- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Kelowna—Lake Country
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $131,412.70
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the member for Kitchener Centre would like to speak to this, but because of the draconian motion the Liberals and the NDP put forward for restricting debate, he is not allowed to. Quorum calls are not even allowed in this place.
I note that the member contributed a lot at committee. He brought forth several motions, and my understanding is that he would like to speak this evening to this piece of legislation.
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for the member with respect to the timing.
We know the government has been working on this for years. It tabled the first legislation back in 2021. Then, because of the snap election, it stopped and had to start all over again, so it has been working on it for years.
We hear once it passes, presumably it will still take another year in order to negotiate with the provinces and develop the regulations.
I wonder if the member has a concern that the government is already years into it, yet it does not have regulations at this point.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, part of the situation is that, in the legislation, there is so much that is so vague that there are really no assurances. Even if all the fine details were not defined, there is a lot of vagueness in here. That is part of the concern that we have. Not only that but, frankly, we heard lots of testimony about this at committee.
All the vagueness in this legislation is a real concern for people. That is why, as I mentioned in my speech, we will be holding the government to account on all the commitments they have made.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we heard more than once in testimony at committee that people were considering MAID because they could not afford to live; I must say, that was absolutely heartbreaking.
It is unbelievable that people feel that way and are dealing with that in Canada. As I mentioned in my intervention, my Conservative colleagues and I have a lot of concerns around clawbacks, which is why we tried to put something in the legislation. Unfortunately, it was not accepted by everyone.
We are going to keep pressing the government on that. There should have been something in the legislation. As I mentioned, we had legal in the House of Commons draft something that was very simple in order to address that, specifically at the federal level, which is within our jurisdiction. Unfortunately, that was not supported.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know that, jointly, the member and I had worked really hard at committee to make sure that some amendments got through. As I mentioned earlier, there were some that I wish would have gotten through that were not accepted. We worked on that.
With regard to that, we would have to look at it. I think part of the challenge right now, as I mentioned in my speech, is that inflation is so incredibly high. The actions of the government with the last budget, with its inflationary deficit spending, are only going to pour fuel on the inflationary fire.
It is going to be even more difficult for people. We absolutely need to make it a priority as well to bring inflation down so that interest rates can go down and people do not lose their homes.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-22 today. It is always an honour to represent my community of Kelowna—Lake Country.
I know that our Conservative members are all committed to increasing support for Canadians living with a disability. More than one in five Canadians lives with a disability. It is not an insignificant number. In fact, it is not a number at all; these are people. These are family members, friends, brothers, sisters and parents. Canadians living with disabilities can have additional financial burdens with assistance, supplies or equipment that they may require. Canadians living with disabilities are underemployed, as approximately 59% of working-age adults with disabilities are employed, compared to around 80% of those without disabilities, according to Statistics Canada.
Navigating life with a disability can be a full-time job for many, with no time out and no break. While the intention to support those with disabilities remains, there are many unknowns with Bill C-22, which we are discussing today. This is because the most important details of this bill, such as eligibility, what “working age” means as mentioned in the bill, what the payment amounts will be, what the application process will be, and provincial and territorial co-operation and interaction with other benefits are all being left to be determined through regulation. These would all be determined behind closed doors, with no ability to come back to parliamentarians for debate or amendments, and no opportunity to hear from witnesses at committee in a public venue. Essentially, we have a bill with a benefit and process that are yet to be determined. Canadians living with disabilities deserve legislation that is committed to them through concrete action, not promises.
This legislation had extensive testimony at the human resources committee, including many written submissions. I will mention just one witness who testified at committee: Michelle Hewitt, chair of the board of directors for Disability Without Poverty, who is also a constituent of mine in Kelowna—Lake Country. I first met Michelle many years ago in my community, and she has been a strong advocate in many ways for persons with disabilities. I will read a couple of comments she made on record during her witness testimony at committee. She said, “Disabled people do not live in poverty because they are worthless to society. It is quite the opposite; it is because their worth is not valued. In fact, people with disabilities contribute over $47 billion to the Canadian economy.” She also stated:
We talk about lifting disabled people out of poverty, but what does that really mean? Canada's official poverty lines use the market basket measure, which fails to take disability into account.
We hear the stories of disabled people living in poverty on a daily basis, as they are our friends and family. We can tell you about the man who approached Rabia in the parking lot of a grocery store offering to swap bus tickets for food, or my friend who lives month to month with MAID approved, wondering if this month will be her last because she can't afford to live.
...Time is of the essence. Food inflation is at 11.6%, yet provincial disability payments are not index-linked. This means that in real terms, disabled people fall further behind every day.
This is why this benefit would most effectively be delivered if details were co-created with persons with disabilities. This is why Conservatives supported amendments at the human resources committee, which passed, to provide more certainty on this benefit, including indexing the benefit to inflation, ensuring the Canada disability benefit payment amount would stay proportionate to the cost of living. We also support the Senate amendments the government has brought forth.
The creation of the Canada disability benefit should consider the complex web of programs currently in place, which, for many Canadians with disabilities, including those with episodic disabilities, can result in benefit cuts and higher taxes as a consequence of taking on work. There are families that rely solely on benefits due to the nature of the disability, and people are living in poverty.
I want to be clear that I am concerned about the potential clawbacks that could affect people. These could be with interactions with provincial or territorial benefits, with interaction of benefits through insurance, or with interactions with federal benefits. While the minister has stated that potential clawback of provincial supports is a red line when negotiating the creation of the benefit with provinces, she has not been able to point to any specifics in the legislation or guarantee that this will not happen. Conservatives proposed an amendment to Bill C-22 at the human resources committee to prevent clawbacks at the federal level. This was written by the legal department of the House of Commons. Disappointingly, the Liberals voted against it and it did not get into the legislation.
There was an amendment put forth by the Senate to address clawbacks dealing with insurance, based on witness testimony at the Senate. I spoke to a constitutional lawyer about this, who pointed out that there are strong constitutional arguments in favour of this Senate amendment and that it was endorsed by all provincial trial lawyers associations in Canada. However, the Liberal government has not accepted that amendment.
I want to be very clear, on the record, that Conservatives are concerned with any form of clawbacks, and that this disability benefit act does not have anything in the legislation to give assurances to address this. We will be watching very closely over the next couple of years, once the regulations are developed and this benefit is all implemented and it plays out. Conservatives will be holding the Liberal government to account on this.
This is all at a time when the cost of rent has doubled and mortgages have doubled. Inflation has hit a 40-year high, and interest rates increased nine times in the past year. Liberal inflationary deficit spending led to high inflation, which led to high interest rates, which will lead to mortgage defaults. This is very concerning, and those with disabilities are among the hardest hit.
I want to comment on and clarify the parliamentary process and timelines the Liberal government went through with this legislation. The Liberals say that persons with disabilities are a priority; however, it took them six years to take action on this disability benefit. They finally introduced Bill C-35 in 2021, in the previous Parliament, and the Liberals then called an unnecessary election in the summer of 2021, which collapsed the legislation.
The minister said she was consulting with the disability community. However, she introduced the exact same legislation in 2022. It was a goal of mine, and of my colleagues in the Conservative official opposition, to ensure that Bill C-22 progressed through the committee process diligently and through adding needed amendments, though there are others we wished were agreed to. We managed to get the bill through the committee process quickly and passed in the House of Commons before Parliament rose at the end of 2022. On May 18, the Senate returned the bill to the House of Commons with amendments, and on May 30, at the human resources committee, the minister would not commit to a timeline on which the government would return Bill C-22 to the House of Commons. We have been waiting for weeks.
I and other Conservative colleagues were hearing from persons with disabilities that Liberal MPs were telling them that Conservatives have delayed this legislation. I want to be very clear that those comments are a fabrication and a falsehood. I would just tell people to look at the facts, the actions at committee and the parliamentary process the Liberal government has followed in bringing this forward. This debate could have been held weeks earlier than today if the Liberals had brought it forward.
As I mentioned earlier, the level of disability poverty in Canada remains a prominent issue, and we have a responsibility to do better. The Conservative members of Parliament are committed to supporting Canadians living with disabilities, and not penalizing people and families. Therefore, I can say that we are all in agreement that the Canada disability benefit must be passed, and we encourage the government to immediately get to work consulting with the disability community, as the minister has said that the regulations will, in fact, take a year to develop. We heard that today in response to my questions for the minister.
With that being said, our Conservative caucus will remain vigilant in ensuring that the government fulfills its promises to the disability community.
1457 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister again for her intervention today.
Part of the next stage of this, presuming this passes and becomes law, would then be to develop the regulations for this bill and to negotiate with the provinces and territories. This would all be done not through Parliament, not at committee but behind closed doors. While the government touts itself as being open and transparent, the way that this would play out would actually be behind closed doors. There would not be an opportunity to come back to Parliament. There would not be an opportunity to take any of the details of this benefit to committee to be analyzed, to have witnesses testify and to have amendments.
My question to the minister is this. Would you consider this to be an open and transparent process going into the next stage?
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the last we heard was that it would take approximately a year to negotiate with the provinces and territories, and a year, at the same time, to develop the regulations, once this potentially passes royal assent and became law.
Is that still the timeline that is being worked towards? Will it take a year to develop all of that? Should people realistically expect the disability benefit a year past this point?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 5:53:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. It is an honour to speak in favour of the motion brought forward by my colleague, the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. That member has long been an advocate for persons with disabilities and is well respected for his many different efforts on this.
The motion before us would allow this House to set a key reminder for government to remember those too often forgotten in our world: people with disabilities. Canada's work, whether here at home or abroad in developing countries, in aiding children's education is vitally important. While it is essential to help fund the books, pencils and computers needed for education, we would fail in our ambition for better education for every child if we did not consider the need to ensure the inclusion of all children, regardless of circumstances beyond their control.
A 2021 Statistics Canada study found that young Canadians with disabilities between the ages of 15 and 34 still encounter a wide range of difficulties in attending school, such as limitations on learning, social exclusion or a lack of accommodations. The study found that among the participants, 21.1% of women and 33.7% of men had yet to complete a high school level of education. Of those interviewed, 29% said they had discontinued their education because of their condition.
Though we recognize education as primarily provincial, there is a role the federal government can play.
As the Conservative shadow minister responsible for disability inclusion, I was involved in helping to advance the Canada disability benefit. We know for that piece of legislation that the government was working for years on it and finally tabled legislation in the last Parliament. The snap election of 2021 cancelled the legislation from moving forward, and it was reintroduced in this Parliament, though not as a priority piece of legislation for the government, as it was not one of the first bills to be introduced.
Surprisingly, it was the same legislation as this, and in fact it is well documented through testimony at committee that there is much uncertainty. What it would actually mean for people as to the parameters, to whom it would be applicable and what they would receive would all be done through regulation. I will continue to hold this government to account for this unacceptably slow pace of delivery. Still, by that bill's unanimous passing in the House, we know this chamber is committed to seeing all persons with disabilities reach their highest potential.
When it comes to our federal role in education, in situations such as indigenous education or social transfers, keeping in mind the specific needs of all children as they study is vital. Our goal must be nothing less than, as the text of this motion states, "maximum inclusion of people with disabilities, including people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.” We should want no less for our children living with disabilities around the world, whom we seek to aid in our efforts to alleviate poverty in developing countries. Without access to education, poverty is not alleviated in the long term.
It is indisputable that a good education can help make people's lives better. What we see needing improvement in the developing world is a clear commitment to the consistent consideration of the millions of people worldwide who face unique physical, developmental and intellectual challenges in achieving their best lives.
Globally, children with disabilities face significant barriers that result in exclusion from education and schooling. According to UNESCO's “2020 Global Education Monitoring Report”, at least 50% of children with disabilities are excluded from education in low- and middle-income countries. In some contexts, the figure is closer to 90%.
The reasons for this are varied, whether they are a lack of transportation options to reach schools, inaccessible school or classroom buildings, the lack of proper teacher training to educate children with varying intellectual and developmental challenges, or poor curriculum design. The denial of primary education leaves many of these children with the poorest life outcomes imaginable, with poor adult literacy or social skills condemning them to hard labour, extreme poverty or worse. Socially, these children can often be deeply misunderstood, with their conditions treated as burdens or even death sentences.
In some areas of the world, prejudice surrounding what we in Canada would regard as basic conditions sadly leads to the lives of children being harmed and given up on. According to the same report I cited earlier, adapted infrastructure and materials for students with disabilities are lacking in developing countries. Canada undoubtedly has inclusion challenges to overcome as well for those with disabilities. Still, we can take some fulfillment in the tireless efforts of our many education leaders, teachers and support workers who help to provide educational benefits for children who, had they been born in too many other places around the world, would have never received those efforts. I thank all of those who work in this field.
Similarly, we can take pride in Canadians seeking to address that gap in the developing world. Canada has a long history of commitment to helping developing countries. For example, one project looks to advance inclusive higher education for young adults with disabilities, develop new occupational therapy programs and foster research for inclusive education and community-based rehabilitation in the region.
Hearing of Canadian efforts to help with projects like this is no surprise. Canada has always prided itself on its capacity for humanitarian work. We are proudly home to tens of thousands of charities, not-for-profits, faith groups and individual miracle workers pursuing similar aims in regions around the world. The same consideration they give toward ensuring a good education for every child must be kept front of mind. The member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin is very purposeful in the wording of his motion calling on the government to take action. He does not want persons with disabilities to be forgotten. In fact, he wants them to be top of mind.
He is also drawing attention to persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. When people think of persons with disabilities and their extra needs, they may have to help minimize or overcome challenges with their diverse abilities. Often, we may think of physical accessibility needs. For example, physical infrastructure, like building a ramp or having an accessible washroom, may come to mind, and people get a check mark for being inclusive when considering those with disabilities.
However, this motion also adds in purposeful wording to include people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This is important because the check mark may not be quite as easy. Those with intellectual and developmental disability needs need to be top of mind when considering educational funding in order for us to be truly inclusive and to make a difference through education for those who may not be considered now. This elevates the importance of not forgetting those with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
I call on all members of this House to put aside partisanship and come together unanimously in passing this motion. Doing so will send a clear message of commitment to those in need of a better life through education who may currently be denied it.
1219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 5:27:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague went into a lot of his personal story as part of him coming to this place. Can he just touch a bit more on the importance of considering what he has in this legislation on top of all disabilities? As he said, his wording is very focused. What will this mean to people not only here but around the world as we spend money on education?
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I see his other colleague, whom I sit with on the HUMA committee and work with very closely.
I am really glad the member brought up people with disabilities. We worked really hard on Bill C-22, and it is a classic example of a real failure from the government. It championed that it was going to be bringing in this disability benefit act, and we spearheaded it through Parliament, but people with disabilities still do not know how much they are getting, when they are getting it or when it will be implemented. Everything will be done by regulation instead of legislation.
There is so much uncertainty, and that is how the government governs. It has grand announcements and big fanfare, but its actions have no substance to them. A perfect example is what we saw with that legislation.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of the comments the member made was that this is not the bill that the NDP would have put through, yet they have a confidence and supply agreement with the Liberals. If this is really important to them, why was it not negotiated in that agreement? There might have been a different bill than what we see here today.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member and I sit on the HUMA committee together, and we have worked together in opposition to attempt to make parts of this bill better, even though it is still determined that almost everything will come out during regulations.
My question to the member is regarding the timeline after this bill potentially passes and receives royal assent. When we were at committee, in the questioning of the minister, she was asked to lay out the timeline, what the process would be for regulations, how long that would take and when people would eventually be receiving benefits.
I am wondering if the member could comment on the timeline and if she was surprised to hear at committee that it was going to take that long, considering a lot of the communication from the government on this made it sound like, once this bill was passed, people would be receiving some type of benefit very soon.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in her intervention the length of time the regulations are going to take. Here we are. We have legislation and it will go to the Senate, which will do its work, and then it will receive royal assent. We heard at committee that it will likely be at least a year before the regulations will be developed, so who knows how long it will be before benefits will actually get to people.
I am wondering if the member can expand a bit on the length of time these regulations are going to take to develop considering that the government has been in power for eight years, it had the same legislation in the previous Parliament and it sounds like it has not done much work to put regulations together.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the member for her speech. We sit at committee together and have collaborated together in opposition.
She did touch on this, but I wonder if she could expand a little bit further her thoughts on the fact that any of these items, whether it is how much people will receive, who will receive it, what the process will be and whether there will be clawbacks, will be done at regulation stage.
The work we did at committee will not be happening any longer. All of that will be behind closed doors, and nothing will be coming back to Parliament or committee for oversight. What are her thoughts on that?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think one of the biggest revelations that came out early on, when we were questioning the minister at committee, was how long they were expecting the regulation time frame to take place. They kept talking about the fact that they had been doing consultations already and they wanted to move things along.
Once we started to have a discussion, I said at committee that this actually sounds like it is going to be a year after royal assent when in fact things are finalized, and it would be more than a year before people receive benefits. That was acknowledged by the minister at committee and I think we were all quite surprised by that. We definitely were quite shocked to hear that information, that it would take that much longer.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, absolutely, it has to be a priority. It is something that we talked about a lot at committee and it absolutely has to be a priority to consider that individuals do not have clawbacks.
I see my colleague here from the NDP who is on our committee. It was Conservatives and other opposition members who were making sure that, even though we wanted to move things along at committee, we did have enough time to hear from people. It was really important for all of us to make sure of that, because we knew that there were a lot of individuals and a lot of groups who wanted to testify, who wanted to bring in written submissions. We wanted to make sure that what we were receiving was inclusive and that we had enough time. We heard from hundreds of organizations and people.
I just want everyone to know that they were heard. I, myself, personally read every single one of the written submissions that came in and that was definitely part of the consideration for where our comments came from.
183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, yes, we agree that we absolutely need to get supports. At the committee level, we worked really hard with all committee members to make sure that we moved this legislation forward with some meaningful amendments. However, the government made it very clear that pretty much everything would be determined in regulations, so that is where it is.
That being said, we were supportive at committee with moving forward and making some amendments, which we did, and we worked with everyone. Talking about clawbacks, they are definitely a concern. This is an issue that the current government has not been able to determine, even though it has had eight years to come to the point where we are tonight.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-22 as the official opposition shadow minister for employment, future workforce development and disability inclusion.
Conservatives are committed to increasing support for Canadians living with disabilities. More than one in five Canadians live with a disability. This is not an insignificant number. In fact, this is not a number; these are people.
Disabled Canadians are underemployed. In 2017, Statistics Canada reported that approximately 59% of working-age adults with disabilities were employed, compared with around 80% of those without disabilities.
I have always believed in going to where people are. This is why I door knocked for the year leading up to the 2019 election, reaching more than 30,000 doorsteps in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country. One thing I will always remember is how many people I came across in their homes were people with disabilities. A family member would often tell me the story of their family. Truly, a disability is often a family journey.
Canadians living with disabilities may face high costs for assisted devices, equipment or prescriptions. One of the most onerous costs remains accessibility renovations and modifications to a home. This is especially onerous considering that the government’s age well initiative fund did not include the home and vehicle modification program. These are not optional expenses. We are talking about life-saving items, necessities or items that can exponentially improve someone's standard of living. If someone is fortunate enough to have family support, this is often how they can manoeuvre as a family to try to get services and have the best quality of life.
While some challenges are beyond the immediate scope of this House, as parliamentarians, we owe it to Canadians living with disabilities to put forward legislation that will allow them to continue to survive, succeed and hopefully thrive.
While the intention to support the disability community remains, Bill C-22, the disability benefit act, will not ensure on its own that Canadians living with disabilities are not living in poverty. This is because the most important details of this bill, such as eligibility, payment amount, application process, provincial co-operation and how it will interact with other programs, which could potentially create clawbacks, are left to be determined by regulation.
Essentially, we are debating a benefit that has not been determined yet. Canadians living with disabilities deserve legislation that is committed to them through concrete action, not promises. I want to make sure this legislation moves forward, but I want to be very clear and on record that the government has been lazy and taken the easy way out; getting disability benefits to people who need them has not been a priority.
Regardless of what the minister and the other Liberal MPs announce and say, the facts speak for themselves. The Liberals have been in government for eight years, and they had all that time to consult and come up with legislation. Although the Liberals have said they consulted with affected persons and advocacy groups, they tabled the exact same piece of legislation in the previous Parliament. It died when the Liberals called the unnecessary, expensive snap election in the summer of 2021. Moreover, this is Bill C-22. That means there were 21 bills before this one in this Parliament, even though this bill is exactly the same as it was in the last Parliament. A disability benefit act has not been their priority. This is how the Liberals govern: make big announcements with photo ops but with no substance, action or results. They have a track record of governing through regulations.
There are few assurances of what this legislation will achieve. The regulations will be drafted behind closed doors. There will be no debate in Parliament; there will be no voting in Parliament. There will be no scrutiny at committees. This is the Liberal way of governing by regulations.
The only policy decision this bill does clearly define is that more than one-third of Canadians living with disabilities over the age of 15 will not receive this benefit, regardless of how poor they are. It is estimated that more than half a million Canadians have invisible disabilities. Just because someone appears to be in good health does not mean that they may not face hardships. We do not know if people with invisible disabilities or those with episodic disabilities will be eligible under this disability benefit act. It is one of the many questions.
People living with a disability do not always fit the traditional mould. We know that there will be an appeals process for Canadians living with disabilities who have been denied supports and benefits. The amount of the benefit remains unclear.
I am very concerned about potential clawbacks. Conservatives attempted to put an amendment in this legislation at the committee stage to potentially address federal benefit clawbacks. However, the Liberals did not support our amendment. The minister told us that she is trying to negotiate agreements with provinces so that there will be no clawbacks. The problem is that these agreements may not be enforceable, and since there is nothing in Bill C-22 to confirm this, in its current form, it would not provide any safeguards against clawbacks.
This is the opposite process to what the Liberals are championing with their child care bill. There, they negotiated with the provinces and signed deals and then came to Parliament with legislation. With this disability benefit, there are literally no details in the legislation, and the Liberals are going to the provinces to work out the agreements. The cost of living is not the same across Canada, and this legislation on its own would not provide the assurance that there would be no provincial or regional disparity.
Some questions remain. How would the benefit be impacted if there were provincial changes to disability supports? Who would qualify? What would the amounts be? Who would deliver the benefit? Would the benefit count as income? How would the benefit be paid? Would it disqualify people from provincial supports? Would it disqualify people from federal supports? These are all questions that the government has failed to answer.
I have seen disability affect my family, like many people. My mom had one week of respite in 30 years of looking after my dad, who had MS. She is the strongest person I know, and there are many people in Canada living through these types of situations in their families.
At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, we heard from individuals and organizations, both testifying in person and writing in. They represented thousands of persons with disabilities across the country. One of the most heartbreaking things I heard was that people were considering MAID because they could not access services or afford to live. People said they could not afford to buy healthy food and follow the Canada food guide, which the Liberals announced with great fanfare in 2019. The current Liberal government does not realize the desperate situation many people are in because of the 40-year high in inflation.
To conclude, as I mentioned earlier, the level of disability poverty in Canada remains a prominent issue, and we have a responsibility to do better. Conservatives are committed to increasing support for Canadians living with disabilities. Therefore, I can say that we are all in agreement that the Canada disability benefit act must be passed, although there are so many unanswered questions. The Liberals have set this up such that they are doing everything in a non-transparent way behind closed doors, and neither parliamentarians nor the greater public through committee will have a say as to what the final regulations will be. Conservatives will remain vigilant in holding the government to account on promises it has made to persons with disabilities.
1308 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the minister spoke about getting this legislation through quickly and said there were a lot of people advocating for this over a long period of time. The minister and her party have been in government for eight years, and here we are eight years later now bringing forth a piece of legislation with few details. We know this exact same piece of legislation was tabled in the last Parliament and it died when the snap election was called.
How can the minister justify saying this is a priority and that the Liberals want to do this quickly, when they have had eight years?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
