44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 20, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I too would like to thank my friend. I hope he had a great summer in his riding. I am always happy to discuss these very important issues with him.
We are debating the issue of people living in poverty. With this bill, we are looking to support some of these individuals living in poverty. I hope that parliamentarians in the House will work together so that we can finish the debates, send the bill to committee, study it at third reading and send it to the Senate so that it can then receive royal assent. That is the important thing. We are working together as a team, and we will reach that goal. Let us hope that it happens sooner rather than later.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I can tell the parliamentary secretary has good intentions from his speech, but good intentions on their own do not pay the bills.
I know he is aware the text of this bill is exactly the same as the text from back in 2021, while Canadians with disabilities are still living in poverty. Can he share evidence that demonstrates the governing party is serious about funding this benefit with the urgency the disability community deserves?
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I can tell my colleague we are definitely serious about bringing this quickly across the finish line. The best example I can give him is that it is the first legislation we have brought forward. Today is the first day we have returned to the House of Commons, and this is the first debate of our government. That is a clear sign that we want this done and that we want it done quickly.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑22. I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague, the member for Shefford.
Bill C‑22 seeks to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.
I would like to begin by acknowledging all the people in my beautiful and great riding of Abitibi—Baie‑James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I would also like to acknowledge the exceptional work of all the organizations in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. A special acknowledgement goes out to the organizations in the Vallée‑de‑l'Or RCM that help or provide services to persons with disabilities: Ressource pour personnes handicapées Abitibi-Témiscamingue/Nord‑du‑Québec — hello to Rémy Mailloux, the organization's director for the past 25 years — the Centre la Mésange in Senneterre, the Centre d'Intégration Physique de l'Envol Val‑d'Or and the Club des handicapés de Val‑d'Or.
First and foremost, we must think about those who are living with a disability. We cannot lose sight of the fact that their condition is permanent, that this is their reality for the rest of their lives. People complain if they have to use crutches because of a sprain or a break, but that is only temporary. We need to put ourselves in their shoes. Unfortunately, these people are often cast aside by society or forgotten by governments. As I often say, a single gesture can make all the difference, and so can this bill.
In Quebec, 37% of people living with a disability have to survive on less than $15,000. Of course, there is already a federal benefit to help minors living with a disability, namely the Canada child benefit. Seniors receive the old age security pension. However, there is a gap that Bill C‑22 aims to fill, and that is the gap that people with disabilities find themselves in when they reach the age of majority, that is, the age of entry into the labour market, until they retire. There are some measures already in place to alleviate the financial burden of people living with a disability, but they are insufficient to ensure a good quality of life.
According to the latest Canadian Survey on Disability, the CSD, an estimated 1,053,350 Quebeckers aged 15 years and over has one or more disabilities. That is a lot. That is 16.1% of Quebec's population aged 15 and up. Disabilities can be related to vision, hearing, mobility, flexibility, dexterity, pain, learning, development, mental health and memory.
Many people who live with one or more disabilities are willing and able to work and be financially independent. Unfortunately, many are discriminated against in the job market. In Quebec, 8.8% believe they were denied an interview because of their disability in the previous five years, 14.1% believe they were turned down for a job because of their disability in the previous five years, and 11% believe they were passed over for a promotion because of their disability in the previous five years. This kind of discrimination does nothing to improve these people's financial health and quality of life. These people need help.
Bill C‑22's objective is noble since it aims to provide financial support to people with disabilities in Quebec and Canada and, more specifically, to improve the financial situation of working-age Canadians living with disabilities. It seeks to fill some of the gaps in Canada's social safety net, which includes old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada child benefit.
One problem in Quebec is that many Quebeckers do not identify as living with a disability and therefore do not claim the assistance provided to people living with a disability. There are several reasons for this. For instance, some people who have never had a health problem might find themselves ill all of a sudden and they do not know where to look for help or do not even want it. Others may not realize that their condition is considered a disability. Some people think the application process is too complex. Since the tax credits are non-refundable, some people do not have sufficient income to claim them. Another important thing to point out is that the French words “handicap” and “invalidité” are not interchangeable.
There is some confusion about the definition of disability among francophones. This was raised by Guillaume Parent, director of the Centre d'expertise finances et handicap of Finautonome. Mr. Parent applauds the introduction of Bill C-22, but has some concerns. He underscores the cultural and linguistic differences between Quebec and Canada, which threaten to create confusion about the application of the bill.
Mr. Parent had questions about the terms and conditions of the benefit, which have not yet been established, and outlined them in an open letter printed in La Presse, as follows:
Who will be included? Establishing eligibility for such a measure is a priority. Linguistically and culturally, in francophone Canada the French term “handicap” does not have the same scope as the term “disability” used in English Canada.
That is one reason why fewer people self-identify as having a disability in Quebec. Our population claims half the amount of federal disability tax credits claimed in the other provinces.
He also criticizes the fact that the federal government plans to conduct consultations over three years to establish the terms of the benefit. He believes that the needs are immediate and that such lengthy consultations are not necessary.
Mr. Parent is not the only one to raise this issue. In a June 2021 press release, the Regroupement d'organismes en DI/TSA issued a statement that welcomed the bill but expressed the community's concerns about it, much like Mr. Parent did. It reads as follows:
Canadians have mixed feelings about the promise of a new benefit for people with disabilities. Most of them are enthusiastic about the idea and approve of the initiative, but many doubt that it will go ahead as planned. Some of them also feel as though there is too long of a wait before the benefit becomes a reality. With the House of Commons adjourned for the summer, those who are eligible will be not be able to receive the benefit until at least the fall. Some people are concerned that this measure comes too late, particularly for people who are experiencing financial hardship related to the current pandemic.
Canada's unions and many advocacy groups for people with disabilities are skeptical about how effective the benefit will be because the legislation lacks specificity and implementation timelines.
Nonetheless, everyone agrees that more financial assistance for working-age people with disabilities is needed....
I can see other problems with Bill C‑22. The broad principles are stated in the bill, but all the terms and conditions, criteria and amounts of money will be decided through ministerial regulations. We have no clear idea of the terms of the benefit other than it will be intended for persons of working age and will be considered an income supplement.
As drafted, Bill C‑22 does not specify whether Ottawa will administer the benefit or whether the federal government plans to transfer the money to Quebec and the other provinces so that they can administer it. These terms and conditions will be spelled out in the relevant regulations and so are not outlined in the legislation. Essentially, we do not know under which constitutional authority this benefit is being created.
There are other gaps in Bill C‑22. When the time comes to study the terms around sending the cheque, the bill does not provide any answers to several questions. What are the eligibility criteria? What are the terms and conditions for the payment? What is the amount of the benefit and how will that amount be calculated? What are the payment periods? How can we avoid the clawback of benefits currently being paid to persons with disabilities?
To conclude, Bill C-22 helps implement the Canadian Accessibility Act, which calls for the removal of barriers experienced by people with disabilities in the following areas: employment, the built environment, communications, information and communications technology, the procurement of goods, services and facilities, the design and delivery of programs and services, and transportation.
Given that Quebec has a social safety net that is the envy of many nations, it goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois supports all efforts to improve the conditions of people living with a disability. I will vote in favour of the bill so that it can be studied in committee with a view to improving it and making certain clarifications.
1522 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I asked the previous Conservative speaker about the possibility of recognizing the fact that there seems to be universal support. All political entities inside the House are supporting Bill C-22. When we talk about the principle of the legislation, it seems that everyone will be voting in favour of it.
In a legislative agenda, things get fairly busy, whether it is the GST, the dental plan or opposition days. Here we have a wonderful opportunity to try to pass the legislation, given that everyone is in favour of the principle of it.
Why would we not allow it to go to committee, where it could be thoroughly discussed in detail to look at possible amendments, and then maybe have a greater debate at third reading?
Would she support and would the Bloc support its quick passage?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
As it stands, the bill is promising. However, there are some shortcomings, as was mentioned earlier and as I said in my speech, including a timeline, ineligibility and the benefit amounts, which should be paid out monthly.
It is important that we go to committee quickly to resolve this situation, and I hope that the government will support this request.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I think she touched on a very important point. Lofty principles and grand intentions are all well and good, but as they say, it is all sizzle and no steak. This bill falls short in the substance department.
Persons with disabilities are living in extremely painful and difficult circumstances, but this bill has nothing to offer. There is no telling if the government is contemplating a guaranteed basic income or targeted benefits. When will it happen? Who will be included? Who will be excluded?
Persons with disabilities who are waiting for help from the federal government will be left hanging with this bill. I think the government could have put a little more meat on these bones.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague just made a very interesting point.
These individuals do need assistance and support. They have been waiting for several years. The time has come for the government to take action and provide them with financial support every month. They need to be given benefits to help them avoid poverty. Because of the pandemic, these individuals are currently facing enormous difficulties.
Let us get serious about helping these people in need.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was very proud that my colleague highlighted the work of our friend Rémy Mailloux. The 25th edition of the telethon raised over $700,000 last year, all donated by the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Nord-du-Québec to provide complementary services.
Various governments, especially the federal government, have cut back on their commitments to people with disabilities, particularly regarding in-home accommodations so they can remain at home.
Does my colleague not believe that, instead of cobbling this bill together and saying that further reflection and consultation is needed, the government should act now, especially in a context where inflation is hitting hard, in order to help people stay in their homes much more than it does now?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Mr. Mailloux is indeed a true role model. He himself lives with a disability. Speaking with him helps others understand exactly what people with disabilities need, where they are coming from and where they want to go. Yes, we need to take action with this bill, and above all support them with the requests that have been made. The bill needs to be much clearer.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have many concerns as I rise to speak to Bill C-22 to provide financial support to Canadians with disabilities, as proposed by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion in June 2022.
My uncle Denis became disabled at the age of 19 following a serious motorcycle accident. He passed away last year, in September 2021, and I am thinking of him. I am very sensitive to the situation of persons with disabilities and their caregivers because my family took care of my uncle.
Furthermore, my partner works for a community organization, the Association des personnes handicapées physiques de Brome‑Missisquoi, which advocates for universal accessibility. To quote the slogan created by University of Montreal students for persons with disabilities, “that's not asking for much”.
This was confirmed by the director of Dynamique des handicapés de Granby et région, Marie‑Christine Hon, whom I salute. According to her, far too many persons with disabilities are still very vulnerable and live in poverty, and they need more than just words. My speech has three components: a summary of Bill C‑22, a few interesting statistics, and some elements that need clarification.
On September 23, 2020, the government made a commitment in the throne speech to establish Canada's first-ever disability inclusion action plan, which includes a new Canada disability benefit for people with disabilities, modelled on the guaranteed income supplement for seniors; a robust employment strategy for Canadians with disabilities, with a focus on training, employment supports, barrier removal and the business case for disability inclusion; and a new, inclusive process to determine eligibility for federal government disability programs and benefits, one that reflects a modern understanding of disability. It looks good on paper, but there is no concrete plan in place.
The objective of Bill C‑22 is to improve the financial situation of working-age Canadians with disabilities and to fix some holes in Canada's social safety net, which includes old age security, the guaranteed income supplement—which I talk about a lot as the critic for seniors—and the Canada child benefit.
Bill C‑22 also helps Canada meet its international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and helps position Canada as a leader in the area of protecting people with disabilities. with disabilities. Again, it looks good on paper, but there is still a lot of work to do to get there.
Let us not forget that in June 2021, in the 43rd Parliament, the Liberals introduced Bill C‑35. Bill C‑22 is the reintroduction of Bill C‑35, which was scrapped when the election was called by the Liberals themselves, one year ago.
Bill C‑35 did not make it past first reading. Nevertheless, for the purposes of bringing in a benefit for persons with disabilities, meeting the objectives of Bill C‑35 and setting out the terms of this benefit, the government unblocked a $11.9-million budget to lay the foundation to reform an eligibility process for federal benefits and programs for persons with disabilities. Round tables were organized among various organizations and representatives of disability communities and an online poll was created to poll the interested public. Still, organizations back home said that they had not been informed of the existence of this bill.
Canada already has a benefit to help minor persons with disabilities, in other words the family benefit. As others have said, there are also measures to help seniors. Bill C‑22 seeks to fill the gap persons with disabilities find themselves in when they reach the age of majority. They fall into this gap when they enter the workforce until the day they retire.
Some measures have already been put in place to ease the financial burden of people with disabilities, but those measures are often woefully inadequate to give them a decent standard of living. There are still far too many grey areas that need clarifying, including the much-talked-about issue of working-age persons with disabilities. Ms. Hon talked to me about it again this morning on the phone.
The disability tax credit is a non-refundable tax credit that enables the recipient to reduce their income taxes. The problem is that, in Quebec, so many people do not see themselves as having a disability and therefore do not claim the assistance available to them. There are many reasons for this reality that we see at our office. As my assistant can attest, people who have gone their whole lives without having health problems and who end up sick all of a sudden do not know where to go to get help or do not want help. Some do not know that their state of health is recognized as a disability. Some think that the process is much too complicated because the tax credits are non-refundable, and others are not even entitled to the tax credits because they do not earn enough to claim them.
Ms. Hon condemned these situations when she spoke with me. I remind members that just one automatic $600 payment was made in 2020 during the pandemic, even though people with disabilities were disproportionately affected by the health crisis. There are programs, but they are not well known, especially in Quebec.
Allow me to share some figures. Twenty-two per cent of Canadians live with a disability. In Quebec, 37% of people with disabilities have an annual income of less than $15,000, which does not go very far. One in four Canadians with disabilities live below the poverty line and 41% of Canadians living in poverty are people with disabilities.
Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians and 91% of Quebeckers say they are in favour of a disability benefit. Fifty-nine per cent of Canadians believe that people with disabilities do not have access to sufficient resources to afford them a good quality of life.
Just 59% of Canadians with disabilities between the ages of 25 to 64 are employed, compared to 80% of Canadians without a disability. Canadians with disabilities aged 25 to 64 earn less than Canadians without a disability. Canadians with mild disabilities earn 12% less and Canadians with more serious disabilities earn 51% less. These figures speak for themselves.
I also appreciate the Association Granby pour la déficience intellectuelle et l'autisme, which works very hard to help people with intellectual disabilities and autism perform tasks, keep busy, and do meaningful work that gives them a sense of accomplishment every day. I applaud the whole team.
As the status of women critic, I am well aware that living with a disability adds another challenging layer to the lives of women, indigenous individuals and members of cultural and minority communities. Figuring out how to ensure their financial security is urgent, especially in light of the fact that the rising cost of living, inflation and the housing shortage are making the day-to-day lives of people with disabilities even harder.
As my colleague mentioned, Guillaume Parent, director of the Centre d'expertise finances et handicap Finautonome, is pleased with the announcement of Bill C‑22, but he does have some concerns about it, including the cultural and linguistic differences between Quebec and Canada. That leads to confusion in the application of the bill. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville did a good job of explaining that this morning.
A number of other details still need to be worked out regarding how the benefit will be applied. Quebeckers claim half as much of the federal disability tax credit as other provinces. All of this means that Canadians have mixed feelings about the promise of a new disability benefit.
Although we are excited about and support this initiative, we are wondering when it will actually see the light of day. There is talk of another three years of consultations. Three years is a long time, especially when the previous bill was delayed because the government sabotaged it by calling an election. On top of that, the House of Commons shut down for the summer.
There are concerns that these measures are being introduced too late, especially for those in financial difficulty who are still caught up in the aftermath of the pandemic. Some unions in Canada and several disability rights groups are also skeptical about the effectiveness of the benefit because of the lack of detail in the bill and how long it is going to take to implement it.
In conclusion, we could say that we will vote for the principle of Bill C‑22. However, we must be aware of the fact that the bill is still very problematic. We want to support people with disabilities, but the lack of information about the details of the benefit is very problematic. In a recent survey, 89% of Canadians responded that introducing a Canadian benefit for persons with disabilities is a good thing, and that the country should take action to drastically reduce poverty among the disabled. I would go further. Personally, that is my political commitment. I am a big believer in equality of opportunity.
I would like to say one last little thing. Let us help persons with disabilities keep their head above water. We must absolutely avoid piecemeal measures. Let us work to ensure that persons with disabilities have a decent income that lets them live with dignity and fully take their place in our society.
1611 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the things the member really emphasizes from my perspective is just how important it is that, as a government, we continue to work with the stakeholders and in particular our provinces. Today, it is a patchwork in terms of support. People with disabilities do not know what type of support they are getting. At the end of the day, we have one system in one area of the country and another in a different region of the country.
One of the objectives of bringing in a truly national program is not only to lift many people with disabilities out of poverty but also to, as much as possible, ensure that there is a sense of fairness and equity. Could my colleague provide her thoughts in regard to the role that Ottawa has to play in working with the provinces to ensure that there is that sense of equity and support for people with disabilities?
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I will remind him once again, as did my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, that it is important that the bill respect provincial jurisdictions. It must complement and not take away from provincial programs. Quite frankly, it is about time that the federal government respect the fact that many of these aspects fall under Quebec's jurisdiction and that this province is a model in terms of equal opportunity and social safety net.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/20/22 6:01:04 p.m.
- Watch
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be concurred in.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
I therefore declare the motion carried on division.
When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, some will say that imitation is the finest form of flattery, so I feel exceptionally flattered that the government decided to take two sections of my bill and issue ministerial instructions, which are going to be of enormous benefit to those who are seeking to reunite their families under the super visa. What they did not do, though, is adopt the part with respect to producing a report to reduce the LICO, the low income cut-off, and that is actually a very significant and important part of my bill.
It is wonderful that we are going to extend the time someone can stay under a super visa. That has been done through ministerial instruction. It is also wonderful they are now going to look at ways to allow foreign insurance companies to provide the health insurance coverage to lower the cost to families that qualify for the visa. Those are all wonderful things. They are, however, ministerial instructions.
The great thing about ministerial instructions is that they can happen quickly, which they did. They criticized my bill for a long period of time, had it going through committee and then suddenly said they saw the light. They said these two parts of the bill are fantastic and that they were going to grab them and do them through ministerial instructions. The downside of a ministerial instruction is that just as easily as it can be done, it can be taken away.
This is one of the reasons I am continuing to move forward with this piece of legislation. If it is actually in legislation, and if a government wants to change it, this government or a subsequent government, it will actually have to do it through legislation. If we want to ensure that families can continue to access these fantastic improvements that I have put forward with respect to the super visa, we should actually pass this legislation, so that it is enshrined in law and future governments cannot choose to make those changes.
However, what I do want to go back to is the part the Liberals omitted, and that is having a report produced to reduce the low income cut-off. That is so important because reducing the low income cut-off, which is the amount of income a family in Canada has to have to support a parent or grandparent coming here, would allow more families to qualify for a super visa,. In particular it would help families that are newer to Canada, when the challenges are actually a bit tougher. If someone has been here for 20 years, is well established, meets the low income cut-off and wants their parent or grandparent to come and stay with their family, that is wonderful. They may want them here, but they may not necessarily need them here.
If someone is in a new family to Canada, has been here only a few years and might not be working a high-paying job, and could actually use their parent or grandparent to be here, they are not going to qualify because they do not have the income to qualify. What we heard repeatedly at committee, both in the study of this bill and when this was studied in 2017, is that the low income cut-off should be dramatically reduced or eliminated in its entirety.
My bill is only proposing to lower the low income cut-off, and there is a fundamental misunderstanding by the government on this. It was actually told to study the economics of this in 2017, to look into the economic benefits of having more families bring their parents or grandparents here. They never did that study, so I am going to talk a bit about that.
What the evidence is clear on, both in the study in 2017 at committee and through the study on this bill, is that bringing a parent or grandparent here to the country is an economic boon to the family. It does not cost the family anything. What are they providing for that parent or grandparent? They are staying in their home and maybe they are consuming some food, but there is no real cost. In fact, what it does is allow someone in the family, one parent or maybe both, to pick up an extra shift at work to increase their income. They also, in a lot of communities, provide child care, which is a cost-saving for families, which allows them to improve their economic standing.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding by the government of the importance of lowering the low income cut-off to allow more families to access the super visa. I urge the government, which can pass this bill, to get it passed quickly and get that report done. Let us get the low income cut-off lowered so that more families can access the super visa.
This will add to the economic productivity of the country, which is a good thing. It is going to help the affordability crisis that Canadians are going through right now. We all know it. Inflation is high. The cost of living is increasingly going up. It is getting even tougher for families to make ends meet.
The government thinks, well, if one brought one's parent over, that is going to cause this further economic burden, therefore one should not do it. That is absolutely the wrong mindset. The government should actually do something about it.
We are going to be voting on this bill shortly to have it moved to the Senate. I am going to urge the members of the government to support the bill. They did not support it at committee. They tried to kill it at committee. They took two parts of it, claimed it as their own and then tried to kill the bill in committee.
They did not succeed, thanks to the support of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, and I thank both of those parties for that support. They recognize the importance of making sure that this is actually legislation, not ministerial instruction, as well as how beneficial it will be to have the low income cut-off reduced.
I urge the government to support this legislation. Let us get that report done, a report that should have been done in 2017. Let us get it done, so that we can expand the super visa to far more families all across the country and help them with the affordability crisis that is going on in the country.
Not only that, but parents and grandparents provide so much other support for families. If families are suffering economically now, they are going to be helped by that, but also, when one is new to a country and one is building one's life, parents provide a great source of stability, transfer of culture, and all of these kinds of things. More Canadians should have access to that, not fewer. I ask members to please vote for this bill.
1188 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, for many of my constituents over the years who have required that super visa, one of the obligations, in fact, has been the insurance. As much as the member likes to talk about his initiative, I think we will find that there are members on all sides of the House, myself included, who have been arguing that the insurance cost was very prohibitive in terms of allowing and facilitating more parents and grandparents to come to Canada. There has been a strong advocacy on this area that predates the last summer.
I was quite pleased that we finally had a ministry that had looked at and investigated the situation, done its homework and recognized the value of opening it up to foreign insurance companies.
Does the member believe that there is any sort of due diligence required by the federal government to ensure the credibility of some of these foreign insurance companies?
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, yes, I guess one could say that the government was working on this, except nobody heard a peep about it until I passed my bill, so I am going to take the credit for it.
The government has been the government since 2015. It has done nothing to enhance the super visa, but suddenly, once an opposition member's bill is working its way through, it has seen the light, hallelujah, and now it is something that it has been working on for a long time.
Right now, one has to have a clean bill of health if one is going to come under a super visa as a parent or grandparent, and the government selects certain doctors in foreign countries and says that their medical wellness certificate is accepted. If it can do that for the myriad of doctors in all the countries around the world, it can certainly do it for a few large international insurance companies or one or two insurance companies in the world.
The government is more than capable of doing the due diligence. It is one of the arguments I made at committee as to why that part of the bill should not be struck, because it seemed to me that the government wanted to strike it.
Yes, I think even the Liberal government can handle that.
225 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon for his speech. I also thank him for his hard work on this bill. He has been working on it for a long time, and he can be proud of what he has accomplished.
Let me play devil's advocate so he can say a few more words. Some people are watching this debate because they plan to criticize Bill C‑242. They wonder why we should bother proceeding with the bill if there are ministerial instructions that are essentially the same as what is in Bill C‑242.
Would my colleague please comment on that?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
