Hon. Joyce Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: Thanks for that question. As I mentioned, the reduction in tack was a temporary one, and it had to do with the lack of availability of our partner nation Greenland’s ship, which has now been resolved.

The challenge with introducing assessments that are not part of a time series is that the validity of that data is not as strong as data that is done with the same ship, with the same methods and patterns of doing the fishing to make the assessment.

As senators are probably aware, when a new vessel is introduced, it will do the assessment trawling side by side for a great deal of time with the outgoing vessel, the retiring vessel, just to make sure that the equipment is set up in a way to achieve the same results, or else what happens is that the time series doesn’t have the integrity that it needs to have to be able to make allocation decisions and be confident that the science is robust. So patching in something for a year or two is not a solution that is as robust in terms of the scientific validity as continuing with a vessel configuration that has already been used to develop that data series.

Hon. Joyce Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: Thank you, senator. I would like to acknowledge the many people that have already made Canada a leader and seen to be a leader in terms of ocean conservation. We were one of the first members of the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy. We, as Canada, were asked to partner when China was not able to physically host COP 15, which was co-hosted by Minister Guilbeault in Montreal, and I had a chance to participate in that as well and see the Canadian delegation and negotiators at work. We were the host for IMPAC5, which is the International Marine Protected Areas Congress, just weeks ago in Vancouver.

So I would assert we already are leaders, and I know our Prime Minister has a very strong support for that leadership. We have stood up as a group of countries that are committed to addressing illegal, unregulated and unauthorized fishing on the high seas. It was Britain, the United States and Canada that launched that initiative, which now has a number of other countries who have joined. I am very concerned about conservation. I will continue in this tradition of leadership on ocean conservation that those before me and our Prime Minister really have pioneered.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Madam Minister, in 2017-18, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans conducted an in-depth study on maritime search and rescue, releasing our report WHEN EVERY MINUTE COUNTS: Maritime Search and Rescue in November 2018. The number one recommendation in that report reads as follows:

1a) The committee recommends that the Canadian Coast Guard establish additional primary research and rescue stations in the Canadian Arctic to meet the growing demand in areas where marine activity is forecasted to increase.

Our report followed up with this recommendation:

5. The committee recommends that, as a pilot project, the Department of National Defence authorize a civilian helicopter operator to provide aeronautical search and rescue coverage in the Canadian Arctic and in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Two Labrador fishermen Marc Russell and Joey Jenkins went missing on September 17, 2021, and, sadly, they were never located. The search was clouded with allegations from the families due to the lack of coordination by the governments and the search ending too soon. Marc Russell’s parents, Jeanette and Dwight, are calling for the 5 Wing Goose Bay military base to become a search and rescue centre, for fast rescue stations to be located in Labrador, for emergency beacons to be required on all vessels and for a review of standards for fishing vessels.

Last fall, Jeanette and Dwight came to Ottawa and held several meetings.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Madam Minister, I’m sorry, but your time has expired.

Hon. Joyce Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: Earlier I said that I have a deep concern for the state of wild salmon on both coasts. As a coastal British Columbian, I know first-hand how important the wild salmon are to all citizens, and especially our First Nations.

On the East Coast, I can only imagine there is the same culture of long-term historic and traditional dependence on the wild Atlantic salmon. That’s why we’re doing everything we can to work with conservation groups to fund their efforts. We’re developing a strategy for wild Atlantic salmon conservation and restoration.

With respect to the other fish you mentioned, I would have to get back to you on that, senator. We’ll take a look at the transcript of the question and provide you with an answer in writing.

Hon. Brian Francis: Minister Murray, in line with Recommendation 2 of the report titled Peace on the Water, in 2022 and 2023 Fisheries and Oceans Canada introduced an interim measure to reallocate some of the quota of baby eels, or elvers, from commercial licence holders to increase the participation of the Mi’kmaq in this fishery, which is critical to ensuring that the exercise of the constitutionally protected right does not remain contingent on the government’s ability to buy back licences.

In the interest of greater clarity and credibility, are you considering permanently reducing the number of commercial licences for lobster, elvers or other species in order to create greater access for First Nations who want to exercise their constitutionally protected rights and overcome dire economic and social conditions?

What I will say is that our department’s work and my work is really guided by three key principles: One is further implementation of treaty rights; the second is the sustainability and conservation of all stocks; and third is the stable management of the fishery.

I am of the view that a willing buyer and a willing seller is an approach that’s good for reconciliation, and it respects the investments that are made by the quota holders that are being asked to reduce their share. Wherever possible, I’ll be going on a willing buyer-willing seller basis, and where that’s not possible, we have to find a solution in consultation with all parties involved.

Hon. Joyce Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: Thank you for that question. I couldn’t agree more that this is a very important program, and I was pleased that out of the Fiona funding, there is approximately $30 million in addition to the $10 million that the senator mentioned for removing ghost gear.

I just want to tell you, I was recently on a vacation for a week with my family in Ecuador, and on a trip out to an island off a relatively remote part of the country, my daughter saw a large sea turtle with ghost gear wrapped around its neck and fins. It was an awful sight. The people from the boat, the crew, lifted it into the boat and spent a half an hour cutting off the fishing line and the floats for this turtle to be able to be taken to the rehabilitation centre. For me, it was a first-hand look at what ghost gear can do to vulnerable other species.

We’ll continue to invest in that and work with the local communities and Indigenous communities to do that work of removing the ghost gear out of the waters. For the North Atlantic right whale, this is a very important part of our protection of that endangered species as well.

[Translation]

Hon. Joyce Murray, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: Thank you, senator, for that question.

My understanding is that much of the vessel safety aspect has to do with Transport Canada. We work closely with Transport Canada to review any incidents such as the one that cost Marc and Joey their lives and look for measures that we can put in place to improve vessel safety with Transport Canada. Harmonizing regulations is one thing that we’ve been doing.

I would say one thing that is really important is that people on the vessel are using the safety equipment, are using their life jackets and are doing the very best they can so that if there is an incident, the Canadian Coast Guard can do a rescue, and not a search and rescue.

That includes having the beacons always active and in good form so that if there is an incident, we can quickly find them; we’re working on promoting that kind of compliance as well.

Hon. Stan Kutcher moved second reading of Bill C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Bill C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), which was introduced in the other place by the Minister of Justice on February 2, 2023.

This bill proposes to extend the temporary exclusion of eligibility for medical assistance in dying, or MAID, on the basis of a mental illness alone — MAID MD-SUMC — for one year, until March 17, 2024.

In the absence of legislative change, this exclusion will automatically be repealed on March 17, 2023, at which point eligibility for MAID in these circumstances will become lawful under the existing eligibility criteria.

Colleagues, before proceeding, I would like to acknowledge that the material and the subject of our debate that is starting today and will continue into Thursday can be very difficult for some people. It can be very challenging. It has to deal with life‑and-death issues. It has to deal with mental illness.

I would encourage any of our colleagues and anybody who is listening or watching our debates to know that if you are having difficulties because of what we are talking about, but also just in general, please seek help for those difficulties. Asking for help is a sign of strength. It is not a sign of weakness.

The purposes of this extension to support federal government readiness in relation to MAID MD-SUMC are fourfold: first, to ensure that a national reporting system meeting the requirements set out in Bill C-7 has been established and has begun to gather data for MAID monitoring and system assessment; second, that the model MAID practice standard has been completed and disseminated to regulators in all provinces and territories; third, that an accredited national MAID training program has been developed and is available to existing and new MAID providers; and fourth, to allow time for the final report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying of the House and Senate to be considered.

I will speak to each of these readiness criteria in due course.

As we all know, Bill C-7 received Royal Assent on March 17, 2021, about a year after the WHO declared the COVID pandemic.

The work undertaken for MAID MD-SUMC readiness — the components of which I just named — was impacted by COVID, the detrimental effects of which on our health care system are well known to us all.

The timely discharge of this readiness work depended on numerous health care providers, regulators, civil servants and other health system actors, all of whom were deluged by the demands of this unexpected scourge.

Indeed, it is to the credit of hard-working people across multiple sectors that so much has already been done on the work to date.

Despite delays due to COVID, significant progress has been made. I am of the opinion that taking some additional time is wise. This will ensure that the federal government has addressed its commitments before the law with respect to MAID MD‑SUMC comes into effect. Specifically, it will ensure that the four readiness criteria that I identified earlier will have been appropriately addressed.

While my remarks today will focus primarily on the progress that has been made in the key domains within which the federal government acted following the coming into force of Bill C-7, I would like, first, to take this opportunity to remind us of the complex division of powers and responsibilities between the federal and provincial/territorial governments when it comes to MAID assessment and provision. There has been some confusion in the minds of many Canadians whom I have spoken with about this differential responsibility.

The federal government is responsible for the Criminal Code. This is where the legal parameters for MAID are established.

The federal government is not responsible for the general delivery of medical services, including MAID, as these are the primary responsibility of provinces and territories.

Nor is the federal government responsible for the regulation of those who provide these services. That is the responsibility of provinces and territories, which, in turn, delegate it to independent regulatory bodies, such as Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons and Colleges of Nurses.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind us of some of the components of how MAID for track-2 conditions, of which MAID-MD-SUMC is one example, are delivered in Canada and, in so doing, correct some misinformation that is swirling around us.

MAID is a medical act provided by trained physicians and nurse practitioners, delivered by provincial and territorial health care systems — with a few exceptions for federal delivery, for example military and prisons — and is regulated through the well-established independent regulatory bodies in each province and territory. As such, it is like any other medical act in that it must adhere to legislation, regulation, practice standards, policies and procedures.

Thus, in addition to any specific rules about MAID, MAID assessors and providers must adhere to the existing rules that apply to all clinical acts, whether they concern confidentiality, documentation, operating within their scope of practice or any other regulatory dictate.

Also, in many jurisdictions, MAID providers work within a centralized intake system within existing health authorities and use a community-of-practice approach to support and consult with each other. In other jurisdictions, MAID practitioners draw upon the networks offered through professional associations in order to obtain advice and guidance from peers. In other words, colleagues, the delivery of MAID clinical services is not an insular practice.

The requesters of MAID MD-SUMC will be protected by the track-2 safeguards in the delivery of MAID.

Individuals may make a request in writing to a physician or nurse practitioner asking to be assessed for MAID MD-SUMC eligibility. Following this, they are assessed by two physicians or nurse practitioners, independently, trained in MAID assessment. If neither of these trained MAID assessors has expertise in the condition causing the person’s suffering, a third physician or nurse practitioner with such expertise must be consulted.

For MAID MD-SUMC, an independent psychiatrist, expert in the person’s specific condition, would often be an appropriate assessor or consultant.

If the person is found eligible for MAID MD-SUMC as per legislated requirements, at least 90 days must pass between the request for and the provision of MAID. During that time, the MAID practitioners must ensure that the person has been informed of alternative means available to relieve their suffering and that they have been offered consultations with the relevant professionals.

It is worth noting that this 90-day period is a minimum and that practitioners can take all the time they need to do what is necessary to complete the assessment. If there is uncertainty from any assessor about clinical or legal eligibility for MAID MD‑SUMC, the MAID procedure does not take place.

If during this 90-day period the person becomes suicidal, suicide-prevention efforts will be mobilized, and MAID does not proceed. If a person changes their mind, the MAID procedure does not occur.

It is simply incorrect, despite all the trumpeted misinformation, that an individual who is actively suicidal or experiencing an emotional crisis, and thus is feeling depressed, anxious or unhappy, can request MAID and have it completed without careful assessment by highly trained clinicians without the passage of at least 90 days and without due diligence being applied.

The statements that we have heard telling us that a person who is in an acute mental health crisis can arrive at a hospital or clinic, request MAID and promptly receive MAID are simply false.

Additional related misinformation about MAID MD-SUMC includes several other false claims: that a person can be eligible for MAID solely on the ground that they are having difficulty accessing mental health care, that MAID will become an alternative to providing mental health care, and that MAID has been created by the government to save health care costs. These claims are all false.

Unlike what the misinformers would have us believe, MAID MD-SUMC cannot be provided just because someone is having difficulty accessing mental health care or because they are feeling emotionally unwell.

On the contrary, the typical MAID MD-SUMC requester — someone who will also be considered potentially eligible for MAID MD-SUMC assessment — is someone who has a long‑standing mental disorder, and who had received a substantial amount of various types of therapeutic interventions for a prolonged period of time — often a decade or longer — and, in spite of all the treatments provided, still continues to suffer intolerably. The issue is not lack of access to mental health care.

People who may be considered eligible to be assessed for MAID have been receiving substantial amounts of mental health care for a long period of time. Again, the issue is not access to care; it is that all the treatments that have been tried — during a long period of mental health care — have not been successful.

The unfortunate reality is — as in all areas of medical practice — that there is a minority of people whose mental disorder does not respond to any available treatment. They continue to experience profound and persistent suffering, in spite of everything that has been tried. This reality is similar to that found with other brain diseases and, indeed, with other non-brain diseases.

Sadly, regardless of whether the illness is a mental illness or another type of illness, occasionally, people do not get well with any of the treatments that we have. Some, but not all, of these people suffer intolerably.

Additionally, some commentators would like us to believe that they — and not the patient — best understand the suffering that the patient experiences. They would have us accept a person being forced to continue to suffer intolerably — for years or decades — while waiting for some miracle cure to surface, just in case it might occur, and because they say so.

They promote the narrative that a competent person with a mental illness — who is suffering terribly, persistently and unremittingly — should not be able to decide how they choose to proceed with their life, even though someone with another type of illness can do so. This is another form of stigma against people who have a mental illness, and misinformation worsens stigma.

Colleagues, since we all have a role to play in correcting health misinformation when we become aware of it, it would behoove us — as members of the upper chamber — to also do so for MAID MD-SUMC. I will now remind us all of the responsibilities established through Bill C-7 by Parliament to promote MAID MD-SUMC readiness. I will then provide an update on what activities have been undertaken to date by the federal government to assist in that readiness.

I’ll start off with Bill C-7’s requirement that:

A comprehensive review of the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to medical assistance in dying and their application, including but not limited to issues relating to mature minors, advance requests, mental illness, the state of palliative care in Canada and the protection of Canadians with disabilities must be undertaken by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

Bill C-7 also mandated the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health to:

. . . cause an independent review to be carried out by experts respecting recommended protocols, guidance and safeguards to apply to requests made for medical assistance in dying by persons who have a mental illness.

Bill C-7 also mandated the government to revise the regulations on reporting MAID cases in order to require the collection and analysis of a wider range of information about MAID requesters — most notably, race, indigeneity and disability.

One can reasonably ask this: What progress has been made on all of this?

First, let us consider the Regulations for the Monitoring of Medical Assistance in Dying, which outline the reporting requirements relating to MAID requests. These regulations came into force in November 2018, but were recently revised to ensure significantly enhanced data collection and reporting on MAID activity. Most notably, the regulations now require the collection of data based on race, Indigenous identity and the presence of a disability. The revised regulations came into force on January 1, 2023, and the collection of this enhanced data has already begun. I note that these changes are partially a result of amendments made to former Bill C-7 by this place, as proposed by our honourable colleague Senator Jaffer, and supported by many others.

Second, let us consider the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. As you all know, the final report of the special joint committee was initially due last year, but this due date was pushed back. The final report was recently tabled — about one month before the mental illness exclusion is set to expire. Without the extension, this delay would make it very challenging for the federal government to meaningfully consider the final report and recommendations before the expiry of the mental illness exclusion. With the extension, the federal government will have time to consider the report and recommendations.

The Expert Panel on MAID and Mental Illness — created by the federal government — conducted its independent review. Its final report was tabled in Parliament on May 13, 2022. This report includes valuable information about — and analysis of — the issues associated with MAID for mental disorders. For those who have not yet had an opportunity to do so, reading the report is a useful part of preparation for consideration of the bill before us now. This report includes the recommendation that the federal government facilitate the development of a model practice standard that could be adopted or adapted by regulatory bodies.

Health Canada established an independent task group to produce this model practice standard. This model practice standard for assessing complex MAID requests, including requests where the sole condition is a mental illness, has been developed by a task group including clinical, regulatory and legal experts. The task group also prepared a model “Advice to the Profession: Medical Assistance in Dying” document to supplement the practice standard that regulatory bodies can use to provide clinical guidance to MAID providers seeking information about specific aspects of MAID MD-SUMC.

Regulators, provincial ministries, territorial ministries, health care authorities and clinicians from coast to coast to coast have now provided feedback to the task group on the draft model practice standard and draft “Advice to the Profession.” These have been reviewed and revised based on the inputs. The model practice standard and the “Advice to the Profession” document are now in translation and will be released very soon. At that point, they can be adapted or adopted by the various regulatory bodies that are responsible for how MAID will be delivered in each province and territory.

To remind us, it is these regulatory bodies that set the clinical and ethical standards of practice for all care, including MAID, and give guidance and direction to physicians and nurse practitioners. They do so in the interest of public protection — this is their primary mandate. They are independent of government control, answer to the public and are entitled to apply disciplinary sanction on their physician and nurse practitioner members up to, and including, definitive revocation of licensure. While each regulatory body is independent of each other, and of government, the creation of a model standard of practice and “Advice to the Profession” — which can be adapted or adopted by each province and territory — will go a long way to protecting the vulnerable, and to improving harmonization of MAID delivery across Canada.

It is important to note that this is, to my knowledge, the first time that such a federal government-led, collaborative and comprehensive approach to practice standard development and “Advice to the Profession” considerations has ever occurred in Canada.

Additionally, with funding provided by Health Canada, the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers, or CAMAP, has been developing a Canadian MAID education curriculum since October 2021.

CAMAP is an organization that is made up of nurse practitioners and physicians, including family physicians, hospitalists, psychiatrists, internists, anaesthetists and neurologists, who provide MAID services, including assessment for eligibility and the provision of MAID itself.

CAMAP’s main purpose is to support those who work in this field by providing clinical guidance and education to both those who are new to MAID, as well as to those who are seeking to enhance or deepen their knowledge.

This national educational curriculum is being developed by a diverse group of experienced MAID clinicians from across Canada who have come together to share their expertise in a series of training modules that will cover the entire spectrum of MAID care. This process is overseen by a consortium that includes representatives from CAMAP and a national advisory committee with multiple stakeholders including the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Family Physicians of Canada, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Indigenous Physicians Association of Canada, the Canadian Indigenous Nurses Association, the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Association des médecins psychiatres du Québec and other stakeholders including persons with lived experience — families and other supporters of people who have had MAID.

The training modules will be accredited by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the Canadian Nurses Association. This is, to my knowledge, the first time in Canadian history that a health care curriculum has been developed from federal government funding and simultaneously accredited by these three bodies.

Once completed, CAMAP’s educational curriculum will consist of seven training modules, including a background to MAID in Canada; difficult clinical conversations; basic and complex MAID assessments, including a detailed understanding of capacity and vulnerability; and basic and complex MAID provisions. There is a module dedicated entirely to MD-SUMC. All of the modules also include resources to help those involved in MAID care to remain well as they undertake this important work.

The purpose of this accredited MAID curriculum will be to train new and experienced MAID practitioners across the country and, thereby, contribute to the development of knowledge and skills among practitioners, standardization of practices across the country and contribute to the high-quality provision of care in the context of MAID. Rollout of this curriculum is expected to begin this fall.

All of this progress is truly remarkable and is the result of the federal government’s leadership and collaborative efforts with health system partners, such as provincial and territorial governments, health professional organizations, regulatory bodies, clinicians and other organizations. As I previously mentioned, to my knowledge, this is the first time in Canadian history that the federal government has demonstrated such initiative in supporting the development of an accredited health training program.

So that is the progress report on the federal contributions to readiness.

At this time, I want to caution against allowing the continuing and enlarging storm of misinformation to impact our considerations of the bill before us. First, I want to address one important issue arising from the expert panel report that has become part of the misinformation industry surrounding MAID MD-SUMC. That is, unlike all other illnesses, including chronic pain, it is never possible to determine if a person with a mental illness has a “grievous and irremediable” medical condition. As you know, this is a legal and not a clinical term. The expert panel has provided a thoughtful and substantive approach as to how this legal term can be translated into clinical practice related to MAID MD-SUMC. This will be further articulated in Canadian clinical practice through the regulatory bodies of physicians and nurse practitioners in each province and territory that establish the standards of practice for MAID.

As I previously said, a Canada-wide input into the consideration of how this will be embedded into practice standards has already been completed and is ready for translation and dissemination. Through practice standards, the regulators will set the criteria that must be adhered to in the clinical interpretation of that legal phrase. This, as with all medical practice, will be further refined as clinical practice evolves.

Of additional interest, The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry recently, in 2022, published the results of a two-round Delphi procedure in which psychiatrists established 13 consensus criteria for determining “irremediable psychiatric suffering.” These criteria are very similar to those provided independently of this process by the expert panel.

Colleagues, it is simply incorrect to say that “grievous” and “irremediable” are terms that can never be appropriately clinically defined in psychiatric practice. Indeed, they have been. While some commentators may not agree, that does not mean that this issue cannot be properly defined, nor does it mean that the clinical definition offered by the regulatory bodies is inappropriate. Just because someone doesn’t like a clinical definition doesn’t mean that definition fails to meet the threshold for its utility, reliability or validity.

Just so everyone understands where we actually are with respect to the understanding of “grievous and irremediable medical condition” and “incurability” and “irreversibility,” the expert panel was of the view that, in the context of MAID, mental illness may be grievous and irremediable where a person has a long-standing condition leading to functional decline and for which they have not found relief from suffering, despite an extensive history of attempts with many different types of interventions and supports tailored to their specific diagnosis and related issues.

The panel further recommended that each MAID assessor should come to an independent understanding with the requester that an illness, disease, disability or functional decline causes the requester enduring and intolerable physical or psychological suffering, and — this is important — that each be done on a case‑by-case basis as the nuances of each situation require a personalized approach.

A key feature of this recommendation is that a person meeting the criteria identified by their expert panel makes the decision that their condition is “grievous and irremediable” in collaboration with each MAID assessor. It is not a single health care provider who alone makes the decision for the person.

In my opinion, this perspective is consistent with the modern medical practice of both evidence-based care and patient-centred care as these are discharged in the context of complex conditions and reflect the evolution of medical care from an autocratic, paternalistic approach to the engagement of the medical provider as a partner in the patient’s care. After all, it is the person who is suffering who needs to be heard.

That, by the way, colleagues, is what the word “patient” actually means — one who suffers.

This also reflects the reality of modern medical practice in which all pertinent information is gathered, and medical intervention decisions in complex cases are made on a case-by-case basis. There is no cookbook recipe or checklist for complex medical decisions. All complex medical decisions are made case by case because they must be tailored to the individual, the person’s medical condition, the totality of all interventions provided and the impact of those on the person’s unique situation and the person’s own aspirations and needs. Complex medical decisions also involve more than one highly trained health care provider. These decisions are made collaboratively with a well‑informed patient; they are not dictated to the patient.

Every patient must be treated for who they are, not just for the disease that they have. No two people are exactly alike, and what should be done in the best interests of the patient must not be provided by a predetermined recipe or checklist, but by three equal factors: One, the competency and training of the clinician; two, the best available evidence about the health problem and available interventions; and three, the needs and wishes of the informed patient.

This trifecta is what defines evidence-based care, and it can only be provided using case-by-case decision making. This is the foundation for modern medicine’s commitment to patient-centred care.

When I was in medical school, I had the incredible privilege to be introduced to the framework for evidence-based and patient‑centred care by Dr. David Sackett, the pioneer of evidence- and patient-centred medicine.

Dr. Fraser Mustard, the dean of our school, and two of my most revered teachers, Dr. Jack Laidlaw and Dr. Bill Spaulding, repeatedly reinforced that we don’t intervene in diseases; we intervene with people who are suffering from a disease. We don’t use recipes or checklists; we use our best clinical judgment, the best evidence we have and we are led by the needs and wishes of our patients. We also don’t fly alone. The more complex the case, the more important it is for us to involve other clinicians. Decisions regarding interventions in complex cases arise from this reality.

Colleagues, if we expect that for MAID where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition, or MAID MD‑SUMC, a situation that calls for complex decision making, clinicians should be making decisions based on a cookbook recipe or a checklist, and if we accept that we should ignore the foundational principles of evidence-based medicine and patient‑centred care for those who suffer from a mental illness, while at the same time using these same tools in helping make intervention decisions for those whose suffering is not solely determined by a mental illness, we are denying those with a mental illness the same high-quality care that we provide to those who have a different type of illness. Colleagues, this is not only stigma, it is discrimination.

Friends, when the time comes — and for some of us, it already has — that we or a loved one is dealing with a complex and pernicious illness, such as cancer or end-stage heart failure, I am sure we would all want to be treated on a case-by-case basis. We would want our clinicians to understand who we are as a person and to do their best to help us while respecting our needs and wishes. Why would we accept that we — or any one of us who may have a mental illness — should not be treated that way?

I would also like to remind us that, given the law regarding MAID in Canada, at least two — and sometimes three — different, highly trained clinicians must independently and together with the patient come to the decision that the patient’s condition is “grievous and irremediable.” If the clinicians do not agree, then the MAID process does not proceed. The decision of what constitutes “grievous and irremediable” is not made by a solo practitioner with doubtful competencies; quite the contrary.

Finally, on this point, many of us have heard that a person who, for example, may be psychotic and refusing an effective treatment would be able to receive MAID. This is also not true. A person who is psychotic would not be found competent to make that decision. The minimum 90-day period between request and provision would give ample time for the appropriate in-depth evaluations to be carried out by multiple clinicians addressing this issue, especially since this is a minimum period and clinicians will take as much time as they think is necessary to form opinions about eligibility. Furthermore, a capable person cannot refuse all or most interventions and automatically render themselves incurable for the purposes of accessing MAID.

A MAID assessor cannot form a judgment about eligibility in the absence of evidence needed to form that judgment. As such, when reasonable treatments are left to be tried, MAID eligibility cannot be found.

Honourable colleagues, ongoing misinformation about MAID MD-SUMC continues to spread, misleadingly suggesting that persons with mental disorders requesting MAID will be treated in a haphazard, irresponsible and unregulated manner. However, as evidenced by a careful look at the law itself and the regulatory and practice context within which the law sits, this is not the case. In fact, the opposite is true. MAID MD-SUMC will be provided under perhaps the most comprehensive and robust federally facilitated health regulatory and training interventions ever created in this country.

Returning to the task immediately at hand — namely, consideration of a bill extending the period of ineligibility — I think we can all agree that significant progress has been made. However, I believe it would be best to extend the period for one more year. I am confident that one more year will be enough time for the dissemination and uptake by the nursing and medical communities of the key resources I just discussed, as well as increased familiarity with the new reporting regulations.

The Minister of Justice has also said that one more year will provide sufficient time for the federal government to carefully consider the final report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. One more year strikes the balance between ensuring that people can access MAID on the sole basis of a mental illness as soon as possible and ensuring that this change is done at a time when the more robust data gathering is well-established and health care stakeholders have had more time to familiarize themselves with the practice standards and training materials.

Additionally, I am of the opinion that the federal government must do a much better job of communicating with Canadians about the complex and nuanced aspects of MAID.

One critical component of this communication is that the federal government must be clear about what “being ready” means in the context of its role regarding MAID. In my opinion, “being ready” means that four conditions have been met: One, that the model practice standard is finalized, published and distributed to regulators in each province and territory; two, that the certified MAID training program has been completed and is available for access by MAID practitioners; three, that the updated reporting requirements have been implemented and the government has begun to gather the data that will be critical for our ongoing assessments of the MAID system in Canada; and four, that the government has had time to consider the joint committee report.

In closing, I want to take a moment to speak directly to those people who have been waiting to become eligible to receive MAID in March 2023 and who will surely be disappointed by this extension of the period of ineligibility.

I have heard from some who express anguish over this delay. It is important that we all acknowledge the additional prolonged suffering that those who have been waiting will continue to experience. I know that the suffering caused by a mental illness can be just as severe as, or even worse than, that caused by a physical illness. I want to assure those who are waiting that, although unfortunate, I think this extension is necessary to help ensure that MAID MD-SUMC requests can be properly assessed and appropriate decisions can be made.

This extension should not be taken to be an endorsement or validation of the misinformation being circulated about MAID MD-SUMC. This extension does not question the capacity or autonomy of competent people with mental illness to make their own health care decisions. This extension does not question the reality of mental disorders or the profound suffering that occurs when treatments have been tried and all have failed.

I invite all honourable senators to join me in support of this bill so that we can help ensure that Canada has a MAID regime that is carefully considered, appropriately equipped and responsive to the complex dynamics inherent in this important issue.

Wela’lioq, thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would Senator Kutcher agree to take a question?

[English]

Senator Kutcher: Certainly.

[Translation]

Senator Dupuis: Thank you for your speech, Senator Kutcher; I found it to be very thorough.

I’d like to go back to the very last part of your speech, and the fourth point in particular. You were explaining that procedures have been put in place and training programs are being developed.

However, there is one aspect that bothers me, and that is the fourth point that you brought up. You said that the government will also have time to look at the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying report, which was tabled in February 2023.

However, the issue on the agenda was actually mental illness and how it relates to part of the legislation that was going to come into effect a few days later and allow access to medical assistance in dying.

The government is saying that it wants to push back the implementation of this access to medical assistance in dying by one year. You’re right to point out that many people are very disappointed, if not confused, by this proposed delay.

Are you saying that the part of the report by the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying that the government would like to examine covers only mental disorder or did the special joint committee examine all the issues? If we open the door to other considerations in the upcoming year and agree to delay the coming into force of this part of the legislation, we can very well imagine that one year from now the government will come back to us and say that it hasn’t had the time to consider the issue of mature minors or the other issues that were included in the committee’s report.

What guarantees do you have from the government that, if we delay for one more year, the government will only consider the issue of mental disorders?

[English]

Senator Kutcher: Thank you, senator. That is an excellent question.

There are four members, including our esteemed co-chair, who have sat on this joint committee, and it has been a challenge that we have all taken on. It did cover much ground, as you have said. It addressed mental illness as a sole condition. It looked at advance requests. It looked at mature minors and a number of other topics.

My understanding is that this legislation is specifically focusing on extending the issue around MAID for mental illness as a sole underlying medical condition and the government’s analysis of the joint committee’s report related to this particular topic. This particular bill will focus on that.

My understanding is that the other aspects that the joint committee looked at will also be considered by the government, but are not part of the considerations related to this specific topic.

However, we’ll have two ministers here tomorrow. I think it would be much better for them to speak on behalf of the government than for me to do it because I don’t speak on behalf of the government.

Thank you for your question, and hopefully you can raise that again with them tomorrow.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)

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.