44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 1, 2023 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying how proud I am to stand next to the hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. Her inspiring, collaborative leadership to usher this bill forward will be life-changing for so many Canadians in this country, and it certainly has been an honour of my life to be able to work alongside the minister on this incredibly important initiative for Canadians.
I am pleased to rise to participate in this debate on Bill C-22. I will use my time today to speak to the urgency of the situation that has led to the need for this bill.
Here we are. The fact is that the issue of the deep poverty experienced by persons with disabilities in Canada and the issue of MAID have become intertwined. It has been well established in this place and at the HUMA committee that persons with disabilities face higher levels of poverty than other Canadians. Living with dignity is a far-off hope for many in these circumstances, and some persons with disabilities have, unfortunately and tragically, chosen to apply for MAID in the past year, with poverty being the key driver. The sad fact is that eligibility for MAID has expanded faster than have the social supports that would lift persons with disabilities out of poverty and allow them to live with dignity.
This thought is shared by stakeholders. For example, Amit Arya, a palliative care physician on faculty at the University of Toronto and McMaster University, mentions in his urgent plea that, given the critical impact on persons with disabilities, we need to prioritize Bill C-22.
There is a dire need for the Canada disability benefit, and it has strong public support. In fact, the public is applying pressure for us to act quickly. During and after the study of the bill at the HUMA committee, stakeholders had the opportunity to testify, submit briefs and share their opinions in the media. There was a consensus on the need to try to determine all the details of the proposed benefit in the legislation but not to perfect it, as the key objective is to move quickly to respond to the urgent need now. Allow me to amplify some of those testimonies.
Rabia Khedr, from Disability Without Poverty, underscores the urgency. In an article she said, “justice delayed is justice denied” and that if we wait for this legislative process to determine “all of the details of a perfect benefit, its arrival will be too late...”.
Tom Jackman, also from Disability Without Poverty, echoes her words, saying, “Canadians with disabilities desperately need the bill to pass third reading and move through the Senate quickly [in 2023] so it can become law...”.
Disability Without Poverty is supported in its view by numerous organizations like Community Food Centres Canada, Inclusion Canada, March of Dimes, Plan Institute and Finautonome, alongside philanthropists, unions and corporations like Maple Leaf Foods that are all asking us to do the right thing and hurry up.
During his testimony at HUMA, Gary Gladstone, head of stakeholder relations at Reena, underlined the point that amendments would slow down the bill. He said, “From what I understand, regulation at this point would be faster in making any changes... and the bottom line is that if they can be done appropriately and quickly, that's most important.”
This was echoed by Neil Belanger, the chief executive officer of Indigenous Disability Canada. He said he has confidence in the process that will involve persons with disabilities at the regulatory stage, and his clients are urging us to move forward with the bill as it is.
Krista Carr, the executive vice-president of Inclusion Canada, affirms this point of view as well. She has heard about the requests by members for the bill to contain more details regarding the design of the proposed benefit, as well as other technical elements. While she says she understands the motivations behind this, she does not believe this is the best course of action. Her biggest fear is that we will get bogged down in the details and greatly delay the passage of the bill.
Allow me to quote directly from her testimony to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development on November 16, 2022. She stated:
With all due respect to the parliamentarians on this committee and beyond, in the spirit of “nothing without us”, we feel really strongly that it is persons with disabilities, their families and representative organizations who should be working arm in arm with government to design this benefit through the regulatory process....
My final plea to you as members of this committee is that if you truly want to make a historic impact on the lives of people with disabilities in this country, and I know you all do, you will do everything in your power to ensure that this bill passes as quickly as possible so that we can get...this benefit into the hands of people who desperately need it.
That is why certain amendments did not make it into the bill. Some were even dropped by the members who put them forward after they had heard the arguments from witnesses. For example, it is much better to have the disability community involved in shaping the regulations rather than have Parliament review each regulation as it is drafted.
That being said, certain amendments did make it into the bill, and I am happy to say the bill is stronger for it. For example, we have included the definition of “disability” from the Accessible Canada Act. In the interest of transparency, we have made it a requirement that the minister would publicize any agreements made with federal or provincial or territorial departments and agencies. New reporting requirements to Parliament on how persons with disabilities have been engaged on the regulations, as well as increased frequency of reporting to Parliament on the bill, would respond to some concerns members had around the role of Parliament. These amendments, along with other provisions of the bill, would provide Parliament with an ongoing check and balance on the proposed benefit going forward.
We have enshrined in the bill that the application process would have to be barrier-free, consistent with the vision of the Accessible Canada Act. A timeline is also enshrined in the bill. The act would have to come into force no later than one year after royal assent.
Bill C-22 has been on a journey through the HUMA committee. I thank the members for their diligence. The bill is stronger for their work, their input and their collaboration. However, as members of the disability community and their allies say, it is now time to act.
The bill before us today would establish the proposed benefit and start the clock on the creation of the regulations that would implement it. We would do this with the members of the disability community. As the minister of disability inclusion says, let us get it done.
1185 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
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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
