Senator McPhedran: Thank you for this opportunity. Meegwetch.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you kindly.

[Translation]

Senator McPhedran: In addition to that inquiry, Senator Gold, I wonder if you could add a more specific question, which is the extent to which the Government of Canada allows for non-disclosure agreements to be used against athletes where there are disputes and resolutions.

Senator McPhedran: In addition to that inquiry, Senator Gold, I wonder if you could add a more specific question, which is the extent to which the Government of Canada allows for non-disclosure agreements to be used against athletes where there are disputes and resolutions.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: My question is to Senator Gold. One day after International Women’s Day, I want to acknowledge the courage and perseverance of thousands of women and girls who played soccer and other sports in Afghanistan until the Taliban returned to power in August 2021 and are now at extreme risk just because they are female and athletes.

In Canada, girls’ soccer has been growing in popularity for years, with a high of 85,000 girls playing in organized leagues, soccer federations and school clubs. But now a decline in enrollment is anticipated, directly linked to ongoing equity disputes and the disgraceful second-class treatment given the Olympic gold-medal-winning Canadian women’s national team.

Yesterday, the Toronto Star reported that promising young female athletes are becoming disillusioned by what they see. Despite reaching an interim funding agreement last week — only secured after the team was prepared to strike and threatened with lawsuits — players still state that the fight for permanent funding and equity is far from resolved.

Senator Gold, Sport Canada funds more than 58 national sports federations, ranging from alpine skiing to curling, hockey, soccer and wrestling. Additionally, it funds another 31 national multisport service organizations and related sports support bodies.

Can you inform this chamber if attention is being given to whether the inequities and injustices suffered by these world‑class women’s soccer players are not also systemic in all the sports relying on federal public dollars?

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, thank you for the courtesy of allowing me to adjourn for the balance of my time on Tuesday evening.

In continuing, with great appreciation of his acumen as a sponsor, I wish to address briefly two assertions made by Senator Cotter in his speech.

First, he stated that:

. . . a vast majority of the disability community — I have counted — is comfortable with the structure of the bill before us and strongly supports its passage in its present form.

Perhaps we are speaking to different disability rights experts?

Second, Senator Cotter encouraged trust in the cabinet process and trust in Minister Qualtrough to deliver far more than is required or even mentioned in this bill.

As much as I respect Senator Cotter and Minister Qualtrough and know that they speak from their lived experiences with disability and deep commitment as champions to better the lives of people with disability, I must question the wisdom of such a leap of trust as the rationale for this bill.

The disability rights experts with whom I have consulted understand that a perfect bill, or a perfect benefit, cannot be achieved this time around. They all agree that this initiative by Minister Qualtrough must be seen through, with the best possible version of this bill finalized and enacted in this session of Parliament, and this bill must not die.

But their political pragmatism — born of necessity — does not excuse us from our duty to give this bill our full consideration and to make achievable critical improvements.

Yes, this is a framework bill. But it’s not a rights-based framework as much as it is aspirational.

Briefly, the glaring omissions and shortcomings in this bill include the following: The bill may never lift anyone out of poverty; there is no minimum standard in the benefit; there is no requirement for the regulations — which are core to any positive change — to be done by the time the act is operational; there is no deadline for payments to be dispersed; the benefit disqualifies thousands of disabled people by their age — clearly discriminatory; the bill lacks transparency and therefore it lacks accountability because it puts decision-making processes behind closed doors; the bill makes an ultimatum, not a real choice.

Given the stakes at hand, it is troubling that this bill does not build more on Canada’s international human rights commitments, principally Article 28 in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, addressing, “Adequate standard of living and social protection.”

Strengthening this bill from a rights-based approach will yield a stronger legislative framework, and, as we saw in the other place, this can be done without stalling the legislative process if the government wills it so.

Dr. Nancy Hansen, Director of the Interdisciplinary Master’s Program in Disability Studies at the University of Manitoba, summarized this approach as a:

. . . charity ethic to support disabled Canadians . . . an overarching colonial aspect of service provision for disabled people . . . that maintains people in marginalized positions. It is residual legislation. It’s better than nothing, but a “once in a generation” fix should be done better than this.

Similarly, Senator Seidman, in her excellent analysis of the bill, raised important questions of moral and ethical compulsion versus mere legal obligation to persons with disabilities.

As noted in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, people with disabilities who also identify as members of minority groups are subject to “multiple or aggravated forms of discrimination.”

There are numerous relevant human rights commitments which Canada has made that should influence our review, but I will list just two more. First, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.1, states, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being . . . .” Second, in the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 10 is to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” Under that goal, target 10.2 is:

By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. Entrenched within the Canadian Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms unequivocally underlines the concept of substantive equality, to which I note direct reference is made in the preamble to Bill C-22.

In R. v. Kapp, the Supreme Court reiterated that this concept of substantive equality is grounded in the idea that:

“The promotion of equality entails the promotion of a society in which all are secure in the knowledge that they are recognized at law as human beings equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration” . . .

There is an additional sense of urgency in protecting the fundamental human rights of persons with disabilities in this bill. Applications and requests for MAID as a response to struggles with poverty increase. Bill C-22 does not guarantee that any persons with disabilities will be brought out of poverty. It does not guarantee that any dollar amount will be dispersed in a timely manner, and put bluntly, it doesn’t guarantee the existence of the Canada disability benefit at all.

Life-reducing poverty among persons with disabilities has always been with us, but there is now an additional sense of urgency. Since March 2021, Canada has expanded MAID to be available to people who are not at the end of life to die due to their disability-related suffering and who meet other eligibility criteria. Widespread social and economic deprivation has created conditions in which dying appears to be the only answer for some persons with disabilities to escape poverty.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Irek Kusmierczyk, acknowledged this reality. He said:

Living with dignity is a far-off hope for many in these circumstances, and some persons with disabilities have, unfortunately and tragically, chosen to apply for MAID in the past year, with poverty being the key driver. The sad fact is that eligibility for MAID has expanded faster than have the social supports that would lift persons with disabilities out of poverty and allow them to live with dignity.

Former Chief Human Rights Commissioner for Ontario, Professor Emeritus Catherine Frazee, described this alarming aspect of MAID:

We dial 911, we pull you back from the ledge, and yes, we restrain you in your moment of crisis. Autonomy be damned. We will get to the heart of the problem that drove you out into the woods and we will beckon you back toward a life that is bearable. Unless your suffering is medical or disability related, then and only then there will be a special pathway to assisted death.

Death on demand, essentially.

As we heard from Senator Miville-Dechêne today, there is a troubling connection between MAID and surprising numbers of people living with disabilities saying clearly that they are now choosing MAID because they cannot live their lives with dignity and adequacy because they are kept poor.

This is why high and welcome aspirations in Bill C-22, unmatched by required resource adequacy, have disability advocates telling us that the focus needs to be placed on strengthening the insufficient framework of this bill. It is not an either/or proposition. Advocates are not suggesting that all details must be worked into the bill. There is no need. Nor are they calling for overly prescriptive legislation here.

Professor Hansen, Professor Frazee, lawyers David Lepofsky and Roberto Lattanzio and their many colleagues are experts. They are seasoned advocates in our democracy. They have to be. They well know that the majority of all legislation is fine-tuned and developed via regulation. They are not being naive in their assessment of essential changes that are needed for this framework to truly bring positive changes to the lived reality in the nitty-gritty of daily lives.

Put bluntly, Bill C-22 is too hollow, too void of direction and there is barely any scaffolding upon which a strong, durable framework can be built.

Here are four clear, practical improvements that the committee could consider: Bring a rights-based lens to the right to an adequate standard of living and social protection, consistent with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 28 provides that “States Parties recognize the right —