- Member of Parliament
- Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Bloc Québécois
- Thérèse-De Blainville
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $122,743.44
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, some situations make us wonder if we still believe in this.
I think it is also important to take into account people with disabilities. Overwhelmingly, they came and told us that they wanted regulations to be made by and for them, so we will have to go through this whole exercise.
What I want is for us to stop dragging our feet. Now that we have the tools and have established criteria, we must take action. We cannot change the past.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am equally optimistic. I would be more inclined to see the glass as half full than half empty. That is already a step forward.
People with disabilities are in great need of a boost to their abilities. Fortunately, there are programs that support them. In any case, I am proud of what is being done in Quebec, but I think we have to go much further.
What we need as parliamentarians to ensure that the work is done quickly, realistically and in line with the objective is accountability and regular updates on the work being done. Without this, a lot of time can be lost.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a must, especially when dealing with issues such as this.
It was hard not to work with Quebec on child care. They drew on the Quebec model because it is recognized around the world. We have been using the model for 25 years, so yes, an agreement was required. This time it was asymmetrical. Members can understand the context.
To put in place a Canadian benefit for people with disabilities akin to the guaranteed income supplement we know from pension plans, it is a must. It is going to take more than co-operation; it is going to take agreements.
We already have social programs in Quebec. We already have support for these individuals. If they want to take additional measures that are complementary, they absolutely must have agreements with the provinces, which also have jurisdiction in this area.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this evening to discuss Bill C‑22, which will be implemented. We should collectively congratulate ourselves for the work that has been done.
Of course, we could look back and talk about the pitfalls that we ran into in coming up with this bill, but I think that all the parties here in the House of Commons have always supported the many disability organizations and advocacy groups that have come out time and time again to express their desire to see this Canada disability benefit become a reality. We do not consider these people to be different. As one of my colleagues and friends would say, they are unique. I believe that the basic purpose of this bill is to lift these people out of poverty.
I would like to take this opportunity to salute the many organizations in my riding that are dedicated to this cause and that support and stand by people with disabilities. In particular, I would like to take this opportunity to salute the Mouvement Personne d'Abord de Sainte‑Thérèse, which advocates for people living with an intellectual disability. This year, it is celebrating 25 years of defending and promoting the rights of these individuals.
I also want to acknowledge the many witnesses who met with us at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities during the study of this bill. I especially want to thank Disability Without Poverty, the Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec, the Fédération des Mouvements Personne d'Abord du Québec, the Québec Intellectual Disability Society, and all the others.
There is one thing we all agree on and must make sure of: Although this has always been the stated intention and objective of the government, this new disability benefit needs to be a supplement to and not a replacement of the support that currently exists for these people in Quebec and in the provinces. We will have to be especially vigilant.
That will be a major challenge because we know that, in both Quebec and the other provinces, the programs are not necessarily standardized. As part of our work, we have focused on the objective and guarantee of ensuring that they are complementary. As we know, a higher proportion of people with disabilities live in poverty than the general population. The pandemic has once again provided a powerful illustration of that reality. We know that the current economic climate is making it harder for people with disabilities to meet their basic needs, such as food, housing and clothing. Those are basic needs.
It is very difficult for people to break out of this cycle of poverty when they do not have access to sufficient income to begin with. We want people with disabilities to be able to participate fully in life and society. They are already doing so, but we want to give them every possible means to ensure that their inclusion and participation are as active as possible. That is why the benefit must provide a minimum of resources or a decent amount of income. It is about ensuring that these people's incomes are above the poverty line and that they can live decently and with dignity.
As has already been said, there was also a consensus that the groups representing these individuals should be able to actively participate in the process, so that the process is done “by and for” persons with disabilities. That is why the consultations will be so important, and as soon as the bill is in force, I hope we will be able to get this major regulatory work under way as quickly as possible.
Quebec recently developed its basic income program, which is aimed specifically at people with severe employment restrictions and has been in effect since January 1, 2023. I think it is a good model to follow. All this to say that, if we want to implement a Canadian benefit similar to the guaranteed income supplement, we have to make sure that it complements what already exists and that it will not take anything away from the flagship social programs that are already in place in certain provinces for these individuals.
We all want this bill to pass as quickly as possible. Several amendments were proposed in committee to establish when this new benefit will be available and to set a deadline so that it does not take months and years to become a reality. We know that it will take a tremendous amount of work because agreements must be reached with the provinces and territories, which, as I mentioned, do not have the same social programs. Regulations will have to be created to cover a long list of elements.
We have some reservations about this bill. The amendment we wanted to move in committee concerned the regulatory work. We wanted to know the amount of the benefit, the eligibility criteria and the terms of payment. All of that is like a blank page because parliamentarians have no control over these terms as they will be established by regulation. We know that regulations can be rescinded at any time. If the bill had provided parliamentarians with some oversight of these terms, I believe that this would have provided more guarantees about what we want to achieve.
Unfortunately, these amendments were rejected. The amount of money going to people with disabilities will be significant, or at least that is our hope. It is quite unprecedented that such an amount cannot be approved by Parliament and is not formally enshrined in law, but rather set by regulation.
We also agree with the government's response to the Senate amendments. We had the same misgivings, particularly about the amendment concerning clawbacks for private contracts or insurance.
I even had the opportunity to speak with a few individuals. If there is one thing that people with a disability do not need, it is a constitutional debate over provincial jurisdiction. As far as private contracting and insurance plans are concerned, I think that we would only be delaying things if we had to have a legal debate about whether or not these individuals are entitled to the benefits in question. These are issues that warrant careful study. In our opinion, the response that was respectfully given to the senators who worked on this bill was more than adequate, and we are open to the other amendments.
What can we collectively hope for, not just for ourselves, but for all people with disabilities? When we look at all the organizations and individuals that make up our society, when we look at the status of women, indigenous or racialized people, we see that there are still other factors of discrimination that negatively affect them.
We can only hope that the government will be thorough and that members will exercise oversight to ensure that this bill will meet the objective of those—
1193 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
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, 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
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
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
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, I thank my colleague for the question.
As members know, during discussions to advance and pass this bill, I have always expressed my concern for respecting jurisdictions.
I am not sure what measures exist in other provinces, but in Quebec, we have disability supports. The government is trying to create that kind of social safety net, but it cannot take a centralist approach and decide what is right.
People living with disabilities need to be asked what they think is right. Likewise, the government must absolutely ask Quebec and the other provinces what can be done to improve the situation, instead of taking over their roles.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there are two approaches that I think would be best.
First, this program must respect and not interfere with the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Second, the program must complement existing measures and not replace them. The government must guarantee that.
The government can ensure that this program complements existing measures by sending the funding directly to the provinces or by providing additional money, taking into account Quebec's jurisdiction. These are the kinds of questions we want to see answered.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.
Basically, we need to get to work on this. Consultations have taken place, and in the interest of co-operation, we are told that discussions with the provinces are ongoing. What are the results so far? What do we already know?
In all honesty, I would say that we cannot wait years for this. It is important to introduce this bill, and I must say that all the parties have lobbied by writing letters to everyone about having this bill reintroduced a year later. It is important because we are waiting for answers to these questions.
Consultations cannot drag on forever. We cannot remain in the dark about the fundamental content of the bill and simply be told that it will be decided by regulations. That is not good enough. It needs to be done quickly and, structurally speaking, there needs to be more content.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
One thing that is clear about eligibility is that this legislation is intended for persons with disabilities who are of working age. Who are these people, however? We have the beginning of an answer.
The clause entitled “Regulations” is what worries me about this bill because so much is left unsaid. Bills are passed on principle, which, in this case, is to provide income support to the poorest persons with disabilities. Regulations, on the other hand, set out the details, such as the eligibility criteria for the benefit; the conditions that are to be met in order to receive the benefit; the amount of the benefit or the method for determining the amount; the manner in which the benefit is to be indexed; the payment periods; and the applications for the benefit. Right now, the legislation is rather vague.
We understand that there will be consultations and that the government wants to work for and with persons with disabilities. However, it has been a year, so I think that it should be able to specify certain things that we could actually work on in committee before the bill passes third reading.
202 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, of course we took the time to review it. I wonder whether my colleague took the time to listen carefully to my speech.
We know that this targets people of working age, but the point we are trying to make when we talk about who is eligible is that the concepts of disability and impairment do not have the same linguistic and cultural scope. That is an important point.
I would like to remind my colleague that, according to the September 23, 2020, throne speech, the disability inclusion plan includes a new inclusive process for determining eligibility for benefits that reflects a modern understanding of disability. We have questions about that, and I think I was very clear.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today as the Bloc Québécois critic for disability inclusion.
The government has introduced a bill that aims to improve the financial situation of Canadians with disabilities and of working age. The bill is intended to address certain gaps in the social safety net, which includes old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada child benefit.
I think that this is an important goal, and I can say right now that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle. We believe that it is important that Canadians have access to a strong social safety net and that it is the government’s role to ensure that they do. Today’s Quebec is built on these same principles, and we can only support any initiatives in this vein that could be of benefit to Quebecers.
However, as it stands, Bill C-22 is woefully incomplete. Beyond the principle of solidarity and financial assistance for people with disabilities, the government gives no details on the form the benefit will take. We all know that the devil is in the details. We believe that this is a major shortcoming and that the bill should be enhanced and, especially, fleshed out.
Right now, 22% of Canadians live with a disability. That is almost one out of every four. Unfortunately, we know that almost a third of all Canadians with disabilities live under the poverty line and that the unemployment rate for most of this group is higher. In Quebec alone, 37% of people with disabilities live on an income of less than $15,000 a year.
In the government’s online survey, which we heard about before actually getting a hold of it through the library, 70% of respondents indicated that financial security should be the government’s main priority.
The same respondents indicated that they found it hard to cover the costs associated with living with a disability. These include housing costs, medical costs and the cost of goods and services to assist people with disabilities.
It is also important to remember that the pandemic made their financial hardship even worse. The COVID-19 crisis had an impact on the general health of Canadians with disabilities, and many had a hard time obtaining the assistance and services they had access to before.
The government finally decided to send out a one-time payment of $600, an amount that is wholly insufficient to provide relief and help people meet their present and future needs. Frankly, it is high time that the government took this seriously. People with disabilities have waited long enough.
A majority of groups and unions are in favour of this benefit, but only because the existing federal programs fall short. For example, the people with disabilities who are most in need cannot access the disability tax credit.
Just 2.2% of the population in Quebec applies for the tax credit, even though 16% of Quebeckers live with a disability and are eligible. It is complicated to apply for the credit and not everyone with a disability is eligible. Furthermore, as one of my colleagues pointed out, there is an issue with the French word “handicap” and its meaning. There is a difference between the meanings of the French words “incapacité” and “handicap”, and some people do not consider they have a “handicap”.
The minister's action plan for people with disabilities includes employment, but its definition of disability and associated issues needs updating. Eligibility, for one thing, needs to be clear.
I would also like to talk about the registered disability savings plan, the RDSP, a federally subsidized program that enables people with disabilities to save a lifetime maximum of $90,000. Only 26.6% of Quebeckers eligible for the disability tax credit participate in this program.
The point is, there are programs, but people, especially Quebeckers, do not really know about them, and they tend to be flawed. We know that 59% of people believe that supports available to people with disabilities fail to ensure a decent quality of life. The government needs to realize that, and it is time to get serious about dealing with this issue.
Now, 89% of Canadians support a benefit for persons with disabilities. In Quebec, it is 91%. Plus, 66% of Canadians believe that the ability to work and to receive financial support are the most important factors to consider in determining measures to improve financial security.
Bill C-22 seems to be moving in the right direction there. However, at this point, I cannot say for certain whether Bill C‑22 addresses the public's concerns. It is essentially a blank page. It sets out the broad principles, but all of the details, criteria and dollar amounts will be decided through regulations to be made by the minister.
I am going to take the liberty of pointing out a few aspects that should be clarified, in order to help the government flesh this out. When will this happen? Our biggest concern is that the government has not given itself a timeline.
The federal government is planning a three-year consultation process to work out the details of this benefit. Many people are concerned that the process is going to drag on and the benefit is not going to be created any time soon.
While it is important to recognize the value of consultation, it must not become a barrier to implementing measures that are needed now. We cannot let the government drag this out with endless consultations, as it did with employment insurance reform, even though the solutions are clear.
I should add that it is very disappointing that we are debating this Bill C‑22 now when a similar bill had been introduced in June 2021. Unfortunately, Bill C‑35 died on the Order Paper because the Prime Minister got election fever. Sadly, people with disabilities are the ones who are now paying for that delay, because they are still waiting.
Who will receive this new benefit? Those are the people the minister must focus on. Bill C‑22 is rather mum on that question. Other than mentioning working-age persons with disabilities, it does not define anything.
The Bloc Québécois believes the benefit should cover as many persons with disabilities as possible, which is why it is important to have a broad, modern definition. Most importantly, the benefit needs to be easy to use and understand. I think we need to learn from our mistakes.
What will be the actual financial repercussions of this benefit? No one has any idea how much money will be granted. According to several groups, this benefit needs to lift people out of poverty, and we agree. It is not enough to reduce poverty.
Again, we have no clear idea of the terms of the benefit, other than the fact that it targets working-age people and will be considered an income supplement.
Bill C‑22 merely states an intention to reduce poverty. What we need, in the long term, is to eliminate poverty, not just reduce it.
How can we do that?
Finally, the government's bill gives absolutely no indication as to how this benefit will be created. The bill does not say if Ottawa itself will deliver the benefit or if the federal government plans to transfer the money to Quebec and the other provinces for them to deliver the benefit. It is not clear whether this benefit will be paid on top of what already exists in the provinces. It is mentioned, but not specified.
Virtually all the terms and conditions of the benefit will be determined through regulations made by the minister; they have not been included in the bill. Members will therefore understand why I feel so uncomfortable voting blindly for such a bill.
I hope the minister will listen to this one point that I really want to emphasize. Overlap between programs must be considered. Programs already exist in Quebec and in the provinces to support things like health care costs, transportation allowances, grants for special equipment, employment supports, and the list goes on.
The provinces must be allowed to adapt the program to their own realities. It is imperative that the federal government respect provincial jurisdictions and existing programs, and the new benefit must complement what already exists, as called for by all the stakeholders. We are waiting for the government to clarify these issues.
I would like to add that we believe that helping people with disabilities must not stop there. In fact, the throne speech promised an action plan for this issue, but we are still waiting for it.
According to the government's latest consultation, 45% of respondents said that they would prefer being reimbursed for disability-related costs as a way to improve their financial security, and 28% want tailored measures to ensure they have income security at different stages or transitions in their lives. We need to be able to increase assistance when someone with a disability experiences a change in their financial situation or a decline in their health. In addition, 17% want better access to existing government supports and services.
It is good to create new programs that meet a need, but we must also ensure that we optimize the programs that already exist. We must also improve employment assistance. I would remind members that 59% of Canadians with disabilities aged 25 to 64 are employed, compared to 80% of Canadians without disabilities. That shows that we have a problem. These people want to work but do not have the same opportunities as those who are not disabled. Furthermore, Canadians with disabilities aged 25 to 64 earn less than Canadians without disabilities. In fact, those with mild disabilities earn 12% less, and those with more severe disabilities earn 51% less. That is a substantial difference.
Therefore, there is an equity issue that we must address. Of those consulted, 67% noted they need to be equipped to succeed through workplace accommodations; 57% want help developing skills and obtaining appropriate training to get a job; 51% said they want support looking for quality jobs; and 70% said that employers must provide a work environment that is supportive of persons with disabilities. The government must tackle all these issues.
In closing, I would like to reiterate a few key points. The Bloc Québécois supports the general principle of the bill because it is high time that people with disabilities, particularly those living in poverty, got the help they need to live a decent life.
However, the government needs to do its job. People with disabilities deserve better than a blank page and statements like “we will see” and “trust us”. We hope that the minister will soon give us more details so that we can comment on the substance of the bill, not just the form.
1852 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
