- 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
- May/8/24 6:14:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is very important and you did the right thing. We have to protect our interpreters, who perform such essential work in the House.
There is one problem with my colleague's proposal: Social safety nets and social programs are not Ottawa's responsibility. They fall under provincial jurisdiction. One basic principle of a guaranteed minimum income is that it would replace other social programs, thereby preventing vulnerable people from falling through the cracks, which we do not want.
What social programs would basic income replace? Considering that all the social programs are in Quebec, and that our social programs are strong, I do not think that we are debating this issue in the right place. In Quebec, for example, we have other social safety net programs apart from EI. EI comes under federal jurisdiction because Quebec constitutionally agreed to give it up. I think that was a mistake. It should be repatriated, but how we repatriate programs under the Constitution is another matter.
Most of the programs are Quebec initiatives. I am talking about the social solidarity program, the occupational health and safety program, the Quebec pension plan, the child benefit and the disability benefit. Since 2023, in addition to the social solidarity program, Quebec has had a basic income program to help people who have severe employment restrictions. It may not be a livable income, but it is a very important social safety net program.
I am going to talk about our universal early childhood education services program in Quebec. It is a social safety net program for everyone. For families or parents who have social solidarity income, there is no contribution. From an equity perspective, we want to ensure that we have a significant social solidarity safety net and major social programs. In Quebec, we have shown that social programs help support the most vulnerable, those we need to help.
All this to say that these social programs belong to Quebec. It is constitutional. Adding a guaranteed livable minimum income at the federal level is like saying that Quebec's social programs are being transferred to Canada. That is a no. That would be against the Constitution and I do not think it would be beneficial. Let me explain.
One of the programs that is part of Canada's social safety net is employment insurance, although that is no longer a true social safety net. It has become an insurance plan that six out of 10 workers cannot access, despite having paid into it, and one that self-employed workers cannot access. In addition, people who work in atypical jobs, primarily young people and women, cannot access it because of its strict criteria. When it was first introduced, it was meant to be a social safety net against the worst thing that can happen, that is, losing a job. I think we need to strengthen the social safety net and its programs.
We talked about the guaranteed income supplement. The GIS is the social assistance component of old age security. The federal government ranks poorly among OECD countries when it comes to support for seniors, and to compensate for the low incomes of some OAS recipients, they receive the GIS. Ideally, the government should not need to provide the GIS. Instead, it should guarantee seniors a universal OAS benefit starting at age 65 that would bolster their incomes and raise their standard of living. However, these are not the choices the government has made, nor are they matters of federal jurisdiction.
Other social safety nets such as health and education are also the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. Back in the day, the federal government, which has the spending power, signed a health pact with Saskatchewan, Quebec and all the provinces. The provinces had passed health legislation guaranteeing free universal medical and hospital care. Under the pact, the federal government was to fund 50% of the costs of the health care system. We are a long way away from that. We have gotten further away over time. These days, the government covers barely 25% of these costs.
Are we going to trust the federal government to manage the social safety net programs that Quebec has adopted? The answer is no. It is clear from the examples I gave that, on the contrary, the government is making people poorer. That is what is happening with the new disability benefit. When the budget was tabled, we were shocked to see that the intended objective would not be—
752 words
- 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
- May/10/23 5:35:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I too would like to recognize and thank my colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.
It is to his credit that he has moved this important motion. As the member said, although the motion is not binding, it does give meaning to our action, and particularly to the action that Canada needs to take with respect to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Canada signed in 2007 and ratified in 2010.
Part of the motion reads as follows:
Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities...states that signatories “shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and lifelong learning directed to enabling persons with disabilities to participate effectively in a free society”.
The convention is a human rights treaty that aims to protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities, to ensure they are treated without discrimination and on an equal basis with others. This convention has three key principles. The first is equality and non-discrimination. The second is accessibility, and the third key principle is participation and inclusion.
As my colleague pointed out, according to a 2021 UNICEF report on children with disabilities, there are nearly 240 million children around the world with disabilities. These children may seem to be at a disadvantage compared to children without disabilities when it comes to education because they are 49% more likely to have never attended school.
Of course, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion. We are also in favour of the full and equitable inclusion of people with disabilities in Quebec and Canada. We are aware of the challenges that people with disabilities face and we stand in solidarity with them, whatever their disability may be. People with disabilities are not a homogenous group. All types of disabilities must be considered. I think that we need to put targeted solutions in place for each of them.
Everyone must have access to a quality education under the principle of equality of opportunity in our societies. An inclusive education system takes into consideration not only accessibility but also the need to provide reasonable accommodation and individual support.
Although this was already mentioned, I want to remind members that, in Canada, elementary and secondary education fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and that Ottawa should only intervene in areas under its own jurisdiction. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities falls under its jurisdiction.
I would also like to remind members that non-visible disabilities are often identified by health care professionals and social services workers. That is invaluable, actually. There too, the government could play a role. It takes dedicated and professional personnel to support these persons with disabilities.
I will talk about our schools. Ideally, these young people, these students with disabilities would be included in regular classrooms as much as possible because diversity in school is an asset for education. We also have special schools and classes, but support is required, as is the capacity to make the right diagnosis to get some follow-up. Health care professionals and psychologists play a major role. On that, we take issue with the federal underfunding of health through the Canada health transfer to the provinces and Quebec. This is a serious problem.
That being said, internationally, the government has the full authority and legitimacy to impose standards and conditions on international aid.
We recognize that a greater global effort must be made to better integrate people with disabilities into education systems around the world, in line with the UNESCO and UNICEF findings in this regard.
Global efforts in favour of inclusive education are consistent with advocating for the rights of other groups, such as the rights of women and girls in general and the right of girls and women with disabilities to education, specifically. According to a UNESCO study, there are approximately 130 million girls between the ages of six and 17 who are not in school.
The government needs to recognize this motion—it is good that it has been fully welcomed—and come up with a concrete plan to ensure that the money it distributes internationally will help improve education around the world, particularly in poorer or low-income countries.
Compared to Canada's international aid to improve women's rights, according to a report by the Auditor General, this is pretty significant. The 2023 report was lackluster with respect to Canada's international feminist strategy.
The audit sought to determine whether Global Affairs Canada had implemented Canada's feminist international assistance policy by funding projects that supported gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls in low- and middle-income countries and by demonstrating that the projects were producing the intended results.
Unfortunately, although objectives were set for Canada's feminist international assistance policy, it did not yield tangible results. Global Affairs Canada was unable to show how the policy contributed to improving gender equality in the country.
If we want Canada to pay special attention to the new criteria for helping children with disabilities access education, then Global Affairs Canada must absolutely come up with new processes and new ways of working to achieve measurable results.
We have an obligation to ensure that education is a reality both in fact and in law for all children with disabilities, whatever that disability may be, and their loved ones.
We know that some countries in the world need this assistance. In that sense, the last part of the motion, which invites Canada to do more, is consistent with the convention that was signed. We think that is important.
Once again, I thank my colleague for this motion.
959 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I apologize to you and to my Conservative Party colleague. I really want to commend her for this initiative.
I would even remind her that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities conducted a study in 2021 on a comprehensive EI reform. I think everyone remembers that.
At the time, the government committed to building a stronger, more inclusive and modern EI system that covers all workers, including adoptive parents. I will read recommendation 12 from the committee's report on modernizing the employment insurance program. It states: “That Employment and Social Development Canada explore the option of creating 'attachment benefits' modeled after Employment Insurance maternity benefits, to ensure equitable treatment of adoptive, kinship, customary and biological parents in the amount of time and benefits provided to bond with their children.”
In December 2021, the mandate letter of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion asked her to create a new 15-week benefit for adoptive parents.
My critique about this debate is that, once again, we have to rely on private members' bills. That was what we had to do when we wanted to increase EI sickness benefits to 52 weeks. Now we have to do it again if we want biological and adoptive parents to be treated equally. Despite the government's pretty words, and despite its repeated commitment to EI reform and all its other commitments, nothing is happening. Absolutely nothing is happening because the government seems to have reneged on its 2021, 2019, and even 2015 promise to strengthen the EI system and provide the rights that should be provided. That is not what is happening.
For example, pregnant women who lose their jobs during pregnancy are not entitled to regular EI benefits because the program's eligibility criteria currently discriminate against them. The government committed to correcting this inequity for women and committed to revising the program to ensure that the eligibility criteria do not penalize them if they lose their jobs. The tribunal ruled in favour of the women, finding that the eligibility criteria were discriminatory. The government decided to appeal the ruling rather than fix the situation. Reforming EI is the way to fix it.
Right now, seasonal workers in many parts of Canada, including western Canada, eastern Canada and Quebec, are sounding the alarm and demanding EI eligibility requirements that do not penalize their socio-economic regions. While waiting for their work to start up again, these people have to get by with no income during the EI seasonal gap, even though seasonal industries are what keep these regions alive.
The minister was asked to respond to this again recently. Regions represented by my colleagues from the north shore, Gaspé and Charlevoix depend on seasonal industries to survive. None of this will get any better without political will.
Today the Liberals will say this needs a royal recommendation, or they will claim they do not know what to do about it.
There is only one way to go about it: All the injustices, all the EI eligibility requirements need to be changed. The government needs to stop asking questions about how it should be done and just do it. It needs to seize this opportunity and correct these inequities, just as the measures proposed in this bill would do by providing adoptive parents and biological parents with equal treatment when it comes to fundamental bonding time. I invite the minister to present a royal recommendation, but I urge her for once and for all to introduce a bill to reform EI. Workers, women and parents deserve it.
615 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
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
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, 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
- Jun/6/22 2:02:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight Quebec's disability awareness week, which is being held from June 1 to 7. The theme this year is “Give 100%”.
In Quebec, more than one million people have a significant, persistent disability. People with disabilities represent 16% of the population aged 15 and over. These people can and want to give 100% of themselves to society. Whether at school, at work, in the arts, in culture, or elsewhere, there is room for people with disabilities, and they must have the opportunity to develop their full potential. This is why it is important to give them all the tools they need, in order to offer them an accessible and inclusive environment.
I applaud all the organizations, such as Quebec's Regroupement pour la concertation des personnes handicapées, that have been working for years to build a more inclusive world.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/22 2:05:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, multiple sclerosis is the most common neurological disease affecting young adults. Research has shown that more than 60% of people with MS become unemployed at some point.
This disease is episodic, meaning that people alternate between relapses into disability and periods of stability. At the moment, employment insurance offers them a mere 15 weeks of sickness benefits without any flexibility. It is obvious that the EI system needs a complete overhaul.
Today, in honour of MS Awareness Month, we are taking part in the MS Society of Canada's virtual carnation pinning campaign, part of the #TakeActionForMS movement, in the hopes of improving quality of life for people living with multiple sclerosis.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/22 2:06:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about Quebec Intellectual Disability Week, which runs from March 20 to 26.
The theme of this year's campaign focuses on leaving stereotypes in the past where they belong. It reminds us that people with intellectual disabilities are still facing prejudice, and that needs to stop. In order to make that happen, we need to make sure that these individuals have all the resources they need to be included and that their loved ones get the help and support they need to assist them.
I want to close by congratulating everyone at the Société québécoise de la déficience intellectuelle, which is celebrating its 70th anniversary. They do an outstanding and very necessary job. I thank them from the bottom of my heart.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
