Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, the night of February 14, and into the early morning of February 15, 1982 — 41 years ago — the semi-submersible drilling rig named the Ocean Ranger capsized and sank 175 nautical miles east of St. John’s. Before going down, a mayday was sent out, and the rig was abandoned. Back then, it was almost impossible to safely launch life boats and get people into them in a raging North Atlantic storm. That night 84 men, mostly Newfoundlanders, died in the dark, stormy, frigid waters. The cause of deaths for most of them was found to be drowning while in a hypothermic state.

The Ocean Ranger was the world’s largest semi-submersible drill rig and it was only six years old. The joint Federal-Provincial Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger Marine Disaster found that the crew lacked proper safety training, had inadequate safety equipment, and there were no safety protocols for the supply ship. The inspections of the rig by the U.S. and Canadian regulators and agencies were also inadequate, and the rig itself had a number of design and construction flaws.

Colleagues, accidents usually occur because of failure of more than one system. In the case of this disaster 41 years ago, all things conspired against it. It was literally and figuratively the perfect storm.

In this case, the Royal Commission determined that the specific reason was that a rogue wave smashed through the ballast control room porthole, and the sea water rendered the ballast control panel inoperable, leading to the listing of the rig, where the wave action took over and delivered the final blow. The ballast control porthole that had been smashed was 8.5 m from the waterline, and the waves were approaching 20 m. The wind was 190 km/h.

There have been significant improvements in the safety culture in the Newfoundland offshore since then. Those who were here in this chamber in 2014 may recall that I introduced the Offshore Health and Safety Act in our chamber, which updated requirements for safety in the offshore. It passed unanimously in both chambers and is now the law in Canada’s offshore. Training is better; equipment is better; processes are better, as is forecasting, but dangers always remain.

I had the honour of attending a play in St. John’s on Saturday evening called RIG: An Oral History of the Ocean Ranger Disaster, written by Mike Heffernan and adapted for the stage by Joan Sullivan. I spoke to them both over the weekend and met the cast. Of the dozen or so people portrayed in the play who were intimately involved in the aftermath of the disaster, I personally knew four of them.

Our province becomes a smaller place when tragedy strikes, and there isn’t one community that wasn’t touched by this one. There are books, songs, plays and monuments, and there are those who still grieve. This evening and tomorrow, our province will commemorate the loss. I invite all colleagues to do so as well. Thank you.

Hon. Amina Gerba: Honourable senators, I’d like to continue with the series I announced as part of this year’s Black History Month by introducing you to another African Canadian, a young leader with an unconventional journey who chose to settle in a part of the country that many of us in this room are probably not familiar with. His name is Jean-François Kacou, and I affectionately refer to him as JFK. He served as the town manager of Percé, Quebec, until February 10.

The first time he visited Quebec as a tourist, JFK was charmed by Quebecers’ warm welcome, Montreal’s vibrancy and the many opportunities Canada had to offer.

JFK was a graduate of the Université de Bordeaux and a young entrepreneur. After returning to France, he decided to come back to Quebec to work. He started out as a consultant before joining my team at Afrique Expansion Inc. as a strategic advisor in 2015.

That was when I got to know this young man, who is as passionate about Quebec’s economic potential as he is about the need to forge ties between our country and Africa. He is a hard worker, a meticulous project developer and a very ambitious intrapreneur.

In 2019, a recruitment process highlighted his diverse skill set, and the mayor of the City of Percé, Quebec, hired him for the position of general manager. Percé’s charms include its landscape and tourist attractions, such as the iconic Percé Rock.

Jean-François Kacou left his mark on Percé. The city diversified its economic development thanks to a new tourism levy and green tax, the creation of the Val-d’Espoir permaculture school, and the city’s new culture and convention space.

Esteemed colleagues, the purpose of my series of speeches this month was to draw these young African-Canadian builders to your attention. There are a lot of them, and they have been contributing to our country’s economic development for over 400 years.

Please join me in recognizing Jean-Francois Kacou’s contribution to economic and tourism development in Percé, Quebec. Thank you.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable colleagues:

Stolen from the plots of quixote Pierrot and the troubled Muddy Waters, these elegiac flowers of Whylah Falls, the Black Mississippi village banished to Jarvis County, Nova Scotia, in 1783, droop with the heaviness of history. Irrigated by liquor and tears and dessicated by blistery blues, they bloom in direct moonlight. Though intended originally for the garden of Whylah Falls, these loose flowers are freely planted here.

The “here” of this poem is Africadia, Acadia, Nova Scotia, the birthplace of former parliamentary poet laureate George Elliott Clarke, the place where Africans first came to Canada. Clarke’s “elegiac flowers” represent the over 3,000 people of African descent who came to Birchtown, Nova Scotia in 1783, like the fictional Aminata Diallo of Lawrence Hill’s Book of Negroes.

I quoted this poem when I spoke in support of Senator Bernard’s Emancipation Day bill. Today I rise to celebrate African Heritage Month, as we call it in Nova Scotia. I want to highlight our province as the birthplace of African culture and heritage in Canada.

African people and people of African descent came to Nova Scotia in a number of ways, including the earlier mentioned Black Loyalists at the time of the U.S. War of Independence. Some ended up leaving to help establish Freetown, Sierra Leone.

In 1604, Mathieu Da Costa, said to be the first Black person in Nova Scotia, is recorded among the founders of Port-Royal, established by Samuel de Champlain on traditional Mi’kmaw territory, close to the town of Annapolis Royal.

The Fortress of Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island was home to 200 Black slaves during the French regime of 1713 to 1758, most coming from the French West Indies.

In 1796, 600 Trelawny Maroons were exiled from Jamaica to Nova Scotia, and many moved on to Sierra Leone.

After the War of 1812, roughly 2,000 Black refugees came, and from the 1920s on, hundreds of Caribbean immigrants came to work in the coal and steel industries in Cape Breton, and today people of African descent continue to enrich our province in so many ways.

As I conclude my remarks, I want to congratulate three important beacons of education in our province: the Black Cultural Centre with its African Nova Scotian Museum in Cherry Brook, the Africentric Delmore “Buddy” Daye Learning Institute in Halifax and the unique Black Loyalist Heritage Centre in Birchtown. Thank you for shining your bright lights on African Nova Scotian history, heritage, culture, people, communities and accomplishments. Your work is important. Thank you, wela’lioq.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, as we continue to recognize the stories and accomplishments of so many incredible Black Canadians as part of Black History Month in Canada, I’d like to take a moment to pay tribute to someone very special to me and to many people who love the game of hockey: John Paris Jr.

He was a talented hockey player from Windsor, Nova Scotia, who was scouted by none other than Scotty Bowman to play junior hockey in Quebec in the 1960s. In a cruel turn of events, John’s playing career was ultimately cut short by his battles with Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other health challenges. However, he went on to an amazing coaching career, blazing a trail every step of the way.

He was the first Black coach in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League; the first Black scout in the NHL; the first Black general manager in a professional hockey league; and the first Black coach in pro hockey, leading the Atlanta Knights of the IHL to a league championship in 1994. But perhaps John’s proudest hockey moment was in 1987 when he guided the Richelieu Riverains to an Air Canada Cup championship. He broke ceilings and overcame barriers with class and excellence.

Let me tell you a little something about the character of the man. When I was playing minor league hockey in and around Montreal, I never had the privilege of being coached by John, but I certainly knew the legend of John Paris Jr. in Midget AAA and the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. My own playing career never panned out either — for much different reasons, of course — but I did do a little coaching. That’s how I met John Paris Jr. in 2004 during a lockout-shortened season in the NHL. Like everyone else in the league, John was trying to keep himself busy, so he coached a North American Hockey League team in Laval. I introduced myself to him at the rink in Laval and asked if he would be willing to come out on a weekend to run a couple of practices with my spring AAA hockey team, a group of eight‑year-old hockey players, including my son. Of course, when I approached Mr. Paris, very humbly I asked him what remuneration would be required for someone of such experience and professional background, and he said, “Leo, I would be happy to come out. You can pay me whatever you want or nothing at all.” He came out that weekend, and he didn’t leave for six months.

Colleagues, let me tell you, I have never seen someone with the ability to captivate, motivate, communicate and teach children like John did. Their eyes would light up at the mere mention of his name and his coaching ways. Even as they went on to play, many of them in junior, college and a couple in the NHL, they still remember their time as eight-year-olds with “Coach John.” He wasn’t just the best Black hockey coach, he was the best coach, period, and more importantly, an incredible, decent human being.

Colleagues, I hope you’ll join me in recognizing John’s contributions on and off the ice by supporting an online movement to have John Paris Jr. inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame as a builder and a coach. Colleagues, I encourage you to learn more about this Canadian hockey legend and to sign the petition and get him where he belongs: the NHL’s Hockey Hall of Fame. Thank you.

Hon. Brent Cotter, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Tuesday, February 14, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

ELEVENTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner), has, in obedience to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 14, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment but with certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

BRENT COTTER

Chair

(For text of observations, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 1247.)

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): As per usual, my question is for the government leader.

Leader, today on the Senate Order Paper, there are currently 63 written questions that remain unanswered after six months, including 51 that were filed over a year ago. In fact, at least eight of my questions were tabled in the previous Parliament, with one question stretching all the way back to October 27, 2020.

Under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, the government has 45 days to answer questions. This proves that providing responses to parliamentarians can be done in a timely manner.

Senator Gold, these delays in answering questions from honourable senators are unacceptable. What are you doing to correct it?

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, given reports of human rights abuses, repression and executions of its citizens, particularly women, in Iran by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Senate call upon the government to immediately designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and your dedicated commitment to victims of violence and crime. It is the position of the Government of Canada, as expressed many times by Minister Lametti and as set out in the bill that we passed, that repealing the sentences in the bill that you mentioned was the right thing to do under the circumstances and that this bill strikes a proper balance to ensure that our system is fair, tough when appropriate, but always appropriate in every situation.

Hon. Paula Simons: My question is for the Government Representative.

Yesterday, internationally acclaimed Edmonton photojournalist Amber Bracken and The Narwhal magazine launched a lawsuit against the RCMP seeking damages and clarification of journalist protections against law enforcement. This comes in the wake of Ms. Bracken’s 2021 arrest while on assignment for The Narwhal as she covered the conflict between protesters and the RCMP in the Wet’suwet’en territory of British Columbia. Ms. Bracken has said that she informed arresting officers of jurisprudence protecting journalists in injunction zones, but officers said they were unfamiliar with any such law.

How will the government ensure our national police force respects journalists’ presence and the rights of those documenting conflict in light of these reported serious infringements?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I am aware of the circumstances to which you refer and the lawsuit that was launched. I cannot make any comments on a matter that is before the courts, of course. With regard to your question, I will have to make some inquiries and be glad to report back.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, honourable colleague, for raising this important question. I completely understand your concerns.

The government has brought in a number of resources to help us improve our immigration system.

Regarding your question in particular, I will follow up with the government and come back to you as soon as I have a response.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, colleague, for highlighting the fifth Canada’s Agriculture Day. It’s a day to thank our farmers and our producers for what they do, to celebrate their accomplishments and to reflect as well on where we’re going next.

You quite correctly, senator, made reference to the many challenges that the agricultural sector faces today. The government is committed to helping farmers face and meet those challenges. On soil health, for example, Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada and its laboratories have a long history of developing foundational science as well as innovative practices and technologies. They’re committed to transferring this knowledge to producers.

On climate change, the government has invested over $1.5 billion in the last two years to support producers in adopting good practices, in acquiring clean technologies and in research and development to adapt to climate change while continuing to grow the sector.

Finally, the government has successfully negotiated the sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership with our provincial and territorial partners. As of April 2023, this agreement will bring $3.5 billion in funding over five years for Canadian agriculture to help build a prosperous and sustainable sector.

Thank you, Senator Black, for your tireless effort on this file. May I join you in wishing us all a happy Agriculture Day.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, and there are a couple of different aspects. We have discussed on several occasions the challenges facing the immigration system in Canada, and I have provided, to the best of my ability, details of what the government has done in an attempt and in its effort to remediate the situation that we’re experiencing.

As I’ve also said on other occasions, the government has enormous faith in its institutions and in its professional public service, but this government, as other governments have, will turn to outside expertise to help where there is expertise needed to resolve issues. Again, in this particular case, the vexing problem plaguing immigration. The government has confidence in the public service and also has confidence that it is using public funds responsibly when seeking outside help to address the problems facing Canadians.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government is very much aware of the recent reports regarding bus companies — in the United States — taking migrants to irregular points of entry. I do not know when they first learned of this, and I will make inquiries.

The government is firmly committed to safeguarding the integrity of our border and the security of our country at the same time, as I have mentioned on a number of occasions, by upholding and maintaining a fair and compassionate refugee protection system.

What is our government doing? They continue to work with the United States, and their international partners, to tackle the root causes of irregular migration, as well as continue to promote regular pathways to come to Canada in an orderly and appropriate manner.

There is much more to be done — the government knows that. They continue to work with their counterparts in the United States — with the United States government — to modernize the Safe Third Country Agreement.

Senator Plett: It seems like they are certainly working with the United States on this matter. They are allowing U.S. customs officers to drive illegal immigrants to the border, and they can walk across. So, yes, this government is very complicit and very helpful to their U.S. counterparts in doing this.

Leader, many Canadians, especially in your province of Quebec, have zero confidence that the Trudeau government can close the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement, or address the massive backlogs in the immigration department for people waiting to illegally come to Canada.

The RCMP intercepted over 39,000 people at Roxham Road last year, and there is nothing to indicate that this number will decrease in 2023.

Leader, last week, you said the Prime Minister was being transparent, open and honest with Canadians by admitting there won’t be a resolution to Roxham Road when he meets with President Biden.

Instead of admitting failure a month before the meeting takes place, why doesn’t the Prime Minister work to fix this mess?

Senator Plett: Leader, in May 2020 I asked you why the Trudeau government instructed public servants to ignore potential cases of fraud, and pay out emergency benefits, even when abuse was suspected. At that time, 200,000 applications were reportedly red-flagged for possible fraud.

You said:

There will be time — and the government is committed to ensuring this — when the tax season and taxes are filed in the coming year that all cases where there have been instances where monies were given incorrectly, either mistakenly in good faith or by fraud, will be pursued. Money will be reimbursed. In cases of fraud, appropriate sanctions will be applied.

Those were your words.

Leader, the Trudeau government said back then, “We’ll deal with it later.” Now your government is saying, “We won’t deal with it at all.”

Millions of Canadians will be doing their taxes soon, leader. Will you be so lax in going after them if they owe money or make mistakes?

Hon. Éric Forest: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-22 because I care about the living conditions of persons with disabilities and because I have noticed a number of problems with government intervention in this area. I will be brief, so as not to unduly delay the study of this bill, which enjoys broad support both in the House of Commons and in civil society.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging the government’s efforts to create a legislative framework for the Canada Disability Benefit, or CDB, a necessary support measure for Canadians who are of working age but require additional assistance to overcome the challenges of poverty. Despite the many support programs offered by various levels of government, people with disabilities, particularly those of working age, remain vulnerable to poverty.

Twice as many of Canada’s 4.1 million working-age people with disabilities, 22.5%, as without, 11.6%, live below the poverty line. This is more likely to be the case for people with severe disabilities because they are less likely to work and more likely to depend on social assistance. These data are from the 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability and the poverty line as measured by the 2018 market basket.

The skyrocketing cost of housing and food, along with the rising general cost of living, have a greater impact on the most vulnerable. People with disabilities are of course hardest hit because of extra costs related to their condition. Sadly, it is well known that the Canadian social safety net is poorly equipped to help people with disabilities.

In 2018, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology produced a very critical report about the Disability Tax Credit and the Registered Disability Savings Plan. Like Disability Without Poverty, I’m cautiously optimistic about this framework legislation because the terms and conditions of the benefit will be set by order-in-council, which leaves a lot of room for speculation.

I’d like to address three issues that I think are important. The first is eligibility. The definition of disability has changed, as has the way the severity of the disability is measured. Unfortunately, administrative limitations can have a major impact on recipients.

In order to be eligible for the Disability Tax Credit, for example, a person’s disability must last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. Those suffering from multiple sclerosis know that the symptoms of this chronic degenerative disease vary from month to month. I give this example to show how complicated it is to define an individual’s disability. To determine which disabilities and barriers make it possible for a person to access the Canada disability benefit, Bill C-22 simply refers to the definitions set out in section 2 of the Accessible Canada Act, which, as we know, are very problematic in some regards.

I don’t have a practical solution to propose at this time. However, I’d like to point out that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources adopted a report in April 2022 that recommended that the government:

 . . . consider the possibility of codifying all people who receive provincial support for their disability as people with disabilities in order to facilitate the ease of payment of a future benefit for a disabled person . . .

I’m not sure that I fully understand the implications of this recommendation. However, I believe that it is worth exploring this proposal to simplify access to the Canada disability benefit. This is, in my view, a major issue.

What is an acceptable minimum income? That is another issue, and it is the elephant in the room that we’re being asked to ignore. What income supplement should the new benefit provide? We know that, on the one hand, the Guaranteed Income Supplement provides an income of $1,500 per month. On the other hand, in Ontario, a pilot project allows people with disabilities to receive $1,915 per month. Employment insurance provides up to $2,600 per month. We also know that during the pandemic, the government recognized that the minimum benefit should be $2,000 per month.

Inclusion Canada, which is the national umbrella organization for more than 300 local associations, recommends that the new benefit should provide a minimum income of $2,200 a month, which is the minimum income threshold established by the federal government during the pandemic, plus 10% to cover additional expenses related to the functional limitations of people living with disabilities. When we consider that the low income threshold in Canada is approximately $2,100, I find this proposal to be more than reasonable. Naturally, we must ensure that this new program is harmonized with other federal and provincial income programs to avoid this benefit from ending up in the coffers of different levels of government.

The third important issue is the problem of non-filers. I mentioned this last week. As you know, poverty reduction is closely aligned with the filing of income tax returns because many credits and benefits require the annual filing of a tax return. Unfortunately, we see that the poorer the family, the more marginalized it is and the greater the tendency to not file a tax return.

According to a 2020 study by two Carleton University professors, between 10% and 12% of Canadians do not file a tax return. The professors estimated that the lost benefits for working-age non-filers amounted to roughly $1.7 billion in 2015. In 2001, it was reported that at least 270,000 of the poorest seniors weren’t receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, even though they were entitled to it. A parliamentary committee revealed that the Department of Human Resources had been aware of the problem since 1993, but had done little or nothing to reach out to those eligible, allowing the federal government to save more than $3 billion on the backs of the most vulnerable Canadians.

In order to ensure that low-income Canadians aren’t denied government benefits, including the new Canada disability benefit, I believe it is essential to pressure the government to do everything in its power to encourage people to file their tax returns, especially those who are financially vulnerable.

Let me provide a few examples. For more than 45 years, the federal government has supported the Community Volunteer Income Tax Program in order to assist community-based organizations that help Canadians file their taxes. However, there have been problems with this program.

The Taxpayers’ Ombudsman has produced a series of recommendations to improve volunteer training, encourage e‑filing, and improve awareness of help desks.

There is one more area of work. In the Speech from the Throne on September 23, 2020, the government committed to implementing the following:

 . . . free, automatic tax filing for simple returns to ensure citizens receive the benefits they need . . .

 — and to which they are entitled.

A pilot project for low-income individuals whose financial status doesn’t change from year to year was implemented prior to the pandemic. The service consists of filling out a form in advance and then asking taxpayers to confirm its contents over the phone. It is time to shift into second gear and expand this universally.

Finally, I think the Canada Revenue Agency should be asked annually to estimate the number of Canadians 18 years and older who don’t file a tax return, much like Senator Downe’s proposal on tax avoidance. This can be done by cross-referencing the number of tax returns received with data from selected Statistics Canada studies, as scholars at Carleton University have done. This data would allow for more targeted ways of reaching non-filers and would also allow for an assessment of government efforts to reach those who are entitled to benefits.

To sum up, I want to congratulate the government on creating this new benefit, which has the potential to lift thousands of people with disabilities out of poverty. However, it is important to note that merely establishing this benefit is just the first step. Further collaboration is essential to significantly improving the lives of people with disabilities by ensuring that people get the benefits they’re entitled to.

I know this benefit can help bring about a more inclusive, equitable and compassionate society. If the government calibrates the program properly, it can make a big difference in the lives of some of this country’s most marginalized people.

Thank you.

[English]

Senator Coyle: I’d be delighted to.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I heard you touch on the importance of and how we access those folks who may be marginalized and really hard to access. I just want to say that’s a priority. When we look at the review, so when this bill is passed, and we have two or three years down the road, what would you be looking for in terms of how well this is working? What might you be thinking about in the review part of the process?

Hon. Judith G. Seidman: Honourable senators, I rise today as opposition critic 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 recognize and thank my colleague Senator Cotter, the sponsor of this bill, for his important work. I look forward to our ongoing collaboration to ensure this is an efficient and effective process.

The disability community is mostly united on the importance of this legislation, and I fully understand the urgency with which we must proceed.

The history of supports for people with disabilities in Canada, especially at the federal level, is relatively short. In an essay entitled “Disability in Canada: An Historical Perspective,” Dr. Aldred Neufeldt, Emeritus Professor of Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies at the University of Calgary, notes that in the first decades of the 1900s, Quebec, and then Ontario, established workmen’s compensation laws, but it was war, he writes, that prompted government to develop rehabilitation services. After the Second World War, returning war veterans insisted “ . . . on their rights to be treated as citizens with continuing contributions to make . . . .” Thus, workers’ compensation and veterans’ allowances emerged as two of the earliest forms of compensation for Canadians with certain kinds of disablement.

In his book, Struggling for Social Citizenship: Disabled Canadians, Income Security, and Prime Ministerial Eras, Dr. Michael Prince, the Lansdowne Professor of Social Policy at the University of Victoria, observes that, although workers’ compensation and veterans’ allowances were established as distinct programs, most subsequent disability programs, including original benefits for blind persons, the Canada Pension Plan disability benefit, social assistance and employment insurance, are parts of broader policy frameworks. As Dr. Prince argues, “These diverse access points and separate program designs result in a mottled social citizenship for disabled people.”

Indeed, our Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, in its 2018 study of the Disability Tax Credit and the Registered Disability Savings Plan, heard from many witnesses regarding the complexity of applying for disability support programs. Witnesses urged us to simplify and clarify processes for federal supports. In our report, we recommended:

That the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development work closely with other orders of government to harmonize the application processes for disability supports programs.

Our report also recommended that both ministers “. . . develop a basic income or guaranteed income for people with severe disabilities. . . .”

An earlier report entitled In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness, released in 2009, again by the Social Affairs Committee and their Subcommittee on Cities, describes how the source or level of income of someone with a disability depends on when and how one becomes disabled and whether private or public insurance payments were available to an individual upon disablement.

The report warns:

The complexity of current programs and their interactions can leave too many people . . . without adequate incomes, and even without any income, as they are bounced from one “system” to another.

This lack of continuity in eligibility for disability income supports only piles on even more uncertainty in the lives of Canadians.

The 2009 report also recommends the development and implementation of a basic income for people with severe disabilities, though the basic income considered at the Subcommittee on Cities was meant to replace provincial social assistance income, which would have resulted in substantial savings to the provinces. In his testimony to that committee, Dr. Prince noted that this model would have taken half a million Canadians off provincial social assistance, which would have then allowed the provinces to reallocate funds into personal supports, education, inclusive schools, inclusive parks and recreation, family supports and public transit.

That is not what is being proposed in Bill C-22. As Minister Qualtrough noted in her second reading speech in the other place, this new benefit will be an income supplement, not an income replacement, and it is not intended to replace existing provincial or territorial supports. When it becomes available, the Canada disability benefit should provide additional monthly income for people with disabilities. It is worth noting, however, that this type of program will not lessen the financial demands on the provinces. A different approach could have otherwise allowed for more investment in services for people with disabilities.

Historically, Canada’s supports for people with disabilities have differed from those in the United States and most European countries because, in our federation, the provinces bear the prime responsibility for health, education and social services. According to the OECD, Canada lags behind on public spending on incapacity — that is, spending due to sickness, disability and occupational injury.

Of the G7 countries, we come in seventh on public spending on incapacity as a percentage of total gross domestic product. We spend, in Canada, just three quarters of 1% of our GDP. The U.S. spends 1%, and Japan about the same. Our European peers spend much more. France spends 1.7% of GDP; Italy, 1.8%; the United Kingdom, 1.9%; and Germany, 2.25%.

We have a moral obligation to do more. The preamble of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that:

. . . the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people . . . .

For too long, people with disabilities in this country have not enjoyed freedom from want, and the effects have been devastating.

According to the Canadian Survey on Disability, 2017, which is the most recent survey data we have, one in five Canadians over the age of 15 had one or more disability. The likelihood of having a disability increases with age: 13% of those aged 15 to 24 years had a disability compared to 47% of those 75 years and older. Disability’s correlation with poverty is strong, as we’ve heard from all our speakers: Of Canadians aged 25 to 64 years, 28% of those with more severe disabilities live in poverty compared to 10% of their counterparts without disabilities.

Dr. Deborah Stienstra, the Jarislowsky Chair in Families and Work at the University of Guelph, notes that people with disabilities face barriers to education; barriers to employment; high costs, including those associated with necessary disability-related supports and barriers to systems of transportation, telecommunication and health care. She says:

Each of these sets of barriers, in addition to stigmatizing attitudes about disability, limit the opportunities for full citizenship and participation for people with disabilities, and can result in a life with poverty and exclusion.

Bill C-22 comes to us as amended by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities — HUMA — in the other place. Bill C-22 is meagre on details — what is often referred to as “framework” legislation. It sets out general provisions for the administration of the benefit and authorizes the Governor-in-Council to implement most of the benefit’s design elements through regulations. As MPs noted at second reading, Bill C-22, as it was first introduced, was more of a promise to act than a real proposal. Thanks to the nine amendments made at HUMA, the bill is somewhat improved.

The first amendment adds a definition of “disability” to the bill, the same as found in the Accessible Canada Act.

The second amendment requires the federal government to make public all federal and provincial-territorial agreements with respect to the Canada disability benefit.

The third amendment requires that the benefit be indexed to inflation.

The fourth amendment requires that the application for the benefit be barrier-free.

The fifth amendment requires that the Governor-in-Council, when setting the amount of the benefit, take into consideration the official poverty line.

The sixth amendment requires the minister to table a report in the House of Commons on the engagement and collaboration with the disability community in the development of regulations within six months of coming into force, and to table another report on the progress made in the regulatory process within one year.

The seventh amendment requires the minister to provide persons with disabilities the opportunity to collaborate on the development and design of the regulations.

The eighth amendment tightens the timelines for parliamentary reviews of the legislation from three years after coming into force and every five years thereafter to one and three years after coming into force and then every five years after. The ninth amendment set the coming-into-force date to no later than one year after Royal Assent.

The House of Commons human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities committee has done excellent work. As our Senate committee studies the bill, it will be our job to review that work and to hear testimony from experts and stakeholders to ensure that no flaws have been inadvertently introduced and that there are no important omissions in the bill.

This might be just the right time to remind my honourable colleagues of a similar situation we found ourselves in just three-and-a-half years ago with another piece of legislation vitally important to the disability community — Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act. Everyone was fully united behind that legislation, and there was similar pressure for us to get that bill passed without amendments.

While virtually all of the testimony we heard at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology called on us to pass the bill with a degree of urgency, there was concern expressed from some members of the disability community about certain omissions. Our committee believed that we could focus on a few clear amendments that would add value to C-81 without endangering its passage. While the reflected desire for this legislation was strong, the desire to improve it was even stronger. The Senate — all of you, senators — agreed, and we passed the amended bill at third reading, and the House concurred with all our amendments. It is important to remember the essence of these amendments because it highlights the value of true sober second thought.

One, timelines. Bill C-81 had no definitive timeline for Canada to become a fully accessible country. Without timelines, there would be no accountability, progress could not be measured and standards might never be developed and enacted by law. Therefore, we added the recommended deadline of 2040 to be the definable date in place for full implementation of accessibility requirements. Related to this, we made an amendment to ensure that accessibility measures would not be delayed or postponed as an unintended consequence, but enacted as soon as possible.

Two, the next amendment we made was recognition of particular sign languages to be named in the bill as the languages of people who are deaf. This would ensure that deaf persons would not be forgotten and have equal access to information, communication, employment, government services, transportation and other federally regulated sectors. Honourable senators, these are not insignificant additions to a good bill.

Returning to the here and now — Bill C-22 — there are several issues that will be helpful to review at committee. First, the ninth amendment to the bill, which changed the coming-into-force date, merits sober second thought. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance published a response to the amendments on their website in which they argue:

As amended by HUMA, Section 14 specifies no specific date for the bill to come into effect. Section 5(2) of the federal Interpretation Act fills the void by making the bill come into force immediately upon Royal Assent.

I am not a legislative legal expert, but I did consult with one who agreed that this change may indeed be problematic. We should give due attention to this clause and amend it if it is in the interest of Canadians to do so.

Second, the committee should examine the existing disability support programs in this country and how they might interact with this new benefit. Jennifer Robson, associate professor and director of the political management program at Carleton University, told The Hill Times in September 2022 that existing support programs at the provincial and federal level each have a different definition of disability, different benefit levels and different rules regarding other income. She described the existing programs as “a Swiss cheese space” for the new benefit to fit into.

We must ensure that application for provincial and federal benefits isn’t prohibitively bureaucratic so that people with disabilities will not fall through the cracks. There should be a well-defined monitoring and complaint process for appeals of refusals, reductions in benefits and clawbacks, perhaps a tribunal or an advocate. One of the complaints we heard at the Senate social affairs committee about the disability tax credit process was that the Canada Revenue Agency was tasked with the complaint and investigation process, and it was unsatisfactory and exceedingly slow.

Third, the committee should consider the value that the benefit be determined on the basis of the net income of the applicant, not the income of the person’s household. Louise Bourgeois, president of the Mouvement personne d’abord de Sainte-Thérèse, told the House committee:

People living with intellectual disabilities are among the poorest in our society. They are also at greater risk of experiencing economic violence. It will be important that the amount given to individuals does not depend on their spouse’s income. It should be calculated and given to the person individually. After all, the bill is about strengthening people’s financial security.

StatCan data also show that people with disabilities are more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence than people without disabilities. In an analysis of 2018 data, Laura Savage from the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics at Statistics Canada noted:

Having a disability may increase some women’s vulnerability to intimate partner violence. For example, women with disabilities may experience an increased risk of isolation or an increased reliance on an intimate partner.

This reliance is often economic.

When Green Party MP Mike Morrice moved an amendment at the House committee to address this concern, a department official pointed out that most federal benefits are built on family income. Can the Canadian disability benefit, in particular, enhance the financial security of the individual in order to make financial independence more possible? An amendment could help address that vulnerability.

Related to this is another important issue around the adequacy of the disability benefit and whether there should be clear definition that the benefit itself must be above the poverty level. The amount of the benefit is not specified in the bill as it stands and is left to Governor-in-Council and the regulations. The challenge was addressed in Senator Pate’s question to Senator Cotter last week. Discussed in the other place, it was ruled out of order. Our committee hearings should explore the adequacy issue. There are many detailed international comparisons available. Most European countries have a disability benefit. Switzerland, Norway and Denmark provide the most substantial monthly disability allowances, and Norway offers disability allowances as a universal right in contrast to many other countries that only offer benefits to those in the labour market.

Although the House of Commons committee passed many helpful amendments and really put some meat on the bones of this framework legislation, this bill, nonetheless, leaves so much to the regulations. The Governor-in-Council — that is, the Governor General acting on the advice of cabinet — is tasked to create the regulations for the very essence of the substance: eligibility criteria; the amount of the benefit; the payment periods; the application process; reviews or reconsiderations of decisions; appeals; retroactive payments; applications made on behalf of persons incapable of managing their own affairs; the application of the act when an applicant or beneficiary dies; and the identification of debts.

Colleagues, we must all reflect on the deference shown to cabinet that is so profuse in this bill. It restricts our debate in Parliament, and also opens the door to future changes — not by legislation, but by orders of the Governor-in-Council. And, while it is critically important that the government intends to fully consult the disability community with regard to the substance and implementation of this legislation, it remains a concern how few of the specifics of this process, along with the timelines, are actually delineated in this piece of legislation.

In closing, I support the principles of Bill C-22, but I lament that what we have is only a very bare framework. The government could have — and should have — done better. Now, honourable senators, let’s do our work and get this bill to committee. Thank you.

[Translation]