Human Resources Committee on Nov. 16th, 2022

[Krista Carr]

I don't think any particular organization has been given any specific guarantees. However, what I would say is that we definitely have gotten a very firm commitment—many of us as organizations and individuals with disabilities—that we will be very much at the table with the government in the creation of the regulations.

If I can use the creation of the disability inclusion action plan or the COVID response to people with disabilities as examples, the current minister, Minister Qualtrough, very much made sure that nothing went forward without consulting with our organizations. That included asking us whether we thought framework legislation should be the way forward and then working out the regulations together, or doing all the work up front and trying to come back with a bill that's “fully cooked”.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Carr.

I guess I just have some hesitations. In my experience, when I look at consultations with provinces with regard to other pieces of legislation, I haven't seen that happen, and the provinces haven't had that either. I just really hope that the government isn't misleading disability organizations and persons with disabilities, because it is so critical that we get this right. I just really want to make sure, especially when we have advocates like yourself and Rosemarie, who have been at the table now. I'm just hoping that continues afterwards.

Bill C-22 has the stated intent “to support the financial security of persons with disabilities”, but the overall driving force of conversations around this bill is inclusion and the need to break down economic and social barriers that are limiting full and equal participation within society.

The Quebec college of physicians recently recommended to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying that it would be appropriate to expand access to MAID to infants up to the age of one who are born with severe or grave syndromes. This recommendation is not only unethical but also flies in the face of the work that we are trying to do here today.

I'd like to take this opportunity to move the following motion:

That the Committee report to the House that it is of the opinion that it rejects the Quebec College of Physicians assertion on October 7, 2022, that the expansion of medical assistance in dying (MAID) is appropriate for infants up to age one who are born with severe and grave syndromes.

I know that we're all very eager to get back to our panellists. I hope that my colleagues around this table would be prepared to support this motion fully, reinforcing this important message that all Canadians, no matter their ability, should be able to fully participate in society and that our collective goal is to remove existing barriers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you to the witnesses participating in this committee.

A committee member has made a motion. The motion is in order, so I'm opening the floor to discussion on the motion that's been moved.

Is there discussion?

Go ahead, Mrs. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

As I said, I hope that we can pass this really quickly and move on with our witnesses.

I think this reaffirms their value and that they are important to society. It helps with the work that we are doing here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Madame Chabot.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I understand that you consider this motion to be in order. I find it to be out of order. I feel sorry for our witnesses, by the way.

This motion is about one group, but it could have been any group, in connection with the issue of medical assistance in dying, which is not at all the subject of our study. Fortunately, we have a joint committee currently working on what to do next on the issue of medical assistance in dying.

Questions on that subject should be directed to the House or to that joint committee.

Having said that, I will vote against this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Go ahead, Mrs. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I have to disagree with Madame Chabot. The Minister for Children and Families answers to this committee. Minister Qualtrough answers to this committee. We have heard time and time again in the short study that we have done so far on Bill C-22 that we have people with disabilities choosing to end their lives not because they want to, but because they can't afford to eat or shelter themselves.

I think it is imperative that we stand with the community and reaffirm their value to Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mrs. Falk.

Madame Chabot, do you still have your hand up?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chair, the whole debate around the concept of medical assistance in dying and the right, or non-right, according to some, to request it is extremely important. It's an issue on our minds in the House of Commons and it's currently being studied by a thorough joint committee, which is hearing witnesses and should be allowed to complete its study. You're either for it or against it, but I feel that's a debate for all parliamentarians.

I'm not judging my colleague's reasons for moving this motion, but I do feel that this committee is not the place to debate this important societal issue. This is not the place to pass a motion before the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying completes its work and before parliamentarians have made their decision.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to request a recorded division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll hear Mrs. Falk and then Ms. Zarrillo on the motion.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to add that this would reaffirm Minister Qualtrough's statement that was recorded in the media. She thought it was appalling that this was suggested. I think this is a great opportunity for our committee to reaffirm that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

We'll hear Ms. Zarrillo on the motion.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize to the witnesses for this.

I want to follow up on something that Madame Chabot said, which is that there is an opportunity to bring this to the House and have a wider discussion. I think many were horrified to see some of that testimony and were upset.

To the mover's point and to Madame Chabot's point, let's bring this to the House of Commons. If that's what we need to do, then let's do it that way. This is a very important topic that has wider impacts than what's happening here at this committee.

We could then get back to our testimony today. We have a very short window.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Mrs. Falk, did you have anything to add?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Chair, can you call a vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Well, the floor is open, Mrs. Falk. You moved a motion, and it is debatable until nobody wants to speak.

Go ahead, Mr. Long.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Although I understand the intent of the motion, I just feel.... We have a committee that's studying MAID now, and I just feel it's outside of the scope, so we can't support that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Seeing no further discussion, I will call for a vote on the motion that was moved my Mrs. Falk.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The motion has been defeated.

We will return to the witnesses. We will begin with Mr. Van Bynen for six minutes.

Mr. Van Bynen, you have the floor.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to express my appreciation to the many witnesses we've seen over the course of this review, particularly for the insights that are being brought to us for our consideration and discussion. We've had a number of people appear as witnesses from many organizations representing persons with disabilities. One individual, for example, indicated that he had consulted with 37 groups.

It is intended that we co-create broadly with people with disabilities to establish the framework. I'm wondering if Ms. Carr could tell me the number of members that Inclusion Canada represents and in what capacity they would like to contribute to that process.

[Krista Carr]

Thank you very much for the question.

We're a national federation. We have 13 provincial and territorial associations with over 300 locals and more than 40,000 individual members across the country, so it's certainly a nationally broad spectrum of people.

We have conducted an extensive consultation within our own federation on this benefit, and we were part of a project funded through ESDC whereby a whole bunch of national disability organizations were tasked with carrying out consultations across the country on the four pillars of the disability inclusion action plan, of which this was one. We led those consultations, so we certainly have heard from Canadians across the country.

There are a number of people who would want to be at the table, for all kinds of obvious reasons. I couldn't give you an exact, specific number, but people are saying that they want to have a say in the design of this benefit and what that looks like, for everything from eligibility criteria to amounts, etc. People very much want to have a say in the design of the benefit.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

In the preamble of the bill, on “social exclusion”, is social exclusion more likely for those with disabilities who live in poverty than those without disabilities? In your opinion, how should the Canadian disability benefit be designed to promote social inclusion for persons with disabilities? For example, does the bill as it's currently designed exclude anyone who should be included? Conversely, do you think the bill could potentially include too broad a range of individuals?

[Krista Carr]

The fact that the bill includes people with disabilities.... It talks about people of working age with disabilities, so I do believe this is the right focus for the bill. At the end of the day, I really do.

We have the Canada child disability benefit. Is it adequate? Should it be increased? Absolutely. We have the GIS: Is it adequate or should it be increased? Of course it should be. But the group that is the most impoverished among persons with disabilities is working-age Canadians. That's the only group for which we do not have a supplemental program, so I would certainly support that.

As far as the legislation itself goes, the framework legislation, at the end of the day it's about persons with disabilities. I hope that will grow up to include the broadest possible definition of “disability”. That's why it's so critically important for us to be at the table and fighting for those pieces when we get to the regulatory process.

I hope that answers your question.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

It does. Thank you very much.

My next question is for Mr. Prince.

When testifying before the committee on October 26, an official from Employment and Social Development Canada told the committee that most of the parameters of the benefit will need to be fixed in regulations because the approach “recognizes disability as an evolving social construct” and a regulatory approach “will allow for more flexibility as our understanding of disability evolves.”

As a professor and as a researcher on these issues, what do you think disability as an “evolving social construct” means in the specific context of Bill C-22? Do you agree that an evolving understanding of disability should be reflected in the legislation, and if so, how should that be done?