44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 1, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I know that I talk a lot in this place about having a bar of dignity that no one falls beneath in this country, and I think what we are seeing across the board is a lot of folks who are falling below that bar of dignity.
Persons with disabilities have been very clear. I have to say that I appreciate their advocacy and I am really sad that they have to fight so hard just to be treated with proper human decency and respect.
We know for a fact that, even though I will support this bill and have done everything I can, along with my colleagues, to make sure that this gets through, it will still take about a year until the benefit is even out the door to people living with disabilities.
I have talked to folks in my communities who are living with disabilities, who are living in housing where they do not even have a stove or anything, with a tiny fridge, so they are trying to find a way to feed themselves. They cannot do things because it is a lot of work for them with their mobility issues.
I am just wondering if the member could talk about how important it is that this government work hard to make sure that there are no clawbacks from territorial or provincial governments.
229 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, absolutely, it has to be a priority. It is something that we talked about a lot at committee and it absolutely has to be a priority to consider that individuals do not have clawbacks.
I see my colleague here from the NDP who is on our committee. It was Conservatives and other opposition members who were making sure that, even though we wanted to move things along at committee, we did have enough time to hear from people. It was really important for all of us to make sure of that, because we knew that there were a lot of individuals and a lot of groups who wanted to testify, who wanted to bring in written submissions. We wanted to make sure that what we were receiving was inclusive and that we had enough time. We heard from hundreds of organizations and people.
I just want everyone to know that they were heard. I, myself, personally read every single one of the written submissions that came in and that was definitely part of the consideration for where our comments came from.
183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the member for Kelowna—Lake Country for her support of important amendments at committee from myself and others. It was an incredibly constructive process.
As she states, if this bill passed, nothing would change until the governing party funds the Canada disability benefit. I would love to hear from her if she and others in her party will be putting pressure on the governing party to fund the Canada disability benefit in budget 2023.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think one of the biggest revelations that came out early on, when we were questioning the minister at committee, was how long they were expecting the regulation time frame to take place. They kept talking about the fact that they had been doing consultations already and they wanted to move things along.
Once we started to have a discussion, I said at committee that this actually sounds like it is going to be a year after royal assent when in fact things are finalized, and it would be more than a year before people receive benefits. That was acknowledged by the minister at committee and I think we were all quite surprised by that. We definitely were quite shocked to hear that information, that it would take that much longer.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of Canadians living with disabilities in the Ontario Winter Games-hosting riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
Bill C-22, the false hope bill, meets the Liberals' net-zero goal. There is net-zero benefit to Canadians living with disabilities. After eight years of incompetence and corruption, the Liberal approach is to deny, delay and deflect. If dragging their feet were an Olympic sport, the Liberals would sweep the podium.
In 2015, with unanimous support, the House passed my private member's bill to protect Canadians living with disabilities from predatory vulture companies. These vultures offered to help Canadians living with disabilities complete the disability tax credit form. After completing a one-page form, these companies charged up to 30% of the tax credit intended for Canadians facing additional living costs due to disabilities. Thousands of Canadians lost millions of dollars to these vultures.
Sadly, for Canadians living with disabilities, my bill was passed shortly before the Liberals took power. Whether out of partisan spite or just Liberal indifference to Canadians living with disabilities, this gang took seven years to pass one page of regulations required to make the law actually work, seven years of predatory vulture companies taking a 30% cut of the disability tax credit. It took them seven years to pass regulations that can be printed on a single sheet of paper. It took them seven years to help Canadians living with disabilities. Now they are at it again.
Bill C-22 was originally Bill C-35. It had to be reintroduced after the Prime Minister called his superspreader pandemic election campaign. Canadians living with disabilities need to remember that the political interests of the Liberal Party always come first.
It has been three years since this bill was introduced, but even if I could snap my fingers and pass the bill right now, Canadians living with disabilities would still not see any help from the government. That is because the bill is TBD, “to be determined”. How much will the benefit be? That is TBD. Will the benefits be clawed back? That is TBD. Who is even eligible to receive it? That is, again, T bleeping D.
At committee, the minister said that it would be at least a year before Canadians living with disabilities would have the answers to those basic questions. My private member's bill to protect Canadians living with disabilities from vulture companies required just one regulation, and the regulation was to set a maximum amount these vultures could charge. It took seven years to set the maximum at $100.
Canadians living with disabilities waited seven years for one regulation from the Liberals, and now the Liberals are claiming they will pass the dozens of required regulations in one year. It would actually be a great relief to Canadians living with disabilities if the government admitted the delay in regulating vulture companies was out of partisan spite. If that was not the reason for the delay, it means the government is incompetent. It means Canadians living with disabilities could be waiting years for financial assistance, and that is unacceptable.
It is why Conservatives pushed for and successfully secured an amendment requiring the minister to report back in six months of this bill passing on the progress to pass the required regulations. The challenge is that this type of accountability measure only works in governments with the capacity to feel shame. Unfortunately, shamelessness is a defining feature of the Prime Minister and his government. I am not the first one to say the Prime Minister cares more about style over substance. Former finance minister Morneau literally wrote a book about it.
This disability benefit act might just be the purest form of the Liberals' style-over-substance problem. There are no dollars budgeted for this bill, yet to hear the government members speak, Canadians might think this bill has already passed and completely solved poverty. However, a press release is not policy, and the devil is always in the details. In the case of this proposed disability benefit, the devil is the clawback, and the details are the provinces.
My colleagues on the committee proposed an amendment to prevent the benefit from being clawed back. The Liberals voted against it. The minister claims a clawback is a red line when negotiating the creation of a benefit with the provinces, yet the Liberals voted against putting that into legislation. How can the minister claim a red line exists for the government when the Liberals voted against it?
If Canadians living with disabilities are worried about the government's track record on passing regulations, that should be doubly true with any required negotiations with the provinces. I know some Liberals will point to the speed at which they “negotiated” with the provinces on $10-a-day day care. That was some negotiating: “Here is some money. Go spend it on day care.” Negotiating the disability benefit will be much harder. In this case, the provinces have some actual leverage. How many Liberals will appreciate this leverage will depend more on the electoral fortunes of the Liberal Party in that particular province.
Inevitably, this will leave Canadians living with disabilities facing a patchwork of policies, depending on the province. Sorry, Madam Speaker, I misspoke. “Inevitable” means it is certain to happen, but when it comes to the government, nothing is certain except the pursuit of its own political interests. Canadians living with disabilities do not deserve to experience more uncertainty. They need our support to live full lives and participate fully in society, including in the workforce.
This was an urgent bill when it was first introduced three years ago. As Liberal spending fuelled the cost-of-living crisis, that urgency has only increased, yet for the Prime Minister, the most urgent matter was not passing the original legislation; it was calling his superspreader election.
After eight years of this corrupt Liberal government, Canadians living with disabilities are even worse off. Just as inflation has made it more expensive to live, the government is making it easier to die. We have heard testimony at committee of Canadians living with disabilities considering assisted suicide because the government spending is driving up inflation. It is only more chilling when the director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba said, “I was rather proud that Canada has done so well in terms of organ donation by MAID patients.”
Then we have the Minister of Justice claiming, “Remember that suicide generally is available to people. This is a group within the population who, for physical reasons and possibly mental reasons, can’t make that choice themselves to do it themselves.”
When Canadians hear those quotes, they are right to think Canada is broken. We have a so-called ethicist celebrating organ harvesting, and a justice minister claiming a right to be killed through the help of the state. We have a Liberal government that will take seven years to pass one regulation to protect Canadians living with disabilities.
The urgency to pass legislation that delivers tangible benefits is real. Every minute the Liberals delay getting this money back into bank accounts puts lives at risk. The members across the aisle might roll their eyes, but 35% of Canadians who died by assisted suicide in 2021 felt they were a burden to their family, friends or caregivers.
The government was warned repeatedly of the danger that expanding assisted suicide posed, and the loudest warnings came from those living with disabilities. It is not because we live in a structurally ableist society. It is because the rhetoric from the government about helping Canadians living with disabilities never matches the money actually spent. What money we do provide will be clawed back the very minute they try to improve their financial situations, and that is why it is truly immiserating for Canadians living with disabilities. Structural impoverishment by government policy is a kind of hopelessness that drives people to commit suicide. It is a kind of despair that can only be fuelled by promises of benefits that never actually arrive.
We need to put ourselves in the shoes of someone who had reached that breaking point in late 2020. They are encouraged to hold on. They are told a benefit that will make a material improvement in their lives is on the way. They watch for any sign that relief is near. Their hope grows when they hear legislation is being introduced with all-party support. However, then there is the Prime Minister's urgent superspreader election.
1453 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to that speech on the bill we are debating, but most of the time was spent talking about the member's own bill, which was passed some time ago. It was bizarre to make this about herself, but I guess that is an occupational hazard in this place.
As the member is talking down this piece of legislation, I wonder if she could explain why she voted for it at second reading. Is she going to vote for this bill going forward? If so, why?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that bill passed with all-party support and then the election happened, and people living with disabilities waited and heard that the government considers subsidies for television producers more important for Parliament to consider. Then the Liberals introduced their news media subsidy legislation, and we see that the Prime Minister considers money for bribing reporters more important than the disability benefit legislation. Finally, just so Canadians living with disabilities really understand where they rank among Liberal priorities, the government said harassing lawful firearms owners was more important than providing a disability benefit to those living with disabilities.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.
Although I have a completely different point of view, there is one thing we agree on, and I would like to ask her a question. I, too, am a member of the committee that did an in-depth study of Bill C‑22.
What seems to be unique about this bill is that the amount of the benefit and the eligibility criteria will be established by regulations, without any parliamentary oversight on what the benefit level will be. Will this amount truly complement what is being provided in Quebec and the provinces? Will it meet its objective of reducing poverty? We moved an amendment in that regard in committee proposing that the eligibility criteria and the amount of the benefit be studied in Parliament and a decision be made. The amendment was not successful.
What are my colleague's thoughts on that? Would it have been a good idea?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just before Christmas, I started receiving phone calls on Bill C-22, with people asking me to please vote for Bill C-22. I thought I better look and make sure I know what I am calling them about. When I looked at the bill and started scrolling through it, I thought my iPad was frozen because there was nothing there. I looked at it and it said “coming into force”, but what was coming into force?
I can already hear the grumbling across the aisle. Those members will claim they care about Canadians living with disabilities, but how many of them were in the House eight years ago when we passed the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act unanimously? I know the member for Papineau was there. He, too, supported the legislation to help Canadians living with disabilities, but then when he became Prime Minister, it took seven years to pass one regulation. I pray that is not the case with the Canada disability benefit. Given the greasy slope this country seems to be on, we do not have another seven years to wait.
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I bring a bit of personal experience to this debate, as my youngest child lives with a disability. She is 27 years old, and we have been working with other parents in the disability community, so I know how important this disability benefit is.
I really share my colleague's comment that it is cruel to continue to make promises to this community and not deliver. However, I was in the House from 2008 to 2015, when her government, the Conservatives, sat back while millions of people with disabilities did not receive a benefit like the one before the House today. Curiously, that is about the same amount of time it has taken the current Liberal government.
First, what amount of benefit does the member think is appropriate to support persons with disabilities? Second, we have a dental bill before the House that would bring dental care to millions of Canadians living with disabilities. Can she tell the House why she voted against it?
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the first question was about what we as Conservatives did when we were in power. I remember that our dearly beloved Jim Flaherty, who had two sons living with disabilities, brought in a number of disability savings accounts because he knew there would be a time when he and his wife would not be there to care for them. He not only put together a bill but implemented a savings plan so that people, when grown, would be able to have a disability benefit. However, not all families are fortunate enough to have money to put away.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑22, which seeks to establish a disability benefit.
I want to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. We will support it because we strongly believe that urgent action must be taken. Many people with disabilities and their advocacy groups, whom I have met with personally on several occasions, have stated unequivocally that the situation is serious for them.
If there is one thing we should remember, it is that people with disabilities have the right to be recognized, they are full-fledged members of our society and their rights and dignity should not be compromised because of their differences.
I am sorry that I did not think of it sooner, but I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with our beautiful and beloved artist, the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/23 5:25:56 p.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share her time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Bloc believes that the government must ensure that every citizen has a decent social safety net. That safety net is currently torn and we have to fix it. We will support the bill, but allow me to share some of my reservations. These are the same reservations that I shared here in the House at second reading of this bill, as well as in the committee of which I am a member.
We are all concerned about the convoluted way in which the government went about this. We fear that the minister is taking absolutely all the power by deciding on every single detail of the benefit by regulation. We are concerned that parliamentarians are being called to vote on a bill that presents good intentions, that is a major step forward, but is nonetheless a blank page. We are especially concerned that the regulations are being developed without any transparency and that at the end of the day, the benefit will not satisfy the need, which, let us not forget, is to lift persons with disabilities out of poverty.
Yes, we will support the bill because there is an urgent need for action. People with disabilities are in a precarious position, and we need to help them. Do not forget that people with disabilities also face additional costs related to their disability, such as home adaptations, food delivery, and medication. Being disabled costs more. On top of that, there is the pandemic and inflation, which have further impoverished this segment of the population.
Here is an example from the Journal de Québec:
...Paul Awad, a 57-year-old man struggling to make ends meet and get the basic services he needs to live with dignity. The livable income in Sherbrooke, the city where he lives, is $26,299 per year. With his [income] of approximately $1,200 a month, he often has nothing left at the end of the month. “I want to be free of the stress of having to choose between food and rent every month. I want to live a dignified life on my own terms,” he says.
This benefit is of vital importance to him. Mr. Awad is one of many people with disabilities in the same situation.
That is why it is important to the Bloc Québécois to support creating this benefit. We believe the government's job is to redistribute wealth to level the playing field by creating a proper social safety net. However, as I said earlier, we have concerns. For one thing, we do not know a thing about what the government actually plans to put in the benefit.
Let us not forget that, in June 2021, during the 43rd Parliament, the government passed Bill C‑35, which was essentially an empty shell. One election later, the government was back at it with Bill C‑22, which is an exact copy of its predecessor and another blank slate.
For example, we have no information about the eligibility criteria. There is very little information about the amounts. Who is eligible? The government is failing to provide a clear definition of who will qualify for the benefit. People with motor, sensory or mental disabilities? People with a debilitating disease or permanent or temporary disability? All types of disability? We have no idea.
As for eligibility criteria, we have no idea how people with disabilities are supposed to apply. Will the government set up the simple, efficient process that many groups have asked for? There are no details about this.
We also have no idea how the federal government plans to coordinate with the provinces. Even the officials who appeared before the committee had a hard time explaining how the provinces handle this. What we do know is that no two provinces do the same thing. There is clearly a lot of work to do on that.
In her public statements and in committee, the minister has given a few hints about her intentions. For example, she said that the benefit would be similar to the guaranteed income supplement, that it would align with the provincial programs and that the process would be simple.
Those are fine words, but there is nothing in the bill to that effect. Basically, what she is telling us is to trust her and to vote for a blank page. That is a very worrisome and rather unheard of approach.
That brings me to another concern, which is the government's lack of consistency. Because the creation of this benefit is so important, we believe that it should go through the proper legislative process.
However, the government decided to call all the shots by doing everything through regulation. It is justifying its decision by saying that this is an urgent matter, but the Prime Minister did not seem to think it was too urgent when he decided to trigger an election in 2021 and let former Bill C-35 die on the Order Paper. We could have easily passed this law a year sooner, as advocacy groups wanted us to do. The government's argument does not hold water.
The right thing to do would have been to consult the groups, reorient the form and content of the bill, and submit it to parliamentarians. The other details could have been worked out later in the regulations. That is how the government would have proceeded if it had the least amount of respect for the work of parliamentarians.
Under the circumstances, in committee, I asked that the regulations, once drafted, at least be sent back to the House to be voted on. The governing party rejected my proposal. I think that is outrageous.
Under the circumstances, the Bloc Québécois will be on guard and closely monitor the development of this benefit. Certain things are non-negotiable. First, we are asking that the benefit meet the needs expressed by the advocacy groups. It will need to substantially improve the financial situation of persons with disabilities. We cannot accept a half measure that has no impact. We are also asking that during the development of its regulations, the government invite every relevant stakeholder to the table and that the process be open and transparent.
In committee, we received dozens of witnesses who all had important information to contribute to the debate. We need to listen to them. That is not to mention the hundreds of written submissions and briefs we were sent.
Let me share an example. As of January 2023, Quebec has introduced a basic income program, increasing the social assistance benefit for people with severe disabilities by 40%, as well as allowing for additional income.
Since there will be a virtually exemplary safety net, even if it is not perfect yet, how can we ensure that Quebec's superior social safety net does not get dragged down by the new benefit? How can we ensure that no one loses out on the benefits they are entitled to with the guaranteed income supplement? That is our concern.
That said, I think the majority of groups have said this is an urgent matter. People with disabilities need this support. We encourage everyone to move quickly on this and, most importantly, we ask that parliamentarians be updated on the progress and reality of this work.
1233 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, looking at the legislation we have before us, it is important to recognize that, whether today or during the pandemic, the government has recognized and supported our disability communities.
The minister and the parliamentary secretary made reference to the numbers and the impact it would have on millions of people. This is indeed progressive legislation, and it sets a framework to ensure that people with disabilities are provided with support.
Realizing that there is some ongoing work required to complete or complement the legislation, would the member not agree that this is a positive step forward? This is why we expect the legislation will pass, hopefully with support from all parties of the House.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset that the Bloc Québécois would support this bill. Yes, it is imperative and it is a step forward that could have been taken much earlier.
Our concern with this bill has to do with ensuring that it achieves the objective of lifting people out of poverty and that it does so in a way that complements, but does not duplicate, what is being done in the provinces. We have a humble suggestion to make. The government wants to decide on a benefit amount without any guidance and without parliamentarians being informed. How can we ensure that elected members get to provide oversight? That is what we are asking for. One more step is needed in the process.
This is unheard of. I defy anyone to show me another bill that commits money and sets eligibility criteria for claimants without any parliamentary oversight. That is the problem.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the member for her speech. We sit at committee together and have collaborated together in opposition.
She did touch on this, but I wonder if she could expand a little bit further her thoughts on the fact that any of these items, whether it is how much people will receive, who will receive it, what the process will be and whether there will be clawbacks, will be done at regulation stage.
The work we did at committee will not be happening any longer. All of that will be behind closed doors, and nothing will be coming back to Parliament or committee for oversight. What are her thoughts on that?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the problem. In committee, we would have had that opportunity with the Bloc Québécois's amendment. It did not address the regulations as a whole, but focused on three elements: the eligibility criteria, which is not insignificant; the conditions under which the benefit will be paid or will continue to be paid; and the amount of the benefit or the calculation method.
This will all be established by regulation. In committee, I gave an example that may have seemed absurd. The government could decide that the new additional benefit would be $5. We know that will not be the amount, however, given that the amount will be set by the regulations, there is no longer any control and these amounts and criteria could change. We find that to be unacceptable. We agree that the benefit must be made by and for persons with disabilities. However, ultimately, we must be able to ensure that the objectives are achieved. That is our job as parliamentarians. I invite the government to strengthen this objective in its bill.
183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member and I certainly share concerns about the emptiness of the bill. I really appreciated the member's work at committee trying to get some of that oversight.
I wanted to ask the member about the risk of impacts on provincial benefits. Does the member have anything to share on what the risk could be of the loss of provincial benefits?
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I really enjoy working with her at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
I think we all have the same goal when it comes to Bill C‑22, and that is to give it more teeth. Groups came to tell us how important it is to them to participate in this benefit. Yes, I think that the principle of “us” is there.
However, it is also important that we, as parliamentarians, become guardians of what the groups are looking for. There is an urgent need to act, and we could easily have combined the regulatory route with the parliamentary route.
When has the amount of the guaranteed income supplement for retirees ever been decided by regulation? Never.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
