Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to put it on the record, because we may or may not be debating it, the draft embargoed bill that we've seen is unacceptable to members of the Green Party caucus. My questions will relate largely to those sections that are troublesome. I'll start with a question to the honourable minister for disabilities. I certainly appreciate her work and I know her intentions are the best, but part 3 of this bill allows for the information to be shared so people can get a one-time payment of $600, which is not enough to really deal with the COVID crisis for people with disabilities. It's clearand I thank the honourable leader of the New Democratic Party for making this point clearly in question periodit will reach approximately 40% of people with disabilities because of the structure of going through the disability tax credit. To the honourable minister, are other measures under consideration to reach the rest of the people in Canada with disabilities who need help?
Madam Chair, the disability support payment we are proposing and that we hope to get through the House today complements a whole suite of measures our government has put in place that people with disabilities have access to. We know that people with disabilities who were precariously employed are now taking advantage of the CERB. Students with disabilities get the student benefit, including a $750-per-month top-up for four months. Families with children with disabilities are getting the CCB payment. Disproportionately, people with disabilities are benefiting from the GST payment. I should talk about the provincial letters that are being delivered to recipients of provincial disability supports. All around, Madam Chair, we're trying to get to every citizen with a disability, and this measure fills an important gap.
Much worse than part 3, from our point of view, is the treatment of people who are at this point potentially to be jailed for refusing to return to work when it's considered reasonable and they are recipients of CERB. I wonder about the reasonableness here. It's a subjective test. This is a wrong-headed approach to go after people and threaten them. The retroactive section has already made the Canadian Civil Liberties Association question its constitutionality. To the minister, what's reasonable, and in whose eyes is it reasonable? In today's news, Hamilton's chief medical officer says there is a spike in cases among young people, who likely were exposed while taking public transit to get to work. Their commute wasn't safe. Who determines reasonableness in deciding it's not safe to go back to work?
Madam Chair, as with the current CERB, moving forward it tries to encompass the situations of people who are unemployed, people who can't work because of child care responsibilities, people who are ill or sick. Moving to a broad term of reasonableness allows us to look at the individual circumstances of the person. If we stuck to language like suitable or appropriate, that would qualify the job. We're trying to look at the person and their particular circumstances as we work to ensure that if someone is immunocompromised and can't take transit to their job, then it's reasonable for them not to take that job. That's the exact example we're trying to encompass with broad reasonableness criteria.