Hon. Marilou McPhedran: I have a question. Will Senator Omidvar take it?

Senator Omidvar: Of course.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you so much for your work on this bill.

In the event that this bill is not passed rapidly, before we rise, what will be the most obvious consequence of it not passing this chamber?

Senator Omidvar: I will state again — and thank you, Senator McPhedran, for your question — lives will be at risk. Babies will die. Women will be at risk. They will have no food, no shelter, no protection. It is a matter of lives saved today rather than not saved.

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 —

Senator McPhedran: Thank you for this opportunity. Meegwetch.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-225, and I thank Senator Ataullahjan for this important bill that comes at a particularly crucial time with international discord keeping cluster munitions near the top of the active weapons list.

Canada has a proud history of facilitating international efforts to ban cluster munitions. Many here today may recall that Canada stepped up when the international community faltered and failed to pass an all-out landmines ban. Canada refused to accept that indecision and became a leader in pushing for a treaty that confirmed what has long been known to be true: cluster munitions are a humanitarian disaster.

Distinguished Manitoban, the Honourable Dr. Lloyd Axworthy — then Canada’s foreign minister — initiated a Canadian convention of 50 countries in 1996, which led to the framework for what would become known as the Ottawa Treaty, the first international ban on the use, stockpiling and production of anti-personnel landmines. It opened for signatures in 1997 and came into force in 1999, more quickly than most such treaties do. It is inspiring to review the record of that time, to see the shift that Minister Axworthy’s speech made to increase the number of countries that declared support for the ban and to read accounts of his bold and tenacious diplomacy that enabled this treaty.

The Ottawa Treaty created a stigma against cluster munitions, and their use went down, albeit slowly, from 1999 until now. The downward trend has reversed, and it must be asked: Which side is Canada on? As other senators have pointed out, Canadian companies have invested hundreds of billions of dollars into cluster munitions. Where once a humanitarian leader, Canada now seems to be supporting some merchants of death.

This issue is especially important because of its disproportionate impact on civilians and youth. As we all know, landmines and cluster munitions are extraordinarily difficult to remove, and often stay around well past the end of a conflict once placed. This is due in large part to the nature of the weapon and to the difficulty of removing them. It must be done by hand, and requires a lot of risk to those who take on the task. In places like Egypt, for example, the job is made even more difficult because the loose sand means that munitions often shift very far from their original positions, making them harder to identify.

As local populations repatriate, the impact of these landmines can be devastating. This is especially true for children. Children have always been susceptible to unremoved cluster munitions and landmines, and they make up a disproportionately high percentage of deaths.

In Afghanistan in 2014, children made up 45% of civilian casualties where the age was known. In 2018 and 2019, children accounted for 54% of all civilian landmine deaths. Internationally, where the age was known, this is a 12% increase over previous years.

Many countries have instituted educational programs to try to help children avoid landmines and cluster-type munitions by educating them on their dangers. However, these weapons are often appealing to children because of their shape and colour.

Usually left unremoved in areas off regular paths and streets, these weapons are where children are more likely to venture to play. Although landmines are made to maim adults, the smaller size of children leaves them more likely to suffer fatal injuries. In Yemen, landmines have been the biggest killer of children since a truce was called in April of this year. Moreover, just above 75% of all war-related casualties among children in Yemen are landmine related. Landmine education campaigns have put out comic books and booklets and instituted institutional programs in schools in an effort to reduce these deaths. This, clearly, is no match for the existence of these weapons.

These statistics may not even give a full or accurate view of the devastating impact of landmines and cluster munitions. In some cases, landmines, when not fatal, may create lifelong physical disabilities. In many affected countries, disability is still seen as a stigma, especially in girls, leading to an under-reporting of landmine injuries. It is speculated that female youth casualties may be among the most under-reported groups for this reason. For many disabled children, they may be regarded as a burden or, because of neglect or a lack of resources, will not get access to proper care or support that they need to thrive.

Honourable senators, how can we, as Canadians, allow our companies to invest in corporations that, to put it bluntly, indiscriminately kill children, women and civilians? It goes directly against our Canadian values to protect human rights and to protect civilians and children. It also goes against our strong history as leaders in standing against landmines and cluster munitions for their disproportionate and indiscriminate harm. If enough countries refuse to invest in landmine-producing corporations, it may eventually make the production of these weapons untenable financially. This would help force even those countries who refuse to sign into the landmine treaty to give up their use.

Canadians want ethical investment. Canadians care about humanitarian protections and human rights. We should bring our policies into line with our Canadian values. Bill S-225 aims to do just that. It is not enough to passively discourage these investments. We should ban them outright. Canada must once again become a leader. These efforts may help reverse the recent rise in landmine use and kickstart further international action against how landmines and cluster-type munitions amplify and perpetuate the absolute horrors of violent armed conflict.

Honourable senators, I thank Senator Dalphond for his speech today and join senators who have encouraged with cogent evidence that it is time — through this bill — we take a clear, principled stand against corporate investment in cluster munitions and stand for human rights, especially children’s rights to live their best possible lives. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Thank you for this initiative and your explanation, Senator Loffreda. I would like to go into a little more detail, building on the question from Senator Patterson.

I think we all very much appreciate and believe your concern on the timeliness, but we saw with the series of payments during COVID that it was indeed the most vulnerable people who often waited the longest, and some never received what was supposed to be coming to them at all because of logistical challenges, shall we say.

It’s one thing for us to express concern. It’s another thing for a piece of legislation to demonstrate that there’s been learning from the problems in the very recent past. I haven’t heard any assurances to that regard. Can you speak to that, please?

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for the question. It’s a very important question. I raised the question in the Committee of the Whole and I raised it in the committee, and as a matter of fact, I don’t know of any progress that’s been made lately. CRA, like Minister Freeland, did express on numerous occasions that it was a question of timeliness, of simplicity — that vehicle was used because the data was there — to use CRA and to use the tax returns and filing. But I think it’s an issue that has to be tackled. If we have the problem today, it’s because the work — I always say, manage activities, you’ll get activities; manage results, you’ll get results. I was never strong on managing activities. I was always strong and wanted to manage results. The result today is that 10% of Canadians will not benefit from this tax credit. These are the Canadians who need it the most. Let’s manage the results going forward.

I also suggested in our National Finance Committee, in our Banking Committee that maybe it’s a study that has to be undertaken in the future as to what we could do better to ascertain that all Canadians can be identified. What has to be done? It’s not an answer I can give you in 30 seconds, but what I do promise is that I will put the necessary pressure that this situation be resolved in the future and a study hopefully be undertaken by one of our committees to see what else can be done to ascertain and identify that all Canadians in the future will benefit, and not as was the case, like you expressed, in the past. Thank you for your question.

[Translation]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, my question is for Senator Yussuff. Would you accept it?

Senator Yussuff: Yes, I will.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.

As many have mentioned, Bill C-3 is welcome and it is also long overdue. The issues that this bill is seeking to alleviate — the expansion of paid sick leave and sadly needed protections for health care workers to counter violence, harassment and aggression — were identified at the very outset of this pandemic almost two years ago. The government has been pressed continuously to bring the legislation forward. It’s here now and it’s important that we process this as quickly as we can.

However, Senator Yussuff, as you have stated, this legislation covers only those workers under federal jurisdiction, which amounts to less than 10% of the Canadian workforce. My question is geared to the implementation of the standards and the protections in this bill.

We have optimism about this legislation, but the danger we have all seen many times before is that hope and optimism do not always translate into legislation and implementation of a new law.

Given your long professional experience with Canadian unions and the worker environment, do you have specific suggestions or strategies that you are promoting or will promote in order to ensure that federal and provincial negotiation occurs, and there is a much wider implementation process of the protections of this law?

Senator Yussuff: Thank you, senator, for your question.

Once this bill is passed, there is no question that the reality that we are now faced with is how we will engage at the provincial and territorial level to broaden the scope of workers’ protections in those jurisdictions.

As you know, this federation of ours has always been a bit of a challenge. It has its optimistic moments when things happen and there are times when we struggle.

A long time ago, not so long ago, we started some work to bring forward protection for domestic violence. When we started the effort, not a single province, including the federal government, had protection for workers suffering from domestic violence. In a very short period of time, in less than seven years, every single jurisdiction in this country now has legislation that protects workers from domestic violence. It allows them to take paid time off to achieve that.

I know some provinces might resist bringing in paid sick days for workers in various jurisdictions, but I am convinced that the labour movement will see this as an opportunity to push even harder. Other activists and groups will join them in that effort, of course, to try to get our province — I am hoping equally, as the Minister of Labour has indicated in his letter, he will convene his provincial counterpart very shortly to have a very fundamental discussion on how they can work together to achieve this objective.

Our federal government certainly has provided many supports to the provinces to help them achieve some equality in regard to how we have dealt with this pandemic. I’m hoping similarly the federal government provides some leadership with the provinces to ensure they can bring in sick leave to complement what we are doing here in the federal jurisdiction.