loss of benefits as a result of becoming unemployed, the lack of accessible support services, and social exclusion in the workplace. As such, the Canada disability benefit would be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to amend the deep-seated social and economic exclusion that is the reality of many persons with disabilities in Canada.
Undoubtedly, a central objective in developing a thriving community dynamic is to secure employment in a barrier-free workplace for all Canadians with disabilities.
Despite these facts, workers with disabilities are twice as likely to live in poverty and are disproportionately paid less. Nearly 850,000, or 21%, of working-age Canadians with disabilities live in poverty, nearly three times the rate of persons without disabilities. The numbers speak for themselves. Working-age persons with disabilities who live alone and lone parents, many of whom also have more severe disabilities, are even more likely to be living below the poverty line. Among those with disabilities, women, members of the LGBTQ community, racialized Canadians and indigenous people are more likely to be financially insecure.
These statistics tell us one important thing: Immediate action is required to secure the financial well-being of persons with disabilities in Canada.
As Canadians struggle with affordability issues, they continue to face serious financial and social barriers to obtaining long-term employment. The prosperity of our community is reliant on the social and economic inclusion of all persons with disabilities. It is essential that Canadians with disabilities can afford the food, rent and medication they need to live a meaningful, dignified and quality life.
Our government has always stood by Canadians with disabilities and ensured that the necessary investments have been made to provide them with the essential support they need. For instance, the enabling accessibility fund, a $64-million investment, was launched by our government earlier this year to support infrastructure projects across Canada that improve the accessibility, safety, and inclusion of persons with disabilities across communities and the labour market.
Noting the many unprecedented hardships that Canadians continue to endure, it is important to ensure that no one with a disability is left behind. The active integration and inclusion of persons with disabilities into our community is vital to me and to those in my riding of Richmond Hill.
Throughout the year, I have had the pleasure of meeting and collaborating with a variety of groups and organizations that dedicate themselves to the well-being of persons with disabilities.
L'Arche Daybreak and the MS Society of Canada are among the groups that we have had the privilege of closely working with. L’Arche Daybreak is a long-standing non-profit in Richmond Hill and an admirable example of how people of different intellectual disabilities can live, work and learn together.
In commemoration of National AccessAbility Week in June 2022, I visited L’Arche Daybreak to extend my heartfelt gratitude for all of their tireless efforts in making our community more just, compassionate and vibrant as a whole. Today, I am confidently affirming that Bill C-22 has paved the path to provide L’Arche Daybreak’s members with the financial resources necessary to pursue diverse employment and educational opportunities.
As we are living in the country with the highest rate of MS, I wholeheartedly advocate for the interests of the MS Society of Canada. The volunteers and staff at this organization raise awareness and offer support for people with MS and their families. I have observed their hard work first-hand through my attendance at numerous events, including MS Awareness Day and our York region MS charity car show.
By ensuring that Canadians living with MS and other disabilities have adequate income support, we promote their participation in all aspects of life, bringing us closer toward a barrier-free world. This is why the introduction of Bill C-22 would, without a doubt, benefit organizations such as L’Arche Daybreak and MS Society of Canada by promoting equality of opportunity for persons with disabilities.
At this moment, I would like to acknowledge and extend my sincere thanks for the commitment displayed and the long-standing advocacy demonstrated by the individuals working for these groups. I assure members that our government will work tirelessly to see that these organizations and members are supported through the introduction of new benefits for persons with disabilities.
As I stand here today in support of this important piece of legislation, I strongly believe that expediting the Canada disability benefit bill into law would put an end to the deep-rooted poverty faced by our friends, families and neighbours, and allow them to meet their basic needs throughout their lives. This legislation means more investment to make our communities and workplaces barrier-free for persons with disabilities. For my community, it means a stronger and a more inclusive Richmond Hill.
Today, I invite all of my honourable colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation so that together we can continue to have Canadians’ backs and create a Canada that includes everyone.
1152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank the member for supporting this bill. It is important because it lays down the groundwork.
As you said, let us expedite this. Let us get it to the committee, and let us work with all provinces and territories. I am sure a member from the Bloc will be there. I am sure there will be members from all parties and all sides who will represent not only the interests of Quebec but also the interests of all Canadians dealing with disabilities.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think I speak for everybody in the House when I say that any measure that would help people living with diverse needs or with disabilities is a positive measure. However, as has been repeatedly pointed out, this is only a framework, and it does not identify who will receive disability benefits, how much they will get or when.
The fact that this is unnecessary is proven by the legislation, which was introduced by the government and driven by the NDP, to establish a dental benefit. I can tell colleagues how much people will get: $1,300 per child. I can tell colleagues when it will start: December 1. I can also tell colleagues that it will be given to children under 12.
Why can the government not specify what the benefits would be for people living with disabilities with this legislation when it can do it in other legislation? By the way, we know that nobody in this country is suffering more from the current inflation and difficult economic times than people living with diverse needs, so why can the government not get these benefits to people right now?
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be careful for the interpreters' ears not to bang the microphones. I will also be splitting my time with the member for King—Vaughan.
I have been listening to this debate since this morning when the minister rose to introduce the bill and explain what it will do. Many members have now spoken explaining many of the shortcomings of this legislation. While this is a so-called framework, it has taken, as some members have said, over seven years to get to this point. It has been over one year now, by the minister's own admission, of working on it. There are other pieces of legislation, such as that the New Democratic member just reminded the House of, that are coming before here with far more details than this particular piece of legislation.
I have worked on income tax legislation affecting the disability tax credit for persons with disabilities. I have an interest in this particular area. Although I support the legislation, I have deep misgivings about it. I am also disappointed that the government could not provide more clarity to the House while we approve it because that would help us decide on the costs of this legislation when we turn around and explain it to our constituents.
There are 21 paragraphs in clause 11 on regulations. They itemize every single component that should, truthfully, be in statutory legislation. This morning, the minister referred to the guaranteed income supplement, which mirrors comments she made and that were reported by the CBC back on June 2. The article says she said, “Bill C-22 has been designed to lift recipients to an income level similar to that provided by the Guaranteed Income Supplement, which ensures someone receiving the benefit gets around $19,000 in benefits a year.” That is not very difficult. That $19,000, if it is the target, should be in the legislation.
They had over a year to do this. Justice Canada probably has thousands of lawyers who could help draft this piece of legislation to ensure that all the potentially unique opportunities for provinces to either clawback benefits or change something could be captured. I understand the government is saying that this is to be determined in the future at some point and somehow, but if the House is going to approve it, we would like to know things like criteria, eligibility and who would be eligible to get it. It should not be left up to regulations.
I have a Yiddish proverb, as I always do. I notice some clerks are looking at me and waiting for it. The proverb says, “If you do not want to do something, any excuse is as good as another.” It sounds way better in Yiddish when one hears it, but this is exactly the point. The government has said it had a year to do this. It actually had seven years. This is a long-term promise it made. Persons with disabilities will continue to wait to hear whether, in their particular situation, they will meet the criteria or the eligibility requirements, and how this will be paid out.
I want to go into the clause on regulations now because I think there are areas of concern that many members will have when this goes to committee that should be changed.
In clause 11 on regulations, there is paragraph (c), which reads, “respecting the amount of a benefit or the method for determining the amount”. It would be left up to the cabinet to decide in the future. I do not quite understand why that is necessary. Just this morning, the minister repeated that she is aiming for an amount similar to GIS, which is $19,000. That should be there. We actually do not need to leave it up to cabinet to decide.
Paragraph (d) reads, “respecting the manner in which a benefit is to be indexed to inflation”. Why? We just spent most of question period talking about the rising cost of inflation and the cost of living. It should be nothing less than a 100% cost of living adjustment. It is called a COLA. It is done already. If there were an issue about it being only done once a year, this is the opportunity to legislate it, perhaps twice or four times a year, using StatsCan, CPI or core inflation. Whatever that number is, the government has the opportunity now to put it into legislation. That should not be under regulations.
Paragraph (e) reads, “respecting payment periods and the amount to be paid each period”. In the GIS legislation, which I saw when I was going through it, this is laid out in legislation. If we are going to mimic the guaranteed income supplement and follow the format, which is not a bad idea that makes a lot of sense, we could just copy the GIS legislation, paste it into this one, move forward and not leave it up to cabinet.
The next one is “respecting the amendment or rescission of decisions made by the Minister”. This is paragraph 11(1)(g), and it would be set by cabinet. A cabinet minister would be sitting at the table to make decisions on whether he or she made the wrong decision and would then determine whether that decision should be rescinded. Again, I do not believe this is a wise way of organizing this legislation.
Paragraph (i) of clause 11 states, “respecting appeals”. The cabinet would be able to decide how appeals will be dealt with. It goes on and on.
Some of these regulations make sense. For administrative penalties and summary conviction provisions on the back end, I think there is some wisdom in this. There is a reference to a very specific section of the Old Age Security Act, section 44.2, in order to ensure there is some type of collaboration between the two programs.
Again, the issue may be that we are still unsure of what some provinces will do. My home province of Alberta has two programs, known by their acronyms as AISH and PDD, which I think will be impacted by this. If there is a concern that some provinces will decide to claw back the benefits, we can just write it into the legislation so people will not lose out. In the past I have supported looking at the disability tax credit and perhaps the Income Tax Act and whether it should be a refundable tax credit. That would use the tax code, instead of setting up an entirely new benefit, in order to reach people who cannot use the DTC right now because they do not earn enough income.
I have had a lot of constituents write to me about this. I want to make sure I read their names into the record. I did read their emails. They are Patti Phillips, Penny Clipperton, Pamela Cowan, Darrell Howard, Sharon Lahey, Jennifer Dobie, Margaret Lima, Loretta Wall, who sent me two emails on this, and Mackenzie. I want to recognize the fact they have written to me on this subject and are interested in ensuring that persons with disabilities have a benefit that works for them and takes them out of poverty.
I am not opposed to the idea of the legislation, and as many members have said already, we can all get behind it, but too much of it is left up to cabinet to decide. During the pandemic, we saw opportunities where I think cabinet got it wrong. With certain transport regulations, it is still holding on to pandemic restrictions such as wearing a mask on aircraft when I do not think any other western country forces people to do so. I do not think wisdom comes from on high in cabinet. I think wisdom comes from the people deciding what is best for them. The representatives of the people are in the House of Commons, so let us vote on constructive, meaty legislation that sets this out.
If there are disagreements, they are matters of law, not matters of policy to be decided through government regulation later on, things that can be changed much faster than pieces of legislation. I would much rather see the disagreements in the future over whether the disability benefit reaches enough Canadians, for example, come back to the House of Commons for a fulsome debate about the benefit, the cost and the eligibility criteria. Those are not things we are able to debate. Actually, probably the only time we will be able to debate them will be at the standing committee this bill is being sent to.
I want to also say that the guaranteed income supplement in the Old Age Security Act is very detailed with respect to how much money someone is eligible for, what the criteria are and how they are determined. It is set out in law, and much less of it is set out in regulations. I would draw the attention of the House to section 12 in part II of the legislation, a lot of which could be applied to this legislation. Again, it is a copy-and-paste job.
For the amount we have been debating so far to ensure that no person with a disability is left in poverty, I want to draw the House's attention to the LICO calculation that Statistics Canada does. In 2020, it said for a household of one person in a population area of half a million people, the LICO is $22,060. If we are just aiming for the GIS as a target, so about $19,000 give or take a few hundred dollars up or down, which is the target the minister implied both in June and today in the House, the vast majority of Canadians would not reach that amount. However, I have heard backbenchers on the government caucus side say repeatedly that it would reach a whole bunch of different people.
As my time is drawing to a close, I will say that although I will be supporting the legislation, I have tried to expound on some of the issues I have with most of this being left up to regulations. I hope that at committee we can fix the legislation to provide Canadians better certainty as to whether they would be eligible, how much they would be eligible for, when they would get it and whether it would always be 100% adjusted to inflation so it is not eaten into over time. It does not make much sense to set up a benefit that would lose its real value over time so that people will not be able to buy groceries and the medications they need and will not be able to do all types of things.
I look forward to questions and comments, and I am thankful for the time that has been given to me.
1836 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his acknowledgement of my private member's bill, Bill C-223, to put in place a guaranteed livable basic income.
I share many of his concerns, certainly, like the very clear lack of detail in the bill, the fact that there are no protections in the bill that would actually lift anyone out of poverty and the fact that the minister has stated it would take three years before the first person would even receive the benefit when people are struggling now. This is deeply concerning.
The member seems to be really compassionate in his understanding of human rights and the need to lift people out of poverty. I am wondering if he supports a guaranteed livable basic income for individuals who currently do not have it. We know that a significant number of those with disabilities live in abject poverty, with a lack of response from consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments. We can turn the page on that, and I am wondering if my hon. colleague supports Bill C-223 to put in place a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.
191 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-22. However, before I do so, I would like to begin by saying that working alongside Canadians with disabilities and helping parents with children who have disabilities have been a passion of mine my entire life before I entered politics.
For the past eight years, I have volunteered with the Township of King, the municipality I live in, as part of its accessibility advisory committee. As a member of the committee, I have worked together with the mayor and council and made recommendations to the township to ensure that community parks, buildings and facilities are accessible to all residents regardless of their abilities. This way, everyone may feel a sense of belonging in their own communities and fully enjoy the facilities provided for them.
I also spent 10 years volunteering with Creating Alternatives, a not-for-profit organization that supports young adults with developmental disabilities by helping them practise literacy and social and work skills as they transition into adulthood. During my time there, I worked with individuals with a wide range of disabilities to create an environment where they felt safe, accepted and confident.
As the member of Parliament for King—Vaughan, I have many constituents in my riding who have children with disabilities or struggle with disabilities themselves who take the time to share their personal stories of hardship with me. Because of the rising cost of living, a resident in my riding with a disability cannot afford to drive and is forced to commute using public transit. Her commute to get to her specialist appointment now takes six hours. Let me repeat that. It takes six hours.
Let me share yet another prime example of a hard-core effect that inflation has had on people with disabilities. One man's son had benefited from participating in the activities offered by a local organization five days a week. However, due to “Justinflation”, these same programs have doubled in cost, making them no longer affordable. This father, whom I spoke with just a few short days ago, also shared with me that his wife has since had to leave her job to stay home to care for their son with disabilities, while he has now had to take on a second job. This has taken a serious toll on his mental health and physical well-being. This is only one example of the heartbreaking challenges the government has put on Canadians.
According to Statistics Canada, one in four Canadians is currently living with a disability, 90% of them living below the poverty line and earning less than $18,000 a year. Let me be clear when I say that I completely understand how important it is that we take care of Canadians with disabilities. We must be there to support our country's most vulnerable residents, but we must do it with an effective plan that will really and truly help them.
We cannot do it with rushed bills. We need to consider important factors when introducing a national disability benefit. We need clear examples and guidelines on how this benefit will impact provincial programs. Canada is a country with many provinces and territories that all have their own set of rules, but Bill C-22 does not account for any of them. We must ensure that Canadians with disabilities and their families can feel confident that their financial security will not be put at risk when applying for this benefit.
In my home province of Ontario, over 600,000 Canadians with disabilities receive benefits from the Ontario disability support program, also known as ODSP. These Canadians rely on programs like ODSP to make ends meet. How will the new Canada disability benefit impact how much money they receive as part of their ODSP? What about other federal programs, like the registered disability savings plan? The lack of information in Bill C-22 does not show how this will impact any provincial program. If the federal program provides additional funds for our constituents, how will this affect any current benefits received at all levels of government? The Liberal government has completely failed to truly consider how this benefit will impact Canadians with disabilities across this country.
Let me remind this House that we have all seen this movie before. This is exactly what happened to millions of seniors after they applied for the Canada emergency response benefit. The government did what it does best: It printed cash and asked questions later. What happened then? Millions of seniors who collected CERB could no longer qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. Once they stopped collecting CERB, they could not receive GIS. Seniors across Canada were forced to foot the bill because of the government's short-sighted legislation.
We need more benefits and services for Canadians living with disabilities. People are struggling now more than ever to pay their bills and keep up with inflation. Parents are doing everything they can to provide a life of dignity and happiness for their children living with disabilities. However, Bill C-22 would not be able to help them unless it is carefully considered and works with other provinces and territories. The Canada disability benefit would be of no use if it would give money to Canadians with disabilities while reducing the funds they receive from other programs. We need to do our vulnerable communities justice while providing them with the assistance they so desperately need through an effective and well thought-out plan. However, as of right now, Bill C-22 would not provide these details to ensure current programs are in place.
Through the eyes of the international community, Canada is a compassionate and caring country that acts as a force for good. In today's uncertain world, other countries look to us for aid, assistance and hope, but as we are instructed on an airplane, people must put their own oxygen masks on first before they can help others. Therefore, before we consider helping abroad, we need to focus on helping the most vulnerable Canadians here at home. We cannot do that with a vague, unfinished plan like Bill C-22.
I want to end my speech here by quoting one very famous lady who lived with disabilities her entire life. I am sure everybody will recognize Helen Keller. She said, “We are never really happy until we try to brighten the lives of others.” She also said, “The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart.”
I lost a sister who lived with disabilities through no fault of her own, by an accident. When she was four and a half years old, she was hit by a drunk driver. Her disability benefits did not cover the basic needs that she required. Thank God for family support or she would have ended up in the streets.
1165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from King—Vaughan for her speech and for sharing her own experiences.
I myself had an uncle who was in a motorcycle accident when he was 19, and it had long-lasting effects. He lived with disabilities for the rest of his life. These experiences leave a mark.
Getting back to Bill C‑22, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on an important topic that she touched on briefly. Quebec has a significant social safety net in place, so this bill must complement the programs that exist already and must not override them. The measures in the bill must also respect the jurisdictions of the federal government, Quebec and the provinces.
I would like to hear her thoughts on these two big and very important points that remain to be clarified in Bill C‑22.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if I understood the question correctly, we need to ensure that the program that is going to be implemented at the federal level offsets or coordinates with the provinces. We cannot give money with one hand and expect to take it back with the other. That is not going to help.
In our province alone, we have programs for individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately, due to the cost of inflation, those programs are not affordable to everyone. We need to ensure that we are going to increase that money without affecting the provincial programs.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way for what she has said and for fighting for people living with disabilities. It is so incredibly important. We have heard in the House about the rising inflation and how it is hitting those living with disabilities harder.
Uniquely, some provincial members of Parliament in our province of Ontario have put themselves on what they call a “welfare budget”. They are trying to live on what people who are in the Ontario disabilities program or Ontario Works receive. I think they are trying to live on $47.60 for groceries each week to show how incredibly important it is for them to receive increases.
Now, the provincial government has only given 5% and those members are calling for that to be doubled. I wonder if the member supports initiatives like that as she has been so positive about ensuring that people living with disabilities have the income they need to survive.
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga on his speech and also for the week he spent in Quebec City this summer perfecting his French. I hope to hear him give his response partly in the language of Molière.
Since the beginning of the debate on Bill C‑22, I have been hearing a lot about how this is a framework that we need to build on. There is indeed a lot missing from this bill. We keep hearing about good intentions, and obviously we agree in principle that we must do more to include persons with disabilities. We must improve their living conditions. Everyone agrees on that. No one can be against apple pie, as they say back home.
What I am seeing, however, is that not only are members getting used to doing the government's work at our riding offices, but it has now gotten to the point where we have to do the government's work in committee too. Bill C‑22, as introduced, is clearly incomplete and inadequate. We must work on it to improve it, which is what the Bloc Québécois intends to do.
My question for the member for Kitchener—Conestoga is this: Why introduce a bill with so little content, on a subject that is so incredibly important?
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, people with disabilities have been suffering from higher bills, but big corporations are making gross profits on the backs of vulnerable people. Since 2015, the Liberals have wanted to look like they care about people with disability, but these empty bills will offer no concrete help and risk delaying help to people desperately in need of it for another three years. They promised to deliver this without delay, yet here we are.
Instead of helping people now, why are the Liberals delaying this support for people with disabilities?
90 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 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, 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
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, in the paragraph the member was reading that said persons with disabilities represent about one in five Canadians, there was a section he read that was discussing the potential benefits and who might be getting this.
Is he implying that the government believes that up to one in five Canadians would therefore be eligible for this benefit? Is that the government's goal? It is not in the legislation, so all we have to go on is just making assumptions based on the 21 regulations. I am putting it to the member: Are one in five Canadians going to get this benefit?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
