Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the second reading of Bill C-39, a bill to delay by one year the repeal of the exclusion of mental illness as a sole underlying cause from eligibility for assisted suicide.

This Trudeau government’s 2021 decision to extend assisted suicide to people who are mentally ill is nothing short of abhorrent. Since the government expanded the eligibility for assisted suicide from people at end-of-life to those not facing imminent death, Canadians have witnessed the slippery slope rapidly become reality. We have seen it in the news: multiple veterans offered medically assisted death instead of help from the government, and disabled and impoverished Canadians who feel they have no other option but to end their lives through assisted suicide because of a lack of health and social supports.

The parliamentary committee on MAID recommends the expansion of assisted suicide to children. In recent weeks, I saw Twitter posts from the federal Department of Justice actually promoting the virtues of medical assistance in dying. Meanwhile, psychiatric experts warn repeatedly about the dangers of expanding assisted suicide to people suffering from mental illness, and health practitioners state they’re not prepared to do it.

Rather than heed the dire warnings and apply the brakes, this activist Trudeau government has opted instead for this bill a one-year delay in implementation. They want to use the time to “sell” the awful concept of assisted suicide for mental illness to the Canadian public. But Canadians are waking up to the reality of the expansion of assisted suicide, and they are shocked and alarmed at the prospect of it being extended for mental illness. A recent Angus Reid survey found that only 31% of Canadians support this move.

It was only seven years ago that assisted suicide even became legal in Canada. I have been fighting against its expansion into mental illness since before the first legislation, Bill C-14, was introduced in 2016 in response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2015 Carter ruling. Fighting against the expansion of assisted suicide to people with mental illness was what first prompted me to start my social media accounts. My very first Twitter and Facebook posts were my national column on the issue, entitled “Help the mentally ill. Don’t kill them.”

In 2019, a Quebec lower court ruled in the Truchon case that the federal Criminal Code provisions requiring that natural death be “reasonably foreseeable” and the Quebec assisted dying law provision that a person be “at the end of life” to qualify were invalid. Rather than appeal the ruling, as would usually be done, the Trudeau government instead chose to introduce new legislation, Bill C-7, to remove not only the “reasonably foreseeable” criterion but also some minimal safeguards that had accompanied Bill C-14.

Initially, the bill contained an exclusion for mental illness as a sole underlying cause of accessing MAID, but it was actually — shamefully — the Senate that passed a sunset-clause amendment to end that exclusion in 18 months, thus throwing open the gates of assisted suicide to those suffering with mental illness. The government accepted that amendment but modified the delay to two years.

Even though the subject matter of the bill was studied by the Senate Legal Committee twice — once at pre-study, then again during study of the actual bill — the mental illness sunset clause, and thereby the extension of MAID to vulnerable Canadians with mental illness, was never examined by a committee in either house. The government established a committee to study how to implement the inclusion of psychiatric illnesses, not to judge the merits of whether to do so. And a parliamentary committee studied the further expansion of assisted suicide, including the issues of advance consent and extending MAID to minors.

As is so often the case, throughout this process, this activist Trudeau government has prioritized pure ideology over evidence. But the government continues to push its agenda anyway.

Mental illness is not irremediable — one of the primary criteria to qualify for assisted suicide. Recovery or at least the alleviation of suffering is possible and can’t be predicted. Expert psychiatrists recognize that the trajectory of mental illness is unpredictable.

Dr. John Maher, a veteran psychiatrist who has worked with patients with some of the most severe, resistant cases of mental illness, testified at the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying:

. . . I defy literally any psychiatrist to say that this particular patient has an irremediable illness, because you can’t. I have patients who get better after five years, after 10 years and after 15 years. You cannot do it. It’s guesswork. If you’re okay with guesswork, if you’re okay with playing the odds, or if your position is let’s respect autonomy at all costs — if someone wants to die, they can die — call it what it is. It’s facilitated suicide.

Colleagues, often, finding the right treatment for an individual is a process of narrowing down the combination of medications over time. Advocates of psychiatric assisted suicide have recently begun to turn their argument from one of irremediability to that of inaccessibility as irremediability. That is pretty mind-blowing when you consider the state of Canada’s health care system at the moment and how inaccessible doctors and treatments are for Canadians.

Dr. John Maher reacted to one such claim at the MAID Committee when another psychiatrist stated that she would consider a patient facing a long waiting list for treatment as “irremediable” on that basis:

It’s actually been said out loud, we’ll let people die. We’ve seen in the news: Let people die because they can’t get an apartment. Irremediability, on my understanding of the Supreme Court ruling and subsequent legislation, had nothing to do with psychosocial resources. We were talking about diseases. These were medical diseases — brain diseases we’re talking about now — where we couldn’t medically treat them.

Boy, has the barn door been opened wide here if that counts as irremediable. I’m going to cite this as a specific example of my great fear of the abuses that are going to follow with this legislation, because there’s no oversight. . . . If [a psychiatrist] is going to let someone die because they can’t get a treatment that will help them, then I’m frankly just shocked. That is not what this law is about, nor should it be. If we as a Canadian society are willing to let people die over apartments, I’m frankly just disgusted. Forgive my passion here, but you’re parliamentarians with a duty to preserve life.

As many of you know, I am a family survivor of suicide loss. My husband, MP Dave Batters, died by suicide days short of his fortieth birthday, after struggling with depression and anxiety. I have seen up close the failures of our mental health care system. There are problems of accessibility, costs, stigma and an utter lack of resources that stand in the way of people getting the help they need. The answer to those barriers is to fix that system, not to confirm a mentally ill patient’s feelings of hopelessness and offer them the lethal means to suicide. The answer is certainly not to end their lives for them. As a compassionate society, we have an obligation to hold hope for Canadians with mental illness when they don’t have any hope for themselves.

In the limited time I have left, I did want to address some of the specious claims that the government and proponents of psychiatric MAID expansionism are making, because they are misleading, and I think parliamentarians and Canadians should know this.

First, in trying to sell the concept of psychiatric MAID to the Canadian public, Justice Minister David Lametti has implied that extending assisted suicide to people with mental illness has been mandated by the courts. This is simply not true. Neither the Carter nor the Truchon cases ruled on the constitutionality of expansion for mental illness, and neither plaintiff requested MAID based on psychiatric grounds.

The government and proponents of psychiatric MAID try to draw a false equivalence between physical and mental illnesses. However, the two are very different. A mental illness is not “terminal.” Death is not its “reasonably foreseeable” outcome. Again, mental illness is not irremediable and it is unpredictable, even for expert psychiatrists extensively trained to assess and diagnose those illnesses.

Further, suicidality can be a symptom of mental illness. This is something I have unfortunately witnessed first-hand. To evaluate physical and mental illnesses as not identical is not discriminatory. It is simple acknowledgement of fact. As Dr. Sonu Gaind testified before our Senate Legal Committee:

. . . it is not discriminatory to consider the particular nuances of mental illness in MAID discussions. “Equity” does not mean everything is the same; it means treating things fairly and impartially.

We should not extend assisted suicide on psychiatric grounds if we cannot give Canadians with mental illness full access to treatment and support options.

Honourable senators, we cannot just throw up our hands at the gaps in our mental health care system and sign a death warrant to ease people’s pain, congratulating ourselves with the delusion that we do it out of a twisted sense of equality. This is not equality for people with mental illness. It is a complete dereliction of our duty as parliamentarians.

There are gaps in the mental health care system, and they are causing such suffering that people with mental illness are considering death rather than the further pursuit of treatment. The massive problems in our mental health care system make me angry. I’ve seen it. I’ve lived it with my husband. The fact that this Trudeau government will offer people death before addressing their need for treatment makes me livid. We as parliamentarians have a responsibility to do something about it, honourable senators, and it starts at the top, with holding this government accountable.

The Trudeau government, in its signature style, talks pretty words about mental health but does not follow through. In the 2021 election, the Liberal platform promised a “Canada Mental Health Transfer” of $4.5 billion over five years. Here we are nearly 18 months later, with one budget down and one on the way, and how much of that money for mental health has actually begun flowing? Not one red cent. According to the deadlines in their own Liberal campaign platform, this government is already more than $1.5 billion behind on their mental health care promises. How many wait-lists for psychiatric care will that help alleviate, honourable senators? How many Canadians with mental illness will that provide with treatment, testing or medications? Oh, that’s right — zero.

This government thinks they can put out a couple of tweets on Bell Let’s Talk Day, voice empty promises on mental health funding and never follow it up with action.

Honourable senators, I know many of you have your hearts in the right place, but if you really want to help people suffering with mental illness, why are you letting the government continue to get away with this? Why have you voted to give people with mental illness death before adequate supports? When this measure to extend assisted suicide was added by this chamber at the end of the Bill C-7 process, so that it has never had proper review before a parliamentary committee in either house of Parliament, why aren’t we forcing this bill to go through an intensive study now? Why is the only scrutiny this bill will receive going to be a one-hour Committee of the Whole split between two ministers?

Bill C-39 will pass. Those who want psychiatric MAID will vote for it, and those who vehemently oppose psychiatric MAID will vote for this bill to at least delay its enactment. We should be using the year of this delay to finally and honestly review whether it is right to expand assisted dying to people with mental illness, not how to implement killing them.

Minister of Justice Lametti says he intends to use this year delay in implementing psychiatric MAID to “allow everyone to internalize the standards” and “allow universities to prepare teaching materials” and “develop explanations.” What a load of bunk. The government recognizes the tide is turning against this awful expansion, and they’re hoping this delay will give them more time to do a sell job to Canadians.

Honourable senators, this one-year delay is needed today because Canada is not ready to extend assisted suicide to people living with mental illness. Psychiatrists and doctors are not ready. They are not comfortable with this, because extending assisted suicide to mentally ill patients contradicts the standard of mental health care, which is suicide prevention and the preservation of hope and life.

Canadians are also not ready for this. They’re not comfortable with it because they’re now witnessing in real time the nightmare scenarios that expanding assisted suicide so quickly have already caused. The rest of the world looks at our assisted suicide regime with shock — we’ve become the most permissive country on the planet. If everyone’s uncomfortable with it, it’s probably a good indication we’re doing something wrong, honourable senators. We need to stop this runaway train before it’s too late.

The one-year delay in Bill C-39 is a start, but it’s only a start. The federal government needs to use this year to completely re‑evaluate extending assisted suicide for mental illness. They have gone too far with this ideological experiment and are headed straight for the abyss. It has gone too far for psychiatrists, it has gone too far for Canadians and it is hurting most the people who desperately need us to continue to preserve hope for them — people living with mental illness. One of them, noted Canadian mental health advocate Mark Henick, put it this way:

To expand Medical Assistance in Dying solely for a mental illness would be the ultimate expression of systemic stigma and discrimination against people with mental illnesses. It would represent a final, preventable indignity to people who have been fighting for their right to recover, sometimes for a very long time, in spite of failing government healthcare systems which too often make recovery harder than it needs to be. It is unacceptable for lawmakers to abdicate their responsibility to some Canadians, those of us with a mental illness, and to wash their hands of their end of the social contract. We will not be so summarily culled by people in power who seem to see us as a systemic burden. People who have experienced a mental illness pay taxes too, and are valuable members of Canadian society. We will not let you let us down.

Honourable senators, we must not let them down. Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-18 with a genuine concern about what it means for the free exchange of ideas and open debate in this country.

The online news act, as proposed, will restrict access to and the amount of news we can read and consume in this country. The government not only wants to decide what we watch and read — as we saw in Bill C-11 — but will now force foreign companies, through Bill C-18, to fund some Canadian content, but not all. Again, limiting choice and sources.

Ottawa’s online reform crusade is, simply put, government regulation of content, which risks not only the independence of the media but also limits what you and I are able to read or hear about the events in our communities, country and around the world. For these reasons and as someone who believes in free speech and choice, I am fundamentally opposed to a bill that limits my right to inform myself.

The government argues this bill is intended to provide an adrenaline boost to a struggling legacy industry. But at what cost? In essence, the government is forcing companies to enter into contracts that will take money from large foreign platforms such as Google or Facebook and use that to fund broadcasters and publishers here in Canada — primarily the large legacy players. In response, Facebook and Google have threatened to simply pull all the news content off their sites, and that means preventing us from sharing content with others that we think is interesting or important. This bill ends up punishing us.

It’s actually even worse than that because by forcing companies to pay for links — the way we click through to a larger story — it will also be a disaster for smaller independent outlets who have grown and survived by sharing their work through those links on those platforms at no cost.

My local newspaper, as you heard me comment on earlier, has just gone under. Yes, technology has changed the game, but these small entrepreneurs want business — not subsidies — and they survive by sharing their content for free online.

This bill will limit the ability of these small struggling players to use the internet to attract subscribers. The irony of the government’s approach is that the big legacy newspapers and broadcasters, in whose interests they are supposedly doing this, need the platforms even more. They, too, need more eyes on their content as viewership and subscriptions continue to dwindle.

As for Ottawa, the self-interest is obvious. Force the platforms to pay so they don’t have to be seen to be handing out the cash, which, of course, risks the charge that they are buying favour from the media. Just to remind you, the government has been funding and backstopping ailing entities, including those that cover Ottawa politics.

The government says platforms like Facebook benefit financially from sharing news stories or links, so they should pay. The platforms counter with some numbers, pointing out that news accounts for a very small portion of their online activity, approximately 3% for Facebook, and express that they don’t even place ads on shared news because most users don’t want to see them. So it’s not a big revenue stream.

Regardless, what the government seems not to understand — or doesn’t want to — is that platforms are a free online space provided to everyone, including the media. People can share content, and that obviously benefits the content creators in this country.

Of course, many people these days want to consume their news online, and free platforms provide a nearly limitless source of information. Therefore, without these platforms, smaller operations will likely continue to cease to exist — like the Wadena News — and it would become increasingly difficult to break into the industry with some new online product and compete against the established and already well-subsidized players.

The larger media organizations already have an advantage. They can put up a paywall around their articles, so even if a link is shared on a platform, the article is still blocked to those without a subscription. With Bill C-18, they get to have their cake and eat it too: subscription fees from consumers and subsidies from big tech.

With Bill C-18, Ottawa is playing a bit of a risky game of chicken. Here is why: Big tech companies such as Google and Facebook have faced this kind of legislation in other countries. Canada is such a small market that walking away from doing business here hurts us far more than them.

We are also risking trade retaliation from allies and partners, namely, the United States. Bill C-11 was deemed protectionist and possibly in violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and Bill C-18 will be no different. We are forcing companies to negotiate contracts that will take money from foreign sources to fund Canadian broadcasters and publishers. This is, of course, nothing short of a backdoor subsidy without the government’s fingerprints on the money.

The very idea that we would demand money from American corporations to prop up our national broadcaster, among others, is shocking. Could you imagine our reaction in this country if the U.S. passed a law forcing Canadian companies to shell out millions of dollars to support ailing American media companies simply because they needed more money? This is embarrassing.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that this will cost big tech hundreds of millions of dollars because the bill puts no real cap on potential costs, and the list of those eligible for funding has grown, including hundreds of local campus and Indigenous broadcasters.

As we know, when one country imposes this kind of taxation, it is an inconvenience, but if many countries want to buttress legacy media with money they haven’t earned, it becomes a costly precedent. It is no wonder that the big players such as Facebook or Twitter have threatened to block news sharing.

You can see why the cost-benefit analysis of keeping the news on these platforms if this bill passes will not be worth it. It will just be easier for these companies to shut it down. The platforms’ losses would be negligible, but the damage to the news-sharing process would be devastating and the Canadian consumer would be the real collateral damage. As my colleague Senator Simons says, it is as if those who wrote this bill had never used the internet.

If it weren’t obvious already, government should not be interfering with what and how we all consume information. As an old comedian, Tommy Smothers, once said, “The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.”

The natural marketplace of ideas allows creators to offer their wares and allows consumers to choose. We subscribe to publications we like, we watch channels we enjoy and when we don’t, we shut them off or cancel our subscriptions.

Let’s keep government out of this process, let’s try to keep the media more independent and let’s keep Canadians informed about their world.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cotter, seconded by the Honourable Senator Woo, for the second reading of Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Hon. Wanda Thomas Bernard: Honourable senators, I acknowledge that we are currently on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation. I rise today to speak to Bill C-22, an Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

I appreciate the sentiment communicated by Minister Qualtrough and by our sponsor here in the Senate, Senator Cotter, about the urgent need to pull people with disabilities out of poverty; however, I do not believe this proposed legislation covers the bases to ensure people with disabilities are able to move from a place of poverty to adequate income. As our colleague Senator Kim Pate stated in her debate:

The government is rushing to pass a bill that could, regrettably, amount to little more than a promising name.

I understand the legislation is a framework and the plan is that details will be worked out in the next stage. While I respect that ideal, I have concerns, and I believe it is our responsibility to ensure the framework addresses the following three issues before the next stage.

I might mention that I share many of the concerns raised by Senator Petitclerc in her compelling speech earlier this evening.

First, the legislation must ensure the framework provides adequate benefits to people with disabilities; second, the legislation must safeguard against clawbacks of provincial social assistance; and third, the bill should build in equity for people experiencing intersecting identities.

I will speak briefly to each of these three points.

Colleagues, my primary concern with this legislation is the adequacy of the income supplement. As the critic, Senator Seidman, said in her debate, she sees an issue with:

. . . the adequacy of the disability benefit and whether there should be clear definition that the benefit itself must be above the poverty level.

I agree with my colleague.

I consulted with Vince Calderhead, a Nova Scotia human rights lawyer who has worked in Nova Scotia for over 30 years and who has been a fierce advocate for disability rights and poverty issues for decades. He said:

Bill C-22 is the first time in 40 years I have seen the federal government come close to an opportunity to provide adequate income support for people living with disabilities in Canada. This is the moment for Parliamentarians to ensure adequacy for people with disabilities. From a human rights perspective, we must build in for the ‘right to an adequate income’, because trusting the Cabinet to ensure income adequacy is just not enough. Yes, we need to trust, but we also need fundamental human rights protections and accountability. Our Constitution, in section 36, commits both the federal and provincial levels of government to ‘the provision of essential public services of reasonable quality for all Canadians’. With Bill C-22, now is the moment and the opportunity to fulfill our constitutional commitment in section 36 to income adequacy for persons with disabilities in Canada.

The main goal of this legislation is to pull people with disabilities out of poverty. There is no assurance of that in the current form of this bill.

My second concern with this legislation is that this federal framework must safeguard against the provinces clawing back from pre-existing supports. If provinces can claw back social assistance programs already in place, the purpose of this bill is moot. The level of poverty experienced by people with disabilities will be maintained, and again, the goal of the bill will not be achieved.

My third and final major critique about the efficacy of Bill C-22 is on its ability to provide equitable supports to people living with intersecting oppressions. For example, there is limited data on the experiences of African Canadians with disabilities. However, there is an advocacy group called the ASE Community Foundation for Black Canadians with Disability, which is doing some important work in this sector. Their mission is to disrupt disparities at the intersection of Blackness, disability and gender.

ASE released a report called The Intersection of Blackness & Disability in Canada that examines the racialization of poverty and links that to disability. It found that 12.5% of Black Canadians live in poverty in comparison to the 7.3% of non‑racialized people. ASE describes how a disability and racialized income gap is formed by the systemic barriers of ableism and racism that exclude people with disabilities, and Black and racialized people. This income gap impacts the health and wellness of this group, which in turn reinforces the cycle of poverty.

I attended a town hall with ASE in February. Every Black Canadian in that space shared a story of hardship connected to the reality of living at the intersection of race and disability.

That intersection of ableism and racism is an issue that we have been addressing in Nova Scotia as well. A key issue is the stigma associated with disability. Accessing resources is difficult for many Black Canadians. In a research project I was involved with, we interviewed African Nova Scotians with disabilities, and my research team found that people experiencing both anti-Black racism and ableism are less likely to know about and access supports and services. They experience stigma, shame and silence, which prevent them from seeking out services. Furthermore, many people in the study reported that experiencing anti-Black racism while accessing supports is another way to keep them outside of those systems.

Those realities highlight some of the reasons why accounting for equity from an intersectional lens is a necessary component to be included in the framework.

The legislation cannot be presumed to be all encompassing and hope to improve the lives of all people with disabilities in its current form. People with disabilities are not a monolith, and policies affecting them should not assume equal impact. Colleagues, it is time that the unique struggles of African Canadians and other racialized people with disabilities are considered in the actual development of legislation like this and not as an afterthought. Equitable policy solutions are an important step toward an equitable society.

Honourable senators, I agree with the goal of this bill: to provide an income supplement to people with disabilities to pull them out of poverty. In fact, I am very excited about its possibilities. However, I do not believe the bill in its present form will accomplish this very important goal. It does not account for adequacy of the benefit, provincial clawbacks or the specific struggles of racialized people with disabilities who require equitable support.

I anxiously await the expert witness testimony during the committee study of the bill and encourage my colleagues to think critically about how this framework will roll out to support all Canadians with disabilities in measurable ways.

Thank you. Asante.

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Honourable senators, I, too, rise today to speak to Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

I will be brief, as I have listened to my colleagues speak. I think my words will echo theirs, and I’m not going to repeat all they have said. First, I would like to thank Senator Cotter for his sponsorship of this bill and all senators who have expressed their support and concerns.

I am in support of this bill going to committee as soon as possible. Bill C-22 is laudable in its objective of reducing poverty for some of the most vulnerable people in Canada. The spirit in which this bill has been crafted has given hope to those who have been living in very difficult circumstances — as Senator Petitclerc said earlier, 6.2 million Canadians of whom 41% of working age are unemployed.

At the heart of this legislation is the step it takes to creating a more inclusive society. As Senator Cotter mentioned, basic financial security is a large part of this. I have mentioned the troubles with provincial clawbacks to benefits in this chamber before, and as with many of us here, I find that a great concern. Without agreements with the provinces and territories, we could be putting beneficiaries in a one-step-forward and two-steps-back situation, and therefore this bill will not achieve its goals.

I had the opportunity last week to talk to David Kron, Executive Director of the Cerebral Palsy Association of Manitoba, a person who has a lived experience of a disability for his whole life and someone who assists many others. Mr. Kron’s greatest concern with this bill is the danger of provincial clawbacks being imposed on those who are recipients of Bill C-22’s benefits. He also fears the provinces might offload their service supports to those in need.

Of Bill C-22, he told me that it:

. . . is a generational change as to how we support adults with disabilities in Canada, as long as there are no claw backs.

He is very supportive of the big step forward it does take. Mr. Kron also noted that he hopes the regulations that underline this bill cannot be a ruse for provinces or other jurisdictions to cut services like wheelchairs, rent assistance or other disability health supports.

This tax benefit is a critically needed step, and — I hope — it may lift many out of poverty. I am heartened by Senator Cotter’s belief that there will be agreements made, but I am also concerned about the length of these negotiations. The thought of a patchwork system across the country does not lend confidence on an equity basis for people who have struggled with inclusion for so long.

Mr. Kron told me the need for this bill is great, and that he and the Cerebral Palsy Association are truly supportive of its goal: improving the lives of people with disabilities, which we know are expensive lives. He is encouraged that it includes an appeal mechanism. He said:

The most important part of C-22 is that it is Canada-wide, enabling people to move to other regions to live with family without having to wait several years to reapply for the benefit. It seems in some jurisdictions waiting lists to get one’s new provincial home’s disability supports is five years, which forces people to stay where they are, often away from family.

He sees that the Canada-wide aspect of this bill will let people make those moves without that wait.

I note the provisions in the legislation that would seem to provide safeguards — the results of federal-provincial negotiations being published, for example. The most important one comes under the heading “Collaboration” in section 11.1, which states:

The Minister must provide persons with disabilities from a range of backgrounds with meaningful and barrier-free opportunities to collaborate in the development and design of the regulations, including regulations that provide for the application process, eligibility criteria, the amount of a benefit and the appeal process.

This is a very important step, and who knows the issues of the disabled community more than those who live with a disability?

Let me give you an example: My office recently hired Gemma, a young lady who has lived with disabilities her entire life and who has faced real economic challenges. She is strong, determined and has taken control of her life to the fullest extent she can. She hires her own care workers. She has written a document for us, which we will post soon, titled “GO Confidently Into Hiring: A Guide for those with Disabilities for Hiring Careworkers.” While she openly refers to her financial and physical challenges, her report offers advice and insight into the entire hiring process.

With a University of Manitoba degree in Recreation Management and Community Development, Gemma has been a volunteer for three years at St.Amant, which is a home for people with high-needs disabilities. Her colleagues, who graduated from the same program at the same time, were paid. More recently, she has had a contract with the Cerebral Palsy Association of Manitoba to run and organize two days of movement for their members. Gemma’s support of Bill C-22, like that of David Kron, is strong. However, she is concerned about the potential of clawbacks, having been faced with that reality with her project in my office.

This bill will lift the lives of many, and I hope it will lift people enough to be a significant long-term help. I truly hope that section 11.1 of this bill is respected and that people with disabilities can help develop the regulations that will flesh out this legislation. That is key to meeting the needs of the people whom this bill will affect the most.

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology will soon study this bill, and the issues raised in this chamber will be addressed. I look forward to those discussions and testimonials.

In closing, I want to thank you all for your input and concerns as our committee moves forward.

[Translation]

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, I first want to acknowledge that we are here today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

I’d like to begin by explaining why I wanted to speak at second reading of Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act. Although I’m not a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, I wanted to point out some things that I think the committee should look at.

I would then like to draw a parallel with a historical period that Canada went through in the first half of the 20th century and talk about some points that I’d like the committee to consider regarding the title of the bill.

Why do I want to talk about this bill? As a parent, this topic resonates with me. I don’t have a disabled child, but if I did, how would I be feeling today? I’d be very anxious about the future. I’d be happy with this bill because, as Senator Petitclerc said, it is full of hope. As several of you have said, this bill is very vague. I’ve never seen a bill like this one. Its primary goal is to reduce poverty and increase financial security. We have no idea how much money will be allocated and we have no idea how the benefit will be delivered. The idea is to leave it up to cabinet to decide, which in no way guarantees sustainability or consistent objectives.

Don’t worry, I will be voting for this bill, but I would ask the committee to do its job as it has done in the past

It was really Senator Seidman’s speech that resonated with me when I read it again — I actually read several speeches that mentioned that the Senate, back in 2008 or 2009 and again in 2018, said that, in order to lift Canadians with disabilities out of poverty, we need a basic income, not an income supplement. That set my thoughts straight.

When I read this speech with the reference to Professor Prince, I went to read his work and my ideas became clear. The Senate has to do its part because in reading the comments by the minister, who explained what she wanted to do, I noticed that the emphasis was being put on a social assistance income supplement.

It can’t be interpreted in any other way. The minister wants to create a benefit that would be a supplement to the social assistance benefits that working age persons with disabilities receive. Persons with disabilities no longer receive or collect very little welfare after the age of 65. If they receive any, it is for other reasons. In Quebec, generally speaking, after 65 no one receives any welfare benefits. That’s because there’s Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, which are both federal programs.

An income supplement for people with disabilities presupposes that these working-age people will continue to collect welfare, which will be supplemented. The government will try to negotiate with the provinces to make sure there’s no clawback, but they’ll still get that last-resort assistance. That’s where there’s a disconnect, and I hope the committee will try to find a solution. The provinces’ mission is to provide that last-resort help. The provinces are the end of the line. The federal government cannot put itself in the position of supplementing last-resort support. This calls for a different approach.

How are we supposed to lift people with disabilities out of poverty and get them off welfare if we force them to depend on welfare programs? The answer is self-evident.

I hope you’ll consider this issue in committee.

I said to myself, “Diane, go have a look at what you wrote in 1979 and 1980 when you were doing your Ph.D. thesis.” I went back to that 800-page thesis about the evolution of social programs in Canada. It didn’t say much about people with disabilities, but it did go into a lot of detail about how to get people over 70 — and now those over 65 — off welfare.

You know, I had initially forgotten, but then I remembered that I watched a lot of Senate work while I was writing my doctoral dissertation. The Senate played a major role in adopting programs to get seniors off welfare. It began quite early. To summarize very briefly, motivated by Keynes’s macroeconomic theory, the federal government decided to invest in income security for large families to get them off welfare, and it did so by creating the universal family allowance in 1945.

In 1951, the government passed the Old Age Security Act to get people aged 70 and over off welfare. It was time, and it worked at first. Everyone 70 and over received a universal pension, but by the 1960s, urbanization meant that some seniors were still receiving welfare.

Governments soon decided to adopt the Quebec Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan. The idea was that with these contributory plans, seniors could get off welfare but still have a basic income with Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Today, this basic income is around $20,000 for a low-income individual, and this helps keep people out of poverty.

Members of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology who are going to be examining this bill, I’d like you to take a closer look at the possibility of creating a program and even consider that issue. The federal government already has mechanisms in place that it could work with, including the non-refundable tax credit for people with disabilities. By enhancing that tax credit and making it refundable, we could ensure that everyone with a severe disability has an income. That brings me to the following question. How are we going to define “disability”? I think the committee has a lot of work to do.

I would encourage you to look at what Quebec and the provinces are doing in that regard. For a long time, Quebec didn’t want to define people with disabilities as being disabled. It also didn’t want to treat them as being incapacitated, so it came up with the notion of people of working age with severely limited or temporarily limited capacity for employment. That at least enables people in Quebec with long-term severely limited capacity for employment to benefit from the social solidarity program and for those with a temporarily limited capacity to benefit from the social assistance program. The criteria and employment incentives are different for these two programs.

I invite you to examine this issue and to study this bill in the context of the wonderful action plan tabled by Minister Qualtrough to provide employment for individuals of working age living with a disability. Professor Prince also proposed his own action plan, which is similar to what the minister has proposed.

I invite you to examine the problem from a different angle. I remind you that providing a supplement to welfare keeps people on welfare.

My second point is the following. Clearly, federal and provincial collaboration is required to implement a plan that not only provides financial assistance but also results in inclusion. That may not be the bill’s objective, but, no matter, it provides the opportunity to take action to achieve a shared objective. Who would be against this objective of reducing poverty for those living with a disability? I believe that no province would do that. The government may have an opportunity here to hold more regular meetings with the provinces to achieve a shared objective.

It may be a big ask, and it may not be up to committee members to do it, but I wanted to express the idea that there is an opportunity to create federal-provincial institutions that will create a more collaborative federalism on social issues.

My last point has to do with changing the title. Why change the title? Just as it is not acceptable in English to use the term “handicapped,” it is also no longer acceptable in everyday French to use the term personnes handicapées. However, those words appear in the translation of the bill. I was surprised. When I read the minister’s action plan, nowhere in French do they talk about personnes handicapées; they use the term personnes en situation de handicap. That is important.

In closing, on this issue of the title of the bill, I have two points I want to mention, just to give you a laugh. I forgot about something I wanted to read to you. This is a Senate report that, in 1963, talked about the elderly; you can see the parallel with people with disabilities. Senator Croll was in the Chair. The Senate report said the following:

[English]

It is the considered view of the Committee that the income guarantee approach to the income needs of old people has much to recommend it. Apart from its administrative simplicity (by comparison with public assistance) and the modest level of public expenditures that would be involved (by comparison with the equivalent increase in the Old Age Security Pension) the proposal in our view has two important merits. It avoids the indignity of the needs test to which we should not like to see several hundred thousand retired people subjected, and further it provides the most effective means we have discovered of correcting the present inequity in our treatment of the already retired and the about-to-be retired generations of old people, a matter which has given us grave concern.

[Translation]

I wanted to mention that. I also wanted to read you a little translation note from Renée Canuel-Ouellet.

Senator Bellemare: Thank you.

Here’s that note about translating the term:

Translators who have to render the expression, “person with a disability” in French find it intensely frustrating. Naturally, they do not want to offend anyone by using a politically incorrect term. Is it better to say personnes handicapées? Or personnes ayant une incapacité? Maybe personnes ayant une déficience? How does one begin to sort out all these ideas? The World Health Organization comes to the rescue with its International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps, which proposes three definitions . . . .

I’ll leave you with that. I hope the committee will be able to study this issue because I think it deserves our consideration.

Thank you very much.

[English]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, I want to join colleagues who have spoken previously in expressing appreciation to Senator Cotter for his leadership on this bill, but I also want to share in a number of the very key points that have been raised.

As a senator from Manitoba, I do want to recognize that I come from Treaty 1 territory. It is the traditional territory of the Anishinaabeg, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene, and the homeland of the Red River Métis Nation.

[Translation]

I acknowledge that the Parliament of Canada is situated on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

[English]

Colleagues, the bill before us is extremely important. In so stating, I do not seek to take away from the merit of all the bills that come before us, but we have particular urgency attached to this bill. Persons with disabilities in Canada continue to face disproportionate levels of economic and social exclusion. Many are living with insufficient resources and supports to meet the most basic of needs.

There is undisputed consensus amongst the community of disability experts that federal income support legislation is needed, and it is, devastatingly, long overdue. Bill C-22 has been termed a generational landmark endeavour — a once-in-a-generation attempt to right long-entrenched wrongs.

Senator Cotter said this benefit stands as the cornerstone of Canada’s Disability Inclusion Action Plan, and will represent “. . . the commitment of a generation.” So it is urgent — but urgency here means more than simply rapid action. Urgency also means that we have to look at the deep, persistent and insistent need to address this pressing issue, and, frankly, it boils down to this: Quick action is called for, but effective action and quick action are even better.

That is the urgency I wish to speak to. In our haste to provide a rapid remedy, I fear that we are missing the actual point, which is to properly address the persistent need itself, and, sadly, Bill C-22 does not accomplish this.

I am waiting for a consultation that was supposed to take place today, but will now take place tomorrow. I want to be absolutely sure that the points that I wish to raise are consistent with this consultation. With permission, I would like to adjourn for the balance of my time, if I may, please.

(On motion of Senator McPhedran, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu moved third reading of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders), as amended.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading stage of Bill S-205, as amended, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders). I introduced this bill at first reading on November 24, 2021.

As you know, this bill is particularly close to my heart. I introduced it to fight domestic violence, a terrible scourge that far too many people, mainly women, fall victim to.

Domestic violence can involve physical, sexual, psychological and economic violence. It is a cycle that often starts with a period of building tension between two intimate partners, a time when the victim feels they are in danger or they become paralyzed with anxiety and can no longer function. I will always remember the touching testimony of Diane Tremblay, a survivor of intimate partner violence who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during the study of Bill C-3.

I would like to quote an excerpt from her testimony, as follows:

We then took Chemin de la Montagne, in Hull, which leads to a very wooded country road. We went to the end of the road near a golf course. He was trying to confuse me so that I wouldn’t know where we were, but I was looking at everything. He was doing everything he could to make me feel lost and to terrorize me even more.

He ordered me to give him my cell phone, which I did. He said, “You won’t have your cell phone, so your children won’t be able to reach you or bother me . . . .” We drove around the school to the back, to a large parking lot. He parked the car right next to a wooded area. He took off my glasses and started kissing me. I had no choice but to let him. I knew that if I didn’t do what he wanted, my life would certainly be in even more danger. This feeling is very strong.

Unfortunately, Ms. Tremblay was sexually assaulted that night. The period of tension that I was talking about corresponds to the assault phase, when the offender may physically attack his partner, rape her, verbally insult her and threaten her life. The victims come out physically injured and psychologically humiliated by their attacker.

All too often, the attackers try to justify their actions to their victims and manage to find a warped way to reconcile with them, taking advantage of their vulnerability to impose an unhealthy form of control. This cycle is repeated and results in escalating violence; the abusers feel a sense of impunity that ultimately can lead to the worst outcome, murder.

I would remind you that, in 2021, 173 women were murdered in Canada, including 26 in Quebec, and that 55% of them were murdered as a result of family and domestic violence. In 2022, 185 women were murdered because they dared to cry out, “enough, that’s enough.” I would call these past four years deadly years for Canadian women.

Women who decide to break this cycle of violence automatically put themselves at risk. They must sacrifice their lives by hiding in shelters, quitting their jobs and leaving their homes. Quite often they bear full responsibility for their children. Unfortunately, most of them have no faith in the justice system, which does not protect them. In 2019, 80% of victims of domestic violence stated that the violence they experienced was not reported to the police.

In the same year, and according to Manon Monastesse, executive director of Quebec’s Fédération des maisons d’hébergement pour femmes, 300 women were victims of attempted murder but did not report it to the police. That is within this organization alone. These statistics on attempted murder should sound the alarm and spur us all to action. An electronic monitoring device, for example, might encourage them to report their attacker and feel safer in the future.

The lack of trust of victims of domestic violence is supported by the many cases of homicide that we have sadly learned about through the media. I would like to quote the testimony given by the father of Daphné Huard-Boudreault, the 18-year-old woman who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend on March 22, 2017. He said the following:

On that tragic day, numerous warning signs should have alerted the authorities. Despite several police officers responding to Daphné’s call for help, despite the fact that the man who would go on to murder my daughter had committed numerous offences, that man left by taxi without even being questioned . . . .

Quebec’s first femicide of 2021 is another example. The murderer was a repeat offender awaiting trial. He had committed 50 criminal offences in his lifetime, including 11 counts of domestic violence and three of sexual assault. Unbelievably, he was nevertheless released after being arrested for having breached his bail conditions a third time. Ten days later, he murdered his former partner.

Dear colleagues, after hearing about this case, how can we ask women to report their attackers? It is absolutely unacceptable for a victim to take the risk of reporting their attacker and to be murdered after their partner is released on bail.

These are just a few of the many examples that show how lenient our criminal justice system is. Far too many murders occur after victims file a report. This is one of the reasons victims don’t have faith in the justice system.

Three years ago, I was approached by a group of more than a hundred women, all victims of domestic violence, attempted murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault and psychological abuse. These women went through some particularly trying times and most of them still have the scars. They wanted to take action to make things happen so they could help save the lives of victims of domestic violence. They didn’t do this for themselves, they did it for other women.

Despite the terrible hardships they experienced, these women got together to think of solutions to the problem of keeping victims of domestic violence safe when they report to the police. By joining forces and working hard, these women helped create Bill S-205, which seeks to strengthen the Criminal Code to bring in preventive safety measures at the beginning of the legal process when a woman decides to report the violence she endured.

To summarize the principles of this bill, I would like to share some of the testimony of Sarah Niman, legal counsel to the Native Women’s Association of Canada, who came to testify during the study of Bill S-205.

[English]

When an Indigenous woman overcomes her distrust and seeks help from the police, the Criminal Code sends the abuser home to keep hurting the victim while everyone else waits for judges, trials and due process to run their course. It is not an Indigenous woman’s responsibility to convince others she is worthy of safety and protection. Bill S-205 seeks to provide violence victims something of a voice. This bill places the onus on the criminal justice system to check in with victims, consider their safety through the proceedings, and produce outcomes that consider their safety. Bill S-205 does not create a response specifically tailored to Indigenous women, but it does create a framework for them to be seen and heard in a system that otherwise does not.

[Translation]

Honourable colleagues, as I have often mentioned in my speeches on the subject, the latest statistics illustrate the disturbing scope of domestic violence, which continues to increase year after year.

Between 2019 and 2022, there was a 36% increase in the number of women and girls violently murdered in Canada, specifically 118 in 2019 and 185 in 2022. With those numbers, colleagues, you can understand the meaning of the words “deadly years.”

According to Statistics Canada, in 2021, 537 women per 100,000 people reported being victims of domestic violence. There has been a steady increase over the past seven years.

Also in 2021, police forces recorded 114,132 victims of intimate partner violence, a 2% increase from 2020. There was also a sharp increase in level one sexual assaults among intimate partners, up 22% compared to 2020.

According to the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, in this province, one woman was murdered every week between November 26, 2021, and November 25, 2022. That’s 52 femicides in 52 weeks.

The situation is not much better in Quebec, colleagues. Claudine Thibaudeau, a spokesperson for the organization SOS Violence Conjugale, confirmed that 12 femicides had occurred in 12 weeks.

In 2021, Quebec saw a 28% increase in cases of intimate partner violence.

At a more local level, for example, the Quebec City police service had to hire five new police officers with training in domestic violence to handle these complaints, which are going up by 25% per year.

I’ll point out that, in response to this alarming statistic, Bill S-205 gives judges the option to add a condition requiring defendants to wear an electronic monitoring device if they are released after their first appearance or to impose a section 810 order.

Electronic monitoring establishes a security perimeter between the two intimate partners. If the person subject to the condition violates the security perimeter, the victim and the authorities are immediately alerted. This gives the victim a chance to get to safety and it gives the authorities an opportunity to intervene and prevent tragedy. This information is also indispensable to police officers as evidence that the abuser violated the conditions of the order if they must appear before a judge.

Around the world, the use of electronic monitoring devices as a tool to fight domestic violence is becoming more widespread. In 2020, France’s National Assembly passed a bill recommending the use of electronic monitoring devices, and according to the statistics available to me on April 1, 2022, French authorities had ordered the use of 995 such devices.

Also in France, in May 2021, a young woman named Chahinez, a mother of three, was murdered by her ex-husband after he was released from prison. He shot the young woman three times in her legs before spraying her with a flammable liquid and burning her alive.

Following this extremely violent tragedy, the Keeper of the Seals, as the French justice minister, Mr. Dupond-Moretti, is known, appeared at a press conference and expressed his anger towards the justice system, which did not impose an electronic monitoring device in that case. He went on to say that electronic monitoring devices are not meant to remain in drawers.

Three weeks after that tragedy, which deeply shocked the French public, the use of electronic monitoring devices increased by 65%.

France took inspiration from Spain, which has a proven track record and is a model for the world. As Senator Dalphond explained in his speech on Bill C-233, Spain has specialized courts, trained police officers and a national public awareness campaign on domestic violence. These efforts have resulted in a 25% decrease in the rate of femicide, and not one woman wearing an electronic monitoring device has been murdered. None.

The working group made up of domestic violence survivors and I proposed adding the wearing of an electronic monitoring device as a parole condition based on these European models to prevent tragedies such as those that befell Elisapee Angma, Daphné Huard-Boudreault and many others from happening again. These are femicides that could have been prevented had the offender been wearing an electronic bracelet, femicides that should never happen again given the technology we have that has been proven to work.

According to Statistics Canada data from 2018, in 60% of intimate partner homicides, the justice system was already aware of the perpetrator’s history of intimate partner violence. In Quebec, in 2015, 70% of domestic offences involved assault.

I would like to quote the testimony of two victims of domestic violence who testified as individuals during the study of Bill S-205. I will start with that of Dayane Williams, who said the following:

If he had been wearing a bracelet, yes, I could have gone to the gym. I could have had my freedom. . . . it will ease my anxiety and I can have my freedom back. I’m in therapy, and they tell me that I have to go for walks, that I have to go to the gym, that I can’t stay locked up. I am constantly thinking about the possibility of him attacking me when I’m with my children. If he decides to kill me, I’m not safe.

If he’s wearing a bracelet and approaches my location, the police will be there before I call 911. The bracelet will alert them. He has committed a crime, but he gets to walk around as if he’s done nothing, and I’m the one who has to hide at home. Right now, he has won — he has his freedom and I do not.

I will continue with Ms. Martine Jeanson’s testimony, and I quote:

You said that women wouldn’t feel safe. Right now, it’s not just that we don’t feel safe — we aren’t safe.

Electronic bracelets may not be perfect, but the information they provide may be able to save a lot of lives. Bracelet monitoring isn’t all flawed; there are lives that will be saved. It won’t be the only thing women rely on, but right now, they have nothing to rely on. They can’t see their abuser coming, whereas with this measure, they’ll have a chance. However small this chance you are giving us may be, they’ll have a chance to know their abuser is coming. . . . I was gang-raped and left for dead. Maybe it wouldn’t have happened if bracelet monitoring had been in place. Whatever the likelihood that the technology will help, it could save a lot of lives.

This testimony is a reflection of the 150 domestic violence victims who are calling on us to pass Bill S-205 so that the electronic monitoring device can give them the protection they deserve. As Ms. Williams said, we could give these women their freedom back by imposing electronic monitoring, and as Ms. Jeanson said, whatever the likelihood that the technology will help, it could save a lot of lives.

These quotes I just shared with you in this chamber are deeply meaningful.

Our mission and responsibility is to do everything in our power to save the lives of these women and those who will experience this form of violence in the future.

The second aspect of my bill makes an amendment to section 810 of the Criminal Code, which allows a judge to order a defendant to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months, in order to protect someone who has reasonable grounds to fear for their safety.

Currently, section 810 of the Criminal Code is a general instrument of preventive justice, and it creates a source of criminal liability even if no offence has been committed. A violation of any of the conditions imposed in the recognizance may result in the accused being charged under section 811 of the Criminal Code and, if guilty, being sentenced, up to a maximum of four years in prison.

A section 810 order, better known as a no-contact order, is often used in domestic violence cases. In November 2020, the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, a women’s shelter network, working jointly with researchers at UQAM and the Université de Montréal, released a report on the use of section 810 of the Criminal Code and the victims’ perspective. The report found increased use of 810 orders, which are seen as substitutes for criminal charges and trials.

Here is a excerpt from the report that illustrates what I’ve been saying:

Participants were encouraged to use the 810 as an alternative to the cumbersome justice system and the emotional strain of testifying in court. It was also positioned as a more effective form of protection than a trial, which could be lost.

One victim stated:

So the lady (legal secretary) says to me, “Well, you know, there aren’t enough judges or courtrooms. The X court is swamped. For your own safety, you should ask for an 810. The complaint would be withdrawn, but at least you’d be safe.”

This excerpt from the report shows the flaws in our justice system, which struggles to adequately protect victims of domestic violence who bravely choose to file a complaint. A section 810 peace bond with no surveillance mechanism or treatment option is just a piece of paper that is issued as a quick fix for victims of domestic violence. It is an irresponsible and dangerous approach that is increasingly being relied on by our justice system and is putting the lives of domestic violence victims at risk. Some have even been killed.

I would like to quote another excerpt from the report:

Regarding the usefulness of the conditions imposed by means of a section 810 order or in the context of a release pending trial, many women noted that they are useful only if non-compliance with the conditions is detected, taken seriously and punished. Otherwise, they are only symbolic, serving as a smokescreen that contributes to a false sense of security and cynicism with respect to the justice system.

Honourable senators, that quote is supported by a scientific article published in 2017 and entitled “Women victims of domestic violence at the margins of the criminal justice system: sureties to keep the peace (810 Cr. C.).” This article was written by two University of Montreal professors who studied victims of domestic violence who were supposed to be protected by an 810 order. Of the 15 women who participated in the study, eight of them said that they had had to call the police again because their ex was not abiding by the conditions of the order. That is just over half, which is consistent with the data published by Statistics Canada in 2015.

Generally speaking, we are seeing an uptick in failures to comply with an order issued by the justice system. In 2015, Statistics Canada reported that, between 2004 and 2014, cases where failure to comply with an order were among the charges grew by 25%, while cases involving charges related to breach of probation increased by 21%.

If we just look at 2013 and 2014, we can see that failure to comply with an order accounted for 50% of administration of justice offences. Breach of probation accounted for 33% of the cases in the justice system. It is clear that when abusers are awaiting trial or released under an 810 order, the safety and lives of victims are in jeopardy.

In order to provide a constructive, significant and effective solution to the problem posed by the increasing reliance on Criminal Code 810 orders — which are regularly used in domestic violence cases — I have opted, with Bill S-205, to amend the Criminal Code and add a new 810 order specifically for intimate partner violence. It will be accompanied by new conditions, such as a monitoring device, that would be better adapted to the situations experienced by women facing domestic violence.

This new order would also be a way of recognizing the specific issue of intimate partner violence in the Criminal Code. It would be an addition to other 810 orders in the Criminal Code that are specific to certain offences, such as the 810.2 order, titled “Where fear of serious personal injury offence,” and the 810.011 order, titled “Fear of terrorism offence.”

In this new 810 order, the bill gives judges the ability to mandate treatment for substance abuse and domestic violence. We need to stop the revolving door of domestic violence and hold abusers accountable.

That’s why this bill’s approach is based on both monitoring with the electronic device and rehabilitating abusers through therapy. If we don’t try to do something about the causes of domestic violence, we’ll never do away with this scourge, which will only get worse. Unless we try to treat the behaviour of violent men, we’ll have to keep hiding abused women and building more and more shelters. Women, however, will still be in constant danger.

Therapies for men are still embryonic in Canada, but many initiatives to help violent men are springing up in places like Ontario and some Indigenous communities in Manitoba. I’d like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to Senator McCallum, who introduced me to excellent workers in these communities who are doing outstanding work in this field. Thank you, senator.

Quebec set up a phone line for violent men in November. It serves the Chaudière-Appalaches region south of Quebec City. The STOP Violence line gives violent men support when they are in danger of committing domestic violence. The phone line, staffed by three organizations that help violent men, received 2,000 calls in its first eight months of operation.

It is imperative that we focus on both the victims and the perpetrators to achieve better results. That, honourable senators, is a pragmatic approach that we should take to get things moving in the right direction, the direction that victims have been asking for for years.

I’d like to quote another passage from Ms. Jeanson’s testimony, this time on the therapy aspect:

Why do we continue to build homes for abused women just to hide them? Instead, it would be wise to build therapy centres for abusive men, so that they can be surrounded by abuse experts to help them correct, if not fix, their abuse problems, because their violence rarely decreases.

She also said the following:

I give workshops to impulsive men and you see change in these men; it is possible. These are men who have a history, who have wounds and who have inappropriate responses. However, they don’t have the tools, they don’t know how to change that behaviour. It takes specialized people to teach them to change these behaviours. We see it. I work with abusive men, and we have some great successes when it comes to changing those men.

Before I conclude my speech, I would like to thank Senator Dalphond for the important amendments he proposed to the bill and Senator Jaffer for keeping things on track as the bill progressed in committee. I would also like to thank the other senators on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for the serious work they did during the study of the bill. You answered the call of the domestic violence victims who came to testify, and your spirit of collaboration and your respect and sensitivity will help make women safer in our country. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Colleagues, we need to fight every time a woman is abused and killed in Canada. We should be outraged and never allow ourselves to get used to this.

We have the opportunity and the privilege to safely mobilize and condemn violence against women. Unfortunately, we cannot stamp out this form of violence, but we can certainly pass Bill S-205 to condemn this violence and to make Canada a leader in this area as it should be.

We have the privilege conferred by Canada’s Constitution of amending the laws of our country. Our collective responsibility as legislators is engaged. We have a duty to act to save these women’s lives, and our courage will be demonstrated not by our speeches, but by our actions. Let us act together to pass this bill and respond to the call of the thousands of Canadian women who are victims of domestic violence and who hope in silence to be heard and understood.

I want to especially thank the 150 women who actively participated in developing this bill. The Guerrières, guided by Martine Jeanson, are aptly named as they have never given up. For three years, you never gave up on the Senate despite the hardship caused by your individual experiences. You are my heroines.

In closing, I’d like to recall the ruling by Justice Laskin of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Budreo, and I quote:

The criminal justice system has two broad objectives: punish wrongdoers and prevent future harm. A law aimed at the prevention of crime is just as valid an exercise of the federal criminal law power under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as a law aimed at punishing crime.

On the eve of March 8, International Women’s Day, it would be a big step for many women if we were to grant them the right to protection.

Honourable senators, we need to take action and that is why I’m asking you to pass Bill S-205 at third reading so that it can be sent to the House of Commons as quickly as possible. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (great apes, elephants and certain other animals).

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Wells, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: The number of Canadians who live with a disability is 6.2 million. We make up 22% of our population, and yet we continue to be marginalized and under‑represented.

Canadians with disabilities certainly are not — and never will be — a homogeneous group. On the contrary, they are the epitome of diversity. Their disability ranges from hearing loss, vision impairment and blindness to temporary or permanent loss of mobility, and many others. The daily reality of persons with disabilities is impacted by a vast array of other factors.

While many obstacles remain, our abilities too are diverse, and persons with disabilities have, more than ever, an active presence in today’s Canada. We are in the arts, in faculties and in sports. We are lawyers, doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs, MPs, ministers and senators.

However, let not these success stories hide the fact that out of those 6.2 million people with disabilities, one out of four cannot afford access to care, aids, devices or medical prescriptions. Out of those 6.2 million, 41% of working age are unemployed, and even when they are employed, they make less. One thing that persons with disabilities all have in common is that they will face barriers and challenges just to get what they have a right to.

As a society, we have a responsibility to help take down these barriers, one by one, at every chance we get. This is why today I want to speak in support of Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.

I will speak about this bill with a great deal of hope and some questions.

[Translation]

Many have said this before. This bill, which is really a framework for developing future compensation, leaves us in the dark in terms of how much, when, and how. These are critical questions, because we’re expected to take a stand with facts, not just hope.

Let’s start with the question that is on everyone’s mind: How much will this compensation be?

The quick answer is that we haven’t seen any numbers. We do have some clues, however, such as the name of the bill and its preamble, which highlights the intended purpose of reducing poverty, providing financial security and meeting our international commitments to people with disabilities.

Minister Qualtrough was clear in both the House and committee when she said, and I quote: “Today, I begin with the following declaration: in Canada, no person with a disability should live in poverty.”

[English]

Here in this chamber, the sponsor of the bill, Senator Cotter, stated that the fourth pillar of the bill is:

. . . financial security, so that we can reduce poverty and improve financial security for hundreds of thousands of persons with disabilities.

But the fact remains that we don’t know how much the benefit will be, and we will not know that when we are asked to vote.

Clause 11(1.1) of the bill provides that in making regulations respecting the amount of a benefit, the government “. . . must take into consideration the Official Poverty Line as defined in . . . the Poverty Reduction Act.“ This came after an amendment from MP Zarrillo, and I want to thank her and the members of the House of Commons Human Resources Committee for this addition in the bill that gives us some concrete direction.

But I will argue that if we aim for the poverty line, it will not be enough to lift persons with disabilities out of poverty. Allow me, colleagues, to start with a harsh reality: Living with a disability is expensive, more than many can imagine.

[Translation]

In calculating the consumer basket, Statistics Canada takes into account basic needs: food, clothing, housing and transportation. People with disabilities, however, have to spend a lot in addition to these basic needs regardless of the services available in their province. I know quite a few people with disabilities, and I can tell you for a fact that everything costs more, no matter how much you earn. Accessible housing, transportation, recreation, not to mention adaptive equipment, everything is more expensive.

Take this wheelchair cushion, for example, which a lot of people with spinal cord injuries use. It can cost as much as $800. I need it for medical reasons. To get it, I have to go see my doctor, who writes a prescription, which I pay for. Then I have to get to a supplier or a rehab centre. Then I have to wait four or five months to get it because it is custom made.

Quebec covers the cost of this cushion every two or three years, but because it is inflatable, it never lasts three years. Inflatable cushions are prone to bursting. Within a year, it’s already been patched two or three times, and eventually, I have to pay for a new one out of pocket or limit the length of time I spend sitting on it.

I have the privilege of being able to afford this cushion, but not everyone does. And that is just one of many examples. Even basic necessities can be much more costly. Those who have lost most of their autonomy won’t, for example, have the freedom or ability to do their own grocery shopping and to cook with less expensive products. They might have to buy prepared meals and pay more.

I’m not even talking about treatments. Programs offer a limited number of treatments even though people need more to maintain their health, their autonomy and their well-being. When living in poverty, what cuts can they make to afford these treatments? Often, they forgo basic necessities.

[English]

If we are committed to lifting persons with disabilities out of poverty, we must realize that aiming at the poverty line may not be enough and may not provide adequacy. I hope that this will be taken into account in the regulatory process.

I remain puzzled as to why the government is not sharing their estimate. I understand that this is a framework bill, of course, but it has been in the making for three years. Surely, someone somewhere would have an idea of the amount that any current or future government will have to include in its budget to cover the needs of this support measure. I am looking forward to the opportunity to ask this question in committee.

And what about possible clawbacks? How do we ensure they do not happen?

[Translation]

During a committee study in the other place, 17 organizations, three individuals and 153 briefs were considered. The vast majority of these witnesses expressed concerns about possible problems and clawbacks. The organizations I talked to also reiterated these concerns, which I share.

[English]

How do we make sure that provinces will not take this opportunity to claw back or to cut other programs or financial supports? As of now, there is no formal commitment from the provinces and no commitment from the different insurance programs, yet persons with disabilities are asked to trust, even when history tells them that programs are often cut with changes in governments; that insurance companies will always try to provide as little as possible, even when it is a right; and that consultants will always find a way to use vulnerabilities to charge money in exchange for filing papers.

How do we provide efficiency in delivery, a system that will prevent clawbacks, monitoring of that system and a way to protect persons with disabilities when it fails?

Let me read you an intervention by John Stapleton in The Hill Times, a former Ontario civil servant and social policy expert who is consulting on the design of the Canada disability benefit. From the height of his experience, he reminds us that:

The disability space is the most complex, by far. There are 10 different disability income programs in Canada. We don’t have that with the Canada Child Benefit. We don’t have that with seniors.

Still according to him:

In the disability space, we’ve got workers’ compensation, we’ve got the Registered Disability Savings Plan, we’ve got EI sickness, Canada Pension Plan disability, two veterans programs, welfare, employer-based programs, disability accident insurance. And all of those are playing in that same sandbox. And then the Canada Disability Benefit comes along. Does it replace those programs? Should it? These are questions that have to be asked and answered.

[Translation]

Take Quebec for example, a province where, according to the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec, the government offers 248 programs, measures and services for persons with disabilities, their families and their loved ones.

These programs and these measures, managed by 20 or so departments, can take the form of direct delivery of services and equipment. They can also be tax measures, refundable or non‑refundable tax credits, deductions, exemptions, expense claims or direct subsidies.

This is in addition to people with disabilities who receive a pension following a workplace accident or benefits for highway accident victims. There’s a good chance I’m forgetting some people.

What can we do to bring in a proper system that ensures that people with disabilities have access to these provincial services and benefits, to calculate the right support from the Canadian benefit and ensure that nothing is clawed back?

[English]

Because what scares me is not that one province would claw back and cut a direct benefit to individuals. This would be quick to flag.

What I worry about are the smaller programs or services — individuals or organizations that would argue, “Well, now that the benefit allows you to have in your hands an amount that you did not have before, maybe we don’t have to subsidize that second physio treatment a month. Maybe we don’t need to pay for your $800 prescribed cushion.” This will be much more difficult to find out and equally damaging in achieving the objectives of this bill.

Fewer services would force persons with disabilities to cover those services with the benefit, and this would drag them right back into poverty. So how do we make sure it’s all monitored properly? And if something goes wrong, and I suspect it will at some point, how do we make 100% sure that the person with a disability will not be in charge, responsible for proving something was clawed back? Surely it can be done, but I can see a level of complexity that worries me. I’m not sure we heard many solutions. I am looking forward to exploring this aspect in committee, among others.

[Translation]

How can we get commitments from the provinces, insurance companies and subsidized programs?

Will the signed agreements stay the same if there are changes to the federal or provincial governments? How can we ensure that, even at the federal level, the amount won’t change if the government does? Will the eligibility criteria take into account the different definitions of the term “disability”? Will there be a variety of eligibility criteria both between and within the provinces?

As I said in the introduction of my speech, I have a lot of hope, but I’m also asking myself a lot of questions.

[English]

Honourable colleagues, allow me to share a few more thoughts before I conclude.

In our country built on shared competencies and responsibilities, it is not one major piece of legislation that will remove all barriers and be groundbreaking for persons with disabilities. On the contrary, it will be many pieces of legislation at all levels, many pieces of one big puzzle, that we must build together one piece at a time. This is one of them. It has the potential to make a difference, but it will not be enough.

Let’s make sure that we don’t rest on this. It would be a shame to use this disability benefit act as a justification or an excuse to stop working hard in order to remove all the barriers. While this has the potential to help many, this country needs to continue to commit to removing barriers to workplaces, education and all spheres of life for the 6.2 million Canadians living with a disability.

Let’s continue to highlight the challenges but also the successes of persons with disabilities in Canada.

As I speak today, my thoughts go to disability rights advocate Judy Huemann, who passed only a few days ago. I had the privilege and pleasure to cross paths with this legend on a number of occasions. Never a victim, always a trailblazer, Judy, the self-proclaimed “Rolling Warrior,” said:

Disability only becomes a tragedy for me when society fails to provide the things we need to lead our lives . . . .

So simple and yet so hard to achieve.

My hope in this bill is that when lifting persons out of poverty, we allow them to look ahead with confidence. The fact is that when you are deep into everyday poverty, unable to know what tomorrow will be made of, when you have to make a choice between groceries or medical care that you need, it’s impossible to look ahead with hope.

By lifting persons with disabilities out of poverty, we do more than provide material help. We put someone in a place of safety where they can finally take a breath, step back and reflect on the possibilities that lie ahead of them. Persons with disabilities, I assure you, will always have more potential than limits. That is, of course, when the powers in place do their job in removing the barriers one by one.

Colleagues, let’s tackle one very crucial barrier, poverty, by sending Bill C-22 to committee.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Bellemare, your time is up. Are you asking for five more minutes to finish?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?