THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 22, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:03 p.m. [ET] to study 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.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to begin this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses and members of the public who are tuning in. My name is Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario and chair of this committee.
I would like to begin by going around the table and asking senators to introduce themselves starting with Senator Bovey, the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Bovey: Senator Patricia Bovey, Manitoba.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, Nova Scotia.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Dasko: Senator Donna Dasko, Ontario.
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, senator from Saskatchewan and sponsor of the bill in the Senate.
The Chair: Colleagues, today our committee begins its study 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.
I would like to take a brief moment to remind those participating in today’s meeting, as well as those observing the proceedings in person and on video, that the committee has taken steps to allow for the full participation of all witnesses and members of the public in the context of consideration of Bill C-22. In planning inclusive and accessible meetings, the committee has made arrangements for sign language interpretation in both American Sign Language and Quebec Sign Language for those witnesses appearing in person and for those in our audience. The sign language interpretation will be video recorded to be incorporated into the archived video recording of the proceedings, which will be made available at a later date on SenVu via the committee’s website.
Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify one of the pages or the committee clerk, who sits next to me.
Joining us for the first panel is the Honourable Carla Qualtrough, P.C., M.P., Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion. Welcome, minister, and thank you for taking the time to be with us. Just a note to committee members: The minister may have to participate in more votes. In that case, we will suspend briefly while she does her important work as an MP.
We also welcome officials from Employment and Social Development Canada: Mr. Elisha Ram, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch; and Krista Wilcox, Director General, Office for Disability Issues.
Thank you, all of you, for joining us today.
I now invite you, minister, to provide opening remarks. You will have five minutes allocated for opening statements, and then, of course, there will be questions from senators.
The floor is yours.
Hon. Carla Qualtrough, P.C., M.P., Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion: Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, committee members.
Thank you all for being here today. I’m honoured to be your very first witness as you study Bill C-22, an act to reduce poverty and support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit. I acknowledge that I am speaking to you on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Madam Chair, honourable senators, I want to thank you and the committee for the work you do to help shape government legislation and policy to make Canada more disability inclusive. I know you appreciate how much the disability community is counting on us to pass this bill. I was so encouraged to receive a letter from more than half the Senate’s membership urging the government to adopt the Canada disability benefit without delay. I also recognize Senator Cotter for sponsoring this important legislation in the Senate. On behalf of the disability community, senator, I thank you.
[Translation]
When I stood in the House of Commons to debate this bill at second reading, I said that no person with a disability in Canada should live in poverty.
More than one in five Canadians report having a disability. We are your friends. We are your family. We are your neighbours. We are your colleagues. Our community is diverse, talented and innovative.
Despite the incredible richness of this community, the harsh reality is that working-age people with disabilities in this country are twice as likely to live in poverty. Twenty-three per cent of working-age people with disabilities live below the poverty line. The situation is even more precarious for people with severe disabilities, women, Indigenous people, LGBTQ2S+ people and people with disabilities who are racialized.
In addition, people with disabilities face additional expenses specific to their disability.
When the pandemic struck, it only made the experience of poverty worse.
This poverty is rooted in the discrimination, prejudice, and exclusion that people with disabilities have always faced. These barriers exist because our systems, laws, policies and programs were not designed with or for people living with disabilities.
[English]
There is also a significant gap in our federal social safety net for persons with disabilities between the Canada Child Benefit, or CCB, Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. A common experience within the disability community is immense relief — and often celebration — at turning 65.
Why? Because at 65, Old Age Security, or OAS, and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or GIS, kick in. There is income security, often for the first time. The poverty level for persons with disabilities decreases by more than 60% between 64 and 65, from 23% to 9%.
Across Canada, provincial and territorial disability or social assistance does not lift people with disabilities above the poverty line. This is why the Canada disability benefit, or CDB, is about poverty reduction and financial security. It aims to address the long-standing economic disparity that is experienced by so many persons with disabilities in Canada.
With this backdrop, let me get into the details. The Canada disability benefit will be established and implemented through Bill C-22, the legal framework to create the benefit and a subsequent regulatory process to establish the specific details of the benefit. The framework format of this legislation is intentional. We are purposefully not prescribing all the details in the legislation. Why? Because this best reflects our commitment to “Nothing Without Us” — an ongoing engagement with the disability community — and it puts us in the best position to work with provinces and territories to optimize benefit interaction.
First, in the spirit of “Nothing Without Us,” and recognizing that far too often governments have imposed upon persons with disabilities, we are working with the disability community to design the benefit. Persons with disabilities know best our needs, our challenges and the barriers that keep us from financial security. Budget 2021 provided funding for three years to ensure the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities in this process, and this work is well underway. We heard clearly through our consultations and testimony in the House that stakeholders do not want decisions made without the disability community’s meaningful participation.
Second, we must work closely with provinces and territories. Bill C-22 recognizes the leading role they play in providing supports and services to persons with disabilities. The benefit and support landscape is complex, and varies significantly across the country. There are different eligibility criteria in every province and territory. There are different definitions of disability, different treatments of other income, different reduction rates, etc.
Disability supports combine income support with other services, such as transit passes, employment programs, assistive devices and pharmacare. For example, Alberta has a benefit for people with severe disabilities. Individuals must be substantially limited in their ability to work and their disabilities must qualify as “likely to be permanent.” Ontario provides broader, less targeted assistance. Qualifying disabilities don’t need to be severe and can affect work, personal care or participation in community life. The disability must be expected to last at least one year. The Northwest Territories provides benefits geared to the high cost of living in the North. Eligibility is based on the ability to perform activities of daily living. Amounts cover the actual costs of shelter and utilities, with no fixed cap.
As you can see, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. We need to work with each province and territory to harmonize benefits and optimize the impact of the CDB. And we are: There is a federal-provincial-territorial, or FPT, workgroup and there is an FPT work plan that all jurisdictions have agreed to. We have met as a group of FPT ministers responsible for disability inclusion, and I meet regularly with individual ministers. There is an understanding that the CDB is intended to be supplemental income, not replacement income. It is meant to make people better off and lift them out of poverty. And there is an understanding that we need to work together to ensure there are no unintended consequences.
I know much of your debate and many of your questions have been focused on provincial clawbacks, or the concern that provinces or territories will reduce their income support by the amount an individual receives in CDB, effectively leaving the recipient no better off.
I also note your concern that similar circumstances could arise with private insurance.
I share these concerns, which I have conveyed to my provincial and territorial counterparts. I have made it clear to them that this is supplemental income, meant to be in addition to what individuals receive from provinces and territories. It is not meant to replace existing income or to pay for or offset the costs of what they receive now. It is not employment income or earnings. It is supplemental social assistance. With the complexity I have described and the different ways they treat additional income, provinces and territories have expressed gratitude for early engagement. They do not want a specific model imposed on them that will not work within their systems. They share my view that the best way of optimizing benefit interaction is by working together, flexibly and strategically.
Let me conclude with a summary of next steps. Once Bill C-22 receives Royal Assent, we will move into the regulatory phase of benefit development. This will involve significant, meaningful engagement with the disability community on the design of the benefit, building on the significant work that has already been done. It will involve more formal negotiations with provinces and territories on benefit interaction, including how the CDB will be categorized for their benefit calculations. Finally, it will involve work within the Government of Canada on how the CDB will interact with other federal benefits, and work to prepare our systems to deliver the benefit itself. I am excited to get to this next phase, and I thank you for understanding the urgency of this work. The work you are doing here, and the work that was previously done in the House of Commons, is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve the lives of persons with disabilities in Canada, and many people are counting on us.
With that, I am happy to take questions.
The Chair: Senators, we have questions from all of you. We will reduce the question and answer time to four minutes to accommodate everyone.
Let me start off with a brief question. Minister, thank you for your passion. We can see it every time you talk to us about this bill. Thank you for bringing this bill to the floor of the House and then to the chamber.
As you well know and appreciate, the disability community is super-engaged in this bill. My question to you is simple and straightforward: Are you open to improvements to the bill?
Ms. Qualtrough: I can assure you, senator, that I am. Of course, I’m mindful of the framework nature of the bill — like the structure or framework — but listen, the Senate did a fabulous job of improving the Accessible Canada Act. I think there is always opportunity for improvement and I welcome any suggestions that you have and will take them seriously under advisement.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Bovey: Minister, it’s lovely to see you. Thank you for joining us today. I’m happy to see this assistance for a group of citizens who really face greater vulnerabilities than many of the rest of us. However, I’m not without my concerns. You’ve already articulated the issue of clawbacks, which is big for me, as is the need to retain other services that the various regions have, like wheelchairs, rent assistance or whatever they may be.
You described the Canada disability benefit as supplemental, and not replacement income. My question is on these two points, both clawbacks and services. Have the provinces agreed not to claw back? Because the clawbacks in my province of Manitoba for CERB were significant and put people in worse situations. Having witnessed that once, I guess I need the assurance that we’re not going to have to witness it again.
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you, senator. I hope I made clear that I share your concerns. That’s why we’ve been engaging with provinces and territories from the very beginning on this.
What I’ll say, if it gives you any comfort, is this is a very different type of benefit than CERB was. The systems, as I’ve said, are varied across the country, but one thing they have in common is a very important distinction between money that is considered employment income or employment earnings and something other than that, like social assistance or some kind of supplemental income.
The closer a benefit or a dollar gets to being considered employment income, the more likely it’s going to be treated as replacement income. That’s what CERB was. CERB was effectively money that workers were getting to replace income they lost because they lost their job or hours during the pandemic.
I’ll give you a contrast piece that I hope will help: For the Canada Child Benefit that we negotiated as a government almost seven years ago, every province and territory agreed to exempt it from benefit calculations. We’re using that model. They don’t consider it replacement income; they consider it supplemental income. When they calculate their disability supports, it doesn’t factor in. That’s what I’ve told provinces and territories that I expect from them. This is not replacement income. Provinces and territories understand that this is the intent. There are no formal agreements yet because no benefit has been created by law yet.
We have informal ongoing discussions and work — and I know that Ms. Wilcox and Mr. Ram can speak to that work — but I can assure you that there is a shared understanding that this is replacement income, that this is about poverty reduction and it is meant to leave people better off, including with access to those ancillary services. It would not make any sense to give someone $100 a month to have them lose $1,800 worth of medication expenses. That is not leaving them better off. I’m incredibly mindful of that and hopeful that we will get to the same place we got to with the CCB.
Senator Bovey: If there was an amendment to the effect of the legislation not allowing clawbacks — banning is too strong a word, so I don’t know what the wording would be — is that something you would accept?
Ms. Qualtrough: Again, I don’t know what the word would be either. I say that because of the reality that there is no federal benefit legislation that obligates provinces to not claw it back from their own benefit system. It’s their jurisdiction. I’m not sure we could legally do that. The OAS, GIS, Canada Workers Benefit, the Canada Child Benefit — none of these pieces of law impose an obligation on another level of government. I don’t know if it would be within jurisdiction, but we would look at it seriously. I can’t tell you how it would go from a jurisdictional point of view. I apologize.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, minister. It’s good to see you. I remember our work on Bill C-81 and the Accessible Canada Act, and I look forward to this very much as we start our study on Bill C-22. I know that the disability community considers this a really critical piece of legislation, and long past overdue, as we hear them say and we all very clearly understand.
I want to ask you about the potential for clawbacks and the huge concern there is in the community not only around potential provincial and territorial clawbacks, but also around private insurance that a lot of people in the community already have. It’s a serious issue.
You explained very well in your presentation the myriad programs across the country, even in basic definitions. It does create complexities that are going to have to be dealt with. I’m just wondering what communication you have already had. Could you give us some more details about the communication you’ve had not only with the provinces and territories, but also with private insurers as to how they’re going to look at it this?
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you. Let me start with insurance, because I have already touched on the provincial-territorial side. As with the provincial benefit system, the regulation of private insurance is fundamentally in the provincial jurisdiction. That being said, we have had consultations and discussions with private insurers that have been very easy and positive and have not raised any concerns from me.
Like with provincial-territorial benefits, private insurance looks at the intent of the payment. If it’s employment income replacement, they offset the insurance — workers’ compensation, disability insurance, I’m not working, so I’m not earning an income. I think that the insurance industry association has written to your committee explaining how they would approach this, but they consider it a social benefit — I think that’s what they call it — in which case, they don’t offset social benefits. They don’t offset the GIS or the Canada Child Benefit. It’s not considered employment earnings or income that they would offset.
I don’t want to diminish the concerns. That’s not fair. People are legitimately concerned, but it’s not something that I’m terribly worried about. I suspect we could enter into a memorandum of understanding — an MOU. It’s not on the top of my list of concerns on this, and I think we’ve had some really positive conversations with them.
Senator Seidman: There is a question out in the community — in fact, I’ve seen it come from David Lepofsky. He wanted to know if the federal government is prepared to allow the Canada disability benefit to be paid to people with disabilities in a province or territory that has signed an agreement with the federal government even if other provinces or territories have not signed a no-clawback agreement.
Ms. Qualtrough: First of all, this will be a direct monthly payment to individuals. That will happen regardless whether there exists an MOU in their province or territory or not. In fact, ideally, those agreements would predate the first payment. There is no world where somebody wouldn’t get paid because we have not made an agreement with their province or territory. I don’t want that to happen because I don’t want the impact of that payment to be that it gets offset or clawed back, but everyone can be assured that there will be no holding hostage of any single recipient as we negotiate these agreements with provinces and territories — absolutely, 100%.
Senator Osler: Thank you, minister, for joining us here today. Clause 9 of the bill covers payments made under the proposed benefit. Paragraph 9(d) states that the benefit is subject to garnishment pursuant to the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act.
I have two questions. First, why would a benefit that isn’t income be subject to such a garnishment? Second, why not align the issue of garnishment to that found in the individual provinces or territories so that if a similar provincial or territorial benefit is subject to garnishment then this would be as well, and vice versa?
Ms. Qualtrough: I’m going to pass this more technical question over to Ms. Wilcox in a second. But at a very high level, senator, this is modelled after An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement) to have uniformity of treatment of the benefit across provinces and territories so as not to have a person’s income treated differently in different jurisdictions. Did I get that right?
Krista Wilcox, Director General, Office for Disability Issues, Employment and Social Development Canada: Yes.
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you. Do you have more to add?
Ms. Wilcox: Yes. The other reason we’ve included this is that it’s consistent across federal benefits in general, so not just the GIS, but other federal benefits that are similar — that is, while keeping in mind the intent behind this which is about women and ensuring that they receive income in the instances when there is a family order in place. It’s consistent across our policies. For example, income tax is treated the same way, as is the GST credit, and this is consistent with that. It’s for the protection of women and children in more vulnerable conditions, likely also living in poverty.
Senator Osler: Minister, clause 14 of Bill C-22 has a coming-into-force provision of no later than the first anniversary of the day on which it receives Royal Assent.
You mentioned next steps included working on the regulations, but has your department begun work on the regulations regarding eligibility in anticipation of the bill coming into force? When can Canadians expect to start receiving the Canada disability benefit?
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you for those important questions. I will answer the second one first. We can’t guarantee when, for example, this bill will receive Royal Assent, which means I can’t tell you when the regulatory process will commence or when it will end. Let’s assume that the day after Royal Assent, the regulatory process timeline kicks in. Based on all the work we’ve done already — that is, the massive consultations, the surveys, the funding of national organizations to reach out to their members and their communities to get input — we anticipate a 12-month regulatory timeline. We always have to balance the need to meaningfully engage with the desire to get money out the door and into people’s pockets. Assuming that timeline is what it is, which is our best estimate, after the regulations come into effect, we can quickly thereafter deliver the benefit.
What I have been saying consistently is the benefit will be delivered in 2024. Again, it depends on when Royal Assent starts that 12-month period.
Senator Cotter: Thank you, minister, for being with us today. Yesterday, all my Senate colleagues and I received a letter from over 800 individual signatories and 238 organizations and experts representing the disability community urging the Senate to advance Bill C-22 without delay or amendment. In particular, the letter states:
We believe these processes will be undertaken in good faith by government stakeholders and people with disabilities in the construction of the benefit. We are looking forward to seizing this historic opportunity for an accessible and inclusive regulations-development process. The bill itself speaks to that.
In light of this, can you elaborate on how this regulatory process will unfold and whether you agree it’s a more appropriate means to advance and address these legitimate concerns rather than amendments to the bill at this stage?
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you, senator. Absolutely, it’s my preferred way forward. That’s how we are structuring this process. I can assure you all there will be a rigorous and transparent regulatory process involving the disability community. That has been my promise and commitment from the beginning. Thanks to amendments in the House, which I strongly believe created more parliamentary oversight and more community collaboration requirements, we have to report back to both houses within 6 months on the extent to which we have engaged with the disability community and we have to report back to both houses within 12 months regarding what regulations have been put into place and their status. Those are excellent tools for oversight, but we have a massive, thorough process that will involve round tables, technical briefings and a public comment period. The idea is that, by sitting across from the disability community, rolling up our sleeves and working all this out, we will get the best input on what this should look like and how we can avoid any potential challenges or barriers in its development.
I think the disability community has been saying, “Trust us. We’ve got this.” I will be at the table and we’ll be at the table with them and we’ll build on all the work that we have done together over eight years. This has been a trust-building exercise that started with the Accessible Canada Act in the most accessible and inclusive consultations ever undertaken in the country. We have grown from there as a community.
Senator Moodie: Thank you, Minister Qualtrough. It is great to see you again. My question is related to process concerns. Will there be a role for physicians or health care providers as it relates to this bill? Currently, a certificate must be completed by a health care provider in order for a person to apply for the Disability Tax Credit, or DTC, a process that is not without its issues. There is a lack of clarity, limitations on eligibility criteria, considerable amounts of time spent on paperwork and so on.
How do you propose that this process will be adjusted to improve the efficiency and maximize its success for individuals as it relates to Bill C-22 and the Canada disability benefit?
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you, senator. I think you have hit on an important piece of work that needs to be done, namely the community engagement and support needed to ensure that people can access this benefit, whatever eligibility criteria are eventually put in place, including having some kind of certification like the DTC and making sure that we work with the community to put in place those types of measures. For example, we’ve recently expanded the types of medical professionals that can fill out a DTC application. More professionals can now do this, so people have options in terms of getting that documentation filled out.
We are also talking to provinces and territories about a joint application where that makes sense. For example, you wouldn’t have to go to your doctor twice. If you were applying for one, you would fill out the second form at the same time. It would be seamless from the user’s experience.
Access to a physician is a concern for all of us. In honest and open disclosure, I must tell you that right now you have to pay to get the form filled out for the DTC. That’s a barrier as well. We’re looking at ways to reduce these barriers through mechanisms such as organizations providing clinics to their members where doctors can process multiple recipients at the same time, or undertaking awareness campaigns, education campaigns and funding tax clinics so people can file taxes so they can access these benefits if it’s a DTC.
We have a number of ideas. In fact, most of them were given to us by the disability community to ensure that, coupled with the work we’re doing technically, we are doing community support and engagement that will ensure everyone who is eligible for this can access it.
Senator Moodie: Will this work on regulations include health care providers, and those groups that you have identified?
Ms. Qualtrough: I apologize — in terms of the consultations, yes, it will.
Senator Kutcher: It’s lovely to see you again, minister. Thank you for being with us today and for all the incredible work that you have been doing in this important area.
Could you share with us what work has already been done or is ongoing in discussions with provinces and territories around this regulatory approach that will give us a bit of comfort that this framework model is actually one that has a good chance of working?
Ms. Qualtrough: Yes — so much work. We are very tired. We have been working very hard from the get-go with provinces and territories on this. It started with an FPT ministerial meeting where we explained this idea and that we wanted to introduce this legislation. It would mean all of us working together, understanding that everyone around the table had different eligibility criteria and different approaches to benefit structures. We had to figure out a way to have a national benefit on top of it all that didn’t vary across provinces and territories and that, like every other federal benefit, it was the same whatever province or territory you lived in.
That resulted in a lot of work at the officials level, which culminated in this work plan I talked about, which is an FPT work plan that every province and territory has signed onto with us, where there is research being done on benefit interaction, environmental scans being done to see where things are consistent and what other services and supports you might have access to that we want to make sure you still have access to.
There have been a lot of elections in the provinces and territories. I have spoken with more provincial and territorial ministers in the past year and a half than I can even count. I regularly talk with my colleagues, and they are very grateful for this early interaction, whether it’s, “I will need, minister, to amend my regulations to add this to the side of the ledger where this is not considered in benefit calculation;” “I will need to amend legislation” or “I will need to introduce legislation.”
In some provinces, you are eligible for disability supports by virtue of affiliation to an organization, and that would be it. If you are a member of X organization, you are considered eligible. Obviously, that’s not consistent across the country, so we’re really digging in on this.
Ms. Wilcox, have I missed anything?
Ms. Wilcox: The only thing I would add is we have been working with provinces and territories to build a microsimulation model, which is, essentially, a model that will allow us to look at the interaction between provincial-territorial and federal benefits. Right now we don’t have that data, and we have been able to secure agreements from six provinces to provide data to Statistics Canada, which will allow us, in designing the benefit, to really look at, as we design it, what the interactions will be with provincial-territorial benefits. This will be a long-term policy gain in the field of disability across the board, so when provinces change their benefits they can also look at how it will impact their citizens and how it compares to other provincial governments as well.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I will ask my question in French. Of course, you can answer in the language of your choice.
Thank you very much, minister, for being with us today, and thank you for all the work you do.
As many have said, this is a bill that fills us with hope. At the same time, because of its nature, it is a framework that leaves many question marks. One of my concerns is what people have told you in consultations about the importance of this benefit, a benefit that is associated with the person living with a disability and not dependent on income differences in a family unit.
I ask the question, because we know that a person living with a disability can sometimes also be in a vulnerable situation, and this is even truer when we talk about women with disabilities. What is your perspective on this?
[English]
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you for the question. This is an important conversation and an issue that’s very close to the hearts of many people with disabilities across this country, and it’s a really good example of an issue that is best determined through regulation because of its complexity.
We really need to understand benefit interaction at the deeply technical level to understand how benefits will be calculated. In some provinces, it’s individually; in some provinces, it’s based on family income and in some provinces, it’s based on household income. It’s about understanding, if I have no income and my spouse makes $150,000, how that works in my province and then how we layer a federal regulatory scheme on top of that; understanding, for a 45-year-old with a severe disability who gets provincial benefits living with their parents, that their income isn’t calculated for the purpose of the provincial benefit and how that will impact their entitlement at the federal level; understanding the example of two individuals who are married both getting the federal benefit and provincial benefits — at the provincial level, their benefits may or may not be impacted by the fact that their spouse is also getting provincial benefits; if those two same people were roommates, their income would be treated differently.
This is a perfect example of why we need the data Ms. Wilcox is talking about and why we need to work through this in the regulatory process and really listen and be respectful of the disability community’s wishes on this. The honest answer is that we don’t know yet because we will work through it with the regulations, but this is probably the best example of the complexity. I don’t know how I would legislate what I just said. We would have to do it through regulation.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Bernard: Thank you, minister, for being here with us this afternoon. My question has to do with invisibility, which seems to be an important topic to bring up here today.
In work that I have done with African Nova Scotians with disabilities, I have repeatedly heard that disability justice issues are invisible in Black community struggles, and I’ve also heard and know from literature on this topic that race equity issues are not really addressed very well in disability communities. My question would be this: How have issues of intersectionality and race equity been addressed as you have been working with communities to develop this bill? And when you talk about meaningful engagement with disability communities after the passing of this bill, how will issues of intersectionality and the invisibility of race equity issues in disability discussions be taken up?
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you for that important question. We are taking an intersectional approach to this work. We have met with — and I hope I pronounce it right — ASE Community Foundation for Black Canadians with Disability. We’ve met with Indigenous Disability Canada. We are meeting with DAWN Canada, the DisAbled Women’s Network, who have a particular focus and funding to put an intersectional lens on government policy and decisions and advise us how we can best do that. I won’t weigh in on how bad it would be if we didn’t do this work, but we are doing the work.
Ms. Wilcox: We had a round table with racialized persons with disabilities as part of our pre-engagement, and we heard from them specifically about some of the concerns they had in the design of the benefit but also, in particular, around the implementation and some of the key issues they saw. I have a statistic to share with you: 40% of Black persons with disabilities are living in poverty, so we know that racialized persons with disabilities are much more likely to be living in deep poverty than other Canadians. It is an important issue on which we will continue to work with a number of our partners as we design this.
Senator Bernard: I invite you to keep in mind that, when we look at these issues across the country, they vary significantly. Those in rural and remote communities have very different experiences to those in large urban centres.
Ms. Qualtrough: Perhaps we can lean on you for advice. I would be interested to make sure we’re talking to the people you’re talking to.
Senator Bernard: I would be happy to do that.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, minister, for your comments today. I still remember Bill C-81 as well. It was the first amendment I made to a bill, so I remember it. It was accepted by the Senate and then accepted by the government, so I have a very good memory on that.
Thank you for being here. My questions relate further to the topic of eligibility that you were talking about earlier. The bill does say that eligibility is going to be set out by the regulations, but I want to probe it a little further.
We have eligibility requirements with respect to income criteria. There have to be eligibility requirements with respect to who is eligible by way of their ability — so, persons with disabilities.
I want you to start with the second one. I’m trying to understand. I know that over the years Statistics Canada has changed in terms of how it defines disability. I want to understand what definition you use with respect to this. Is there a Statistics Canada definition that fits with this or intersects with what you’re doing, or are you going to be creating new definitions in some way?
Also, as the second part of this, I understand that the concept of disability is an evolving social construct. I’m pretty sure I know what that means, but I would like to hear what you think that means and how that impacts the definition of disability. Start with the data and how these two aspects of eligibility intersect or interact with each other.
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you. Someone will have to mind the time with me on this one. We spent a lot of time in our consultations around the ACA — the Accessible Canada Act. I am thrilled that your first amendment was to the ACA; that’s lovely.
We came up with the definition of “disability” in the Accessible Canada Act based on the definition within the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It’s incredibly broad. It includes permanent, temporary, episodic and mental health, and it speaks to disability as the relationship and interaction of an impairment and a barrier.
That definition, under my mandate letter from the Prime Minister, will infiltrate the Government of Canada’s work, and it has started to. You will perhaps know that one of the amendments made in the House to Bill C-22 was to incorporate that definition into Bill C-22. That is the definition of “disability” that the Government of Canada is using, and it’s really beyond even the social model of disability.
So, of course, historically, we have the medical model, moving into the social model. This is an almost an identity model type of definition of “disability.” As someone who identifies as a person with a disability, it is not for my government to tell me that I don’t have a disability. However, it may be for my government to tell me that I make too much money to get this benefit or it may be for my government to put other parameters on eligibility, but trying to move constructively to a kind of social identity model is how I would more philosophically describe it.
That being said, the reality right now is we don’t have a list or a bucket of people with disabilities who meet that definition or, quite frankly, even access federal government programs and services that are disability related. One of the challenges we faced during the pandemic was that we desperately wanted to do a one-time payment for people, but we didn’t have a list of people. I can tell you every kid under the age of 16 and every senior over the age of 65. I can’t give you a list of people with disabilities; we don’t have that data.
During COVID, we merged a list of people who were receiving the Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit with a list of people receiving the Veterans Affairs Disability Benefit and with a list of people who were eligible for the Disability Tax Credit, and we paid the one-time benefit to that list of people.
Senator Burey: It is a pleasure to be here. Your enthusiasm is infectious. I can see the amount of work — in fact, I can feel the amount of work and energy that you’ve put in. As a pediatrician who has worked over the years with many children requiring me to fill out many disability forms, I am very intimately acquainted with the processes, the barriers, et cetera.
My eminent colleagues have asked many of the questions I wanted to ask. I’m going to drill down a little bit on a sort of money question. Recognizing that a benefit amount has not yet been determined, what has the federal government projected as the total cost for the program annually? Has the Parliamentary Budget Officer — the PBO — been involved in this costing of the program? Of course, I’m always interested in looking at the potential returns on this investment because, as we know, this is an investment knowing the mental and physical health benefits of reducing poverty. Take it away, minister.
Ms. Qualtrough: First of all, thank you for recognizing that this is an investment because it absolutely is. We know that when people are able to live with dignity, confidence and security, financially and otherwise, there are a lot more choices out there for everyone.
I will put on my employment minister hat on for a second. We are missing out on so much talent and creativity and innovation in this country when we don’t access people with disabilities in anything that we do, but I will say employment for my case.
In terms of the cost of this, we’ve worked with the PBO on methodology for the benefit, but we don’t have costing of it primarily because we don’t have the numbers yet. Part of the regulatory process will be, as the work with the provinces and territories is going on, to figure out how our benefits will interact. Discussions with the community will occur.
The way I look at this benefit as a model is this: We have for seniors the OAS and the GIS. For persons with disabilities, the OAS component is the provincial-territorial benefit system. We are the GIS equivalent. We give the money that goes on top of that for people who earn below a certain level of income to raise them out of poverty. For example, we know that the official poverty lines in the country are regional, but they vary between $19,000 and $25,000. I have said this is modelled after the GIS. We know how much people get annually on the GIS. We know what people get for CPP disability and we know the provincial disability support amounts. We are trying to bridge that gap between the poverty line and what people get in their various provinces. That’s the ballpark that we’re working with.
Again, we haven’t landed on figures. That will be determined through budget processes, and that will be soon — but I’m not speaking for the finance minister when I say that, so please don’t quote me. We don’t have a lot to fund right now, so it will not be imminent, but our commitment to deliver this by the end of 2024 will require a budget decision. You know the budget cycle. I have to be very careful, five days before the budget, when talking about somebody else’s job that isn’t mine. That’s probably the best I can describe the math in all of this.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. I have a question posed by Senator McPhedran, who is a member of this committee but was unable to join us. It has to do with the codified right to appeal a denial of financial assistance through this benefit. She asks:
In comparison to, let’s say, the OAS, which has a right to appeal, or the EI Act, Employment Insurance Act, which has a right to appeal, or the Canada Dental Benefit which has a right to appeal, why is there no codified right to appeal in this act?
Ms. Qualtrough: I’m happy to inform the senator that there will be an appeal process. It will be set up through the regulatory process, again, making sure that it is responsive to the ultimate design of the benefit and who’s eligible and the specifics of the eligibility criteria. Every other federal benefit has an appeals process. We will model this one after those, and there will absolutely be an appeal process, 100%.
The Chair: Minister, I want to thank you on behalf of all my committee members for your presence and your willingness and openness to answer all our questions. Ms. Wilcox and Mr. Ram, thank you as well for being with us. If there are any unanswered questions from my colleagues, Ms. Wilcox, perhaps you have taken note and you can get back to us in writing.
Ms. Qualtrough: Thank you all. I’m so happy.
The Chair: We are happy that you are happy as well. Happiness needs to be spread in the universe, not just in the Senate.
Colleagues, we will turn now to our next panel.
We welcome in person, from March of Dimes Canada, Len Baker, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Amanda MacKenzie, National Director, Public Affairs. And by video conference, we welcome Krista Carr, Executive Vice-President of Inclusion Canada; and Margaret Eaton, National Chief Executive Officer with the Canadian Mental Health Association. Thank you all for being with us today.
I remind you that you will have five minutes allocated for opening statements, followed by questions from our members.
Len Baker, President and Chief Executive Officer, March of Dimes Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for welcoming me and Ms. MacKenzie here today.
March of Dimes Canada is a leading national charity and service provider for people with disabilities, assisting thousands of Canadians to live independently in their homes across our country every day. More information about March of Dimes Canada can be found in my full testimony and you can learn more about us on our website.
The Canada disability benefit is a generational opportunity that will help working-age people with disabilities in Canada live independently. The need for this benefit is urgent and must remain a priority. As one of our focus group participants told us:
This is an emergency for those not able to cover expenses. CERB was an emergency; this is an even bigger emergency. People with disabilities have been living in dire poverty and waiting year after year.
Put simply, disability poverty is a national crisis we can no longer ignore. The Canada disability benefit will be an income redistribution mechanism, creating equity for working-age people with disabilities, a mechanism that children, seniors and others have long benefited from. It is a long-term solution to a long-term problem.
March of Dimes Canada and many other organizations support the framework approach to the bill as it is deeply aligned with the principle of “Nothing About Us Without Us.” It provides working-age people with disabilities inclusive and accessible opportunities to participate in the design and detail of a benefit specifically targeted to them.
We know it’s vital that people with disabilities have meaningful and accessible opportunities to provide input into decisions affecting their lives. All too often they have been left out. The voices and experiences of people with disabilities must shape this historic law that will shape their futures. This is the very essence of democracy. This framework approach supports this principle without compromising accountability. Clause 11(1) of the bill, coupled with our confidence in the minister’s stated commitment to co-creation, will work to ensure the regulations process is meaningful, inclusive and accessible. We are excited about this opportunity to participate and will facilitate inclusion in the regulations process. We expect that the minister will conclude regulations development before the legislated deadline for the one-year report.
I would like to turn our attention to a specific element of the bill — clause 11(1)(f) — requiring regulations to ensure the benefit’s application process is barrier free. March of Dimes Canada partnered with Prosper Canada in a multi-stakeholder co‑creation session to generate recommendations for policy‑makers on an accessible, barrier-free application process. I would like to highlight for you some of the key recommendations.
First, the benefits application and administrative design must incorporate the lived experience of people with disabilities, meeting or exceeding person-centred accessibility standards, considering foremost those who are the hardest to reach and face the most barriers. Second, the design of the application and administrative process must strive for simplicity, reducing documentary burdens on applicants. And finally, the benefit’s application process must be equitable and foster dignity and navigational support that must be available for those who need it.
This leads directly to ensuring those eligible are prepared to receive the Canada disability benefit on day one. We are working to raise awareness and increase uptake of existing statutory entitlements like the Disability Tax Credit to promote tax filing. Almost certainly, the easiest method of accessing the Canada disability benefit will be automatic assessment for tax filers with a DTC certificate. We are working on solutions for benefit access and uptake for all people with disabilities in Canada, focusing on those who face the most barriers and facilitating trust so that no one is left behind.
To conclude, we have committed to concrete actions, including creating resources connecting people to free services in their community, holding combined DTC and tax filing clinics and submitting a funding proposal to bring community stakeholders and government together to create an action plan to address benefit accessibility, benefit uptake and financial literacy and empowerment.
March of Dimes Canada urges the swift as passage of this historic legislation with recommended observations on page 6 of our testimony.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Baker, for your opening remarks.
Krista Carr, Executive Vice-President, Inclusion Canada:
Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak to Bill C-22.
I am joining you today from the traditional and unceded territory of the Wolastoqiyik and Passamaquoddy people.
I am very happy to be a part of this critical discussion and the advancement of this foundational legislation to create Canada’s first ever national disability benefit.
The organization I represent, Inclusion Canada, was formed over 60 years ago. We are a national federation of 13 provincial-territorial member associations and over 300 local associations, and we have more than 40,000 members across the country supporting people with an intellectual disability and their families.
Financial security for individuals with intellectual disabilities and their families has been a priority issue for our organization for many years. The creation of a Canada disability benefit has been a long time coming. We must give Bill C-22 our full attention and move quickly to pass this framework legislation so that we can get to the regulations and get this benefit into the hands of people with disabilities. They simply cannot wait any longer.
Bill C-22 is a historic opportunity to address the income insecurity of people with disabilities in Canada. It is important to get it right. Past governments have prioritized the reduction of poverty for seniors and children with Old Age Security and the Canada Child Benefit. It is high time that our government prioritized the reduction of poverty for working-age people with disabilities with the Canada disability benefit.
Canadians with disabilities and their families face staggering rates of poverty that are inexcusable in a country like Canada. In Canada, 22% of people have a disability, with more than 40% living in poverty. When we pull back the layers of this data and specifically look at people with intellectual disabilities, the rates are far worse: 73% of working-age adults with an intellectual disability who live on their own are living in poverty compared to 23% of those in the same age cohorts among the general population. This is really unacceptable.
Bill C-22 sends a clear message to people with disabilities that this country will no longer allow them to struggle to live a life with dignity. How we treat people with disabilities in our society reflects our values as a nation, and we have a real opportunity to do better.
We support Bill C-22 as framework legislation, and we urge senators to prioritize it and pass it into law as soon as possible, with the commitment that the disability community will be at the table in the drafting of the regulations.
We know that some have suggested that Bill C-22 should contain more details regarding the design of the benefit and that it should be amended to clarify the technical elements. Although I understand the motivations behind this, we believe firmly that the House of Commons has already passed several amendments that have strengthened the bill. For example, there is the amendment passed by the lower house that commits the government to working directly with the disability community on the development of the regulations and requires the government to report back to Parliament within six months on how that was done. We will hold the government to that commitment.
I want the members of this committee and, indeed, all senators to know how very much we respect the role of the Senate in the parliamentary system and its function to ensure that legislation passed by the lower house is sound public policy. We understand the Senate’s role in providing due diligence to every bill that is sent to it from the House of Commons.
It is true that the Senate, in its wisdom, often does make legislation stronger, but our position, as well as that of hundreds of other disability organizations, is that Bill C-22 is a solid foundational piece of legislation, and the amendments passed by the other house do make the bill stronger. Our concern is that any substantive amendments proposed by the Senate at this juncture will delay the passing of the bill, and people with disabilities can’t wait any longer. Our view is that we have an opportunity before us now to get framework legislation enacted into law. Yes, there are lots of details to work out, but we feel that, in the spirit of “Nothing Without Us,” it is the disability community that should be at the table with government working through these during the regulatory process.
Senators, in closing, you have an opportunity to make a historic impact on the lives of people with disabilities in this country. Please do everything in your power to ensure that this bill passes quickly so we can get on to the design work to get this benefit into the hands of those who desperately need it.
No one in Canada should have to live a life in poverty, especially as a result of having a disability. Let’s get this done.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Carr.
Margaret Eaton, National Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Mental Health Association: Thank you so much. We’re pleased to be with you today to bring the concerns of CMHA and people with lived and living experience of mental illness to this committee.
The Canadian Mental Health Association is the most established extensive community mental health network in Canada, providing advocacy, programs and resources that prevent mental-health problems and illnesses, and support recovery. We reach 330 communities in every province and the Yukon, engage 11,000 volunteers and employ over 7,000 staff.
We commend the federal government for recognizing that many people with disabilities live in poverty, including people with mental illnesses. Of the over 6 million people in Canada with a disability, over 2 million have a mental-health-related disability. Mental disorders are frequently cited as the most disabling illness affecting working people, and mental-health concerns account for the majority of short- and long-term disability claims in workplaces. Many people living with a mental-health-related disability are living in poverty and are also unable to afford basic supports like counselling and psychotherapy, which are not covered by our health care system.
We truly applaud the creation of Bill C-22, but we also have some real concerns with the legislation because many crucial aspects of the benefit will be implemented by regulations and not by legislation. Regulations can be vulnerable to shifting political priorities, and if it’s not legislated, it means that future governments can make unilateral changes without requiring parliamentary oversight.
So we want to ensure that recommendations made by the disability community are baked into the legislation. We have four recommendations.
The first recommendation is timelines. The legislation does not impose a deadline for the government to develop the regulations or establish the benefit. People living with disabilities who live in poverty cannot wait. We recommend the legislation be amended to set a clear deadline of 10 months for cabinet to establish the regulations and one year to begin disbursements.
The second recommendation is clawbacks. This benefit is intended to supplement and not replace disability assistance that Canadians receive from federal, provincial-territorial or private sources. Those folks must navigate the complex system of various benefits, tax credits and income and social supports. Those benefits are not always harmonized or complementary at different levels of government, which can result in clawbacks, delays or even the denial of benefits. We recommend adding explicit provisions that prohibit benefit deductions or offsets by other levels of government and by private insurance providers.
The third recommendation is regarding adequacy. Will this funding be enough, and will it keep pace with inflation? Rarely do supports reflect the expensive costs of living with a disability. Bill C-22 is not indexed to inflation, although there is the recommendation that the Governor-in-Council must consider the Poverty Reduction Act’s official poverty line. It is imperative that the legislation include wording similar to the Old Age Security Act that guarantees, rather than considers, adjustments for inflation.
Finally, the fourth recommendation is around eligibility. The bill states that regulations may distinguish among different classes of applicants and beneficiaries. A mental illness, when it hinders a person’s full and equal participation in society, is recognized as a disability. However, some people with mental illness have been denied benefits because of the episodic nature of their disability. For example, the experience of bipolar disorder may be characterized by periods of severe illness and then sometimes wellness. We would welcome wording that acknowledges the different kinds of disabilities as defined under the Accessible Canada Act to ensure the full accessibility of the benefit for people with mental illnesses.
In conclusion, CMHA strongly agrees with the government’s statement that no person with a disability should live in poverty. We look forward to the implementation of this legislation, but we also hope that all Canadians who need the benefit will be able to access it. We know that $1.7 billion in social benefits go unclaimed each year because of barriers that prevent many low‑income and vulnerable people from applying. We urge the government to dedicate resources to ensure access, including introducing free automatic tax filing for simple returns.
Finally, we urge the government to provide universal mental health care to ensure that all of us, including people with mental‑health-related disabilities, have access to free mental health and substance-use care. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Eaton. We will now go to questions starting with Senator Bovey, deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Bovey: I’d like to thank all our witnesses. I very much appreciate the perspectives that you’ve given us and the way that you’ve articulated them.
My question is for Mr. Baker and the work you do with the March of Dimes Canada. I applaud you.
Some words have come up this afternoon. You used the words “generational opportunity.” The word “dignity” has also come up a couple of times. I think these two concepts have been talked about a lot with the community I’ve been engaging with regarding Bill C-22. I’m told one of the most important aspects of this intergenerational piece of legislation is the cross‑provincial aspect of it. That is, someone can move from one part of the country to another to be able to live near or with family and the benefit carries on. It doesn’t stop at a provincial boundary.
There’s a concern that, for many of the provincial benefits, a person moving from one province to another is then put on a waiting list for the provincial benefit, which could take up to five years. This has been seen by the groups with whom I’ve spoken as being one of its most important aspects, namely, the cross‑provincial aspect of it. That is what makes it a generational opportunity to many.
Can you discuss this and the benefit of it from your perspective and its importance on the whole?
Mr. Baker: We have a patchwork of programs and services for people with disabilities in our country. I think the minister referenced that in her comments with regard to working with the provinces to ensure that, as we identify and define the amount of money that individuals will receive, we are actually working to lift people out of poverty.
Many individuals in our country have to relocate to other areas, for example to larger centres, in order to find employment or to find the supportive services they need.
March of Dimes Canada, through our efforts, is committed to identifying means to provide consistency to the lived experience of people with disabilities in our country. This legislation speaks very well to our intent and our concern that people should not be discriminated upon based on their postal code. Services and opportunities in our country need to have a level of consistency and support that defy provincial borders.
We’re very much in agreement with what the minister said about the importance of negotiating at the provincial level to bring a consistency to this opportunity and to ensure that Canadians, regardless of where they live in our country, can live above the poverty line and with respect and dignity.
Senator Bovey: I appreciate the concerns that we’re hearing about clawbacks. Well, I don’t appreciate them, but I think it’s a very serious issue.
I think it was Ms. Eaton who had one of the recommendations about clawbacks. Could you send us what you think would be an appropriate amendment? I get the sense that we don’t want too many amendments, or we don’t want amendments that will slow it down, but we want to make it work.
Could you please send the clerk what you think would be appropriate wording for an amendment to deal with clawbacks?
Ms. Eaton: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Seidman: Thank you to all our witnesses for their really helpful presentations. They’re especially helpful in putting forward the real challenges faced by members of the disability community.
I remember well the hearings we had on the Disability Tax Credit and listening to the myriad issues across the country and the complexities of applications. These are important hearings.
I also remember the important amendments the Senate made to the Accessible Canada Act, and that didn’t slow down the legislation in the least. They weren’t frivolous amendments and the House accepted them readily — just to remind us that if there’s work to be done here, we’re here to do it, and our ears are wide open.
I would like to ask a question of March of Dimes Canada, to Mr. Baker and Ms. MacKenzie, if I might. You conducted a survey in 2020. One of your key recommendations is that income testing for the benefit be individually based. In fact, you had participants in your consultations who expressed that they do not receive benefits because living with a partner disqualifies them. They rely on their partner to cover the cost of necessities of life. Others shared knowing people who are staying in toxic relationships or family situations simply because they do not have their own money to leave.
I would like to know if the feedback you’ve heard on this point has changed in the intervening years since 2020. Also, I wish to remind ourselves that officials did tell HUMA — the House of Commons Human Resources Committee — that this aspect of the benefit was deliberately left to the regulations because there’s disagreement in the disability community on this point.
Do you think a consensus can be reached on this?
Mr. Baker: I hope it can. I will let Amanda to speak to that because she led our work on it and will have more technical information.
Amanda MacKenzie, National Director, Public Affairs, March of Dimes Canada: I think the household, family or spousal income versus individual income considerations are an essential question. If this benefit is going to do what it says, namely, facilitate dignity, independence and lift people out of poverty, individual income is the only acceptable answer to that question.
Since our survey in 2020, that has only grown. We’ve done a number of focus groups. We just did a set of seven in addition to the four we did previously for the Disability Inclusion Action Plan. The focus on individual income is essential. It could be a young person living at home assuming an individual income would enable them to strike out on their own. It could be somebody in a toxic relationship who needs to escape domestic violence. Regardless of what spousal income is, it could be an adult living at home; it could be an adult living in a marriage situation as well. We see individual income and individual choice in a number of different federal benefits, programs and services, and this has to be one of them.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, senators, for directing your question to individual witnesses. That’s extremely helpful.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all of the witnesses. My question is open to all three witnesses, whoever would like to answer.
Clause 12 of Bill C-22 requires that “a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both” conduct a parliamentary review of the Canada disability benefit act and of its administration and operation as soon as feasible after the first anniversary of coming into force, the third anniversary, and after each subsequent fifth anniversary.
In your opinion, what aspects of the bill should be included in the reviews?
Mr. Baker: We’ll start and I’m sure Ms. Carr and Ms. Eaton will chime in.
If the intent is to help lift Canadians with disabilities out of poverty, and if we are seeing this as an investment to enable people with disabilities to be able to contribute to our communities and to be able to live life to the fullest, there has to be an expectation, through the types of indicators that we’re getting back from government, that it’s achieving that goal. There have to be some metrics available for us to be able to demonstrate that the number of Canadians with disabilities actually living in poverty has been reduced.
I would also like to think that, through these efforts, we would be potentially opening more opportunities for people with disabilities to participate in the labour market. By reducing some of the financial barriers that people may encounter by actually going to work — for example, the cost of daycare, transportation and other things that could be offset through this benefit — we could actually help more people with disabilities, who, as the minister said, have the skills and the capabilities of contributing to our labour market to a higher extent, enter the labour market.
Ms. Eaton: In addition, we know that income is a huge predictor as a social determinant of mental health. As one of those metrics, we would be looking at the alleviation of symptoms. The impact of this bill should be that, in fact, people are better able to manage and live with their mental illness and the improvement of symptoms should come as a result. We know income is vitally important for physical health and mental health, so we would look forward to hearing from people with lived experience of mental illness as this bill rolls out.
Ms. Carr: We would also want to pay attention to how easy people are finding the process. Can they actually get access to the benefit? And if, for some reason, they start earning enough income that they are able to receive less of the benefit or go off the benefit, but then they need to go back on the benefit because of loss of employment or other circumstances that may happen, are they able to come in and out in a way that is helpful and increases their ability to have autonomy? I think we want to pay attention to that, as well as all the determinants of health, how they are impacted and how people’s overall quality of life is better.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I will ask my question in French. Of course, you can answer in the language of your choice. I have a fairly simple question; I would ideally like an answer from each group.
We are told that this bill is a framework that asks us to trust the regulations that are coming. The bill itself, as amended, is quite specific about the fact that organizations and individuals with disabilities will be part of the process. This is indeed reassuring. Minister Qualtrough, who was with us earlier, talked a lot about the quantity and quality of the consultations that have already taken place, as well as the process that is already quite advanced. Have you been part of those consultations? What has been the nature and depth of those consultations directly related to Bill C-22?
[English]
Ms. MacKenzie: Thank you for the question. It’s a good one. March of Dimes Canada has been a participant in a number of different consultation processes over the last two and a half years since the benefit was announced in September 2020. Certainly, as part of the Disability Inclusion Action Plan, we worked with our colleagues at Inclusion Canada and held a number of focus groups to feed into that process. We have consulted with our own community, our client community, and encouraged them to participate in lots of different processes. We are very comfortable and confident in Minister Qualtrough and her office and her department’s commitment to co-creation over the next amount of time — hopefully about a year — of the regulations that are required under the act. It is certainly a process that we’re very confident will be co-created with the diversity of the disability community.
The Chair: Ms. Carr, we are unable to hear you appropriately so that interpretation services can be provided, so I will suggest that if you have a response to the question, kindly send it into us in writing.
Ms. Eaton: Thank you very much. We were not consulted in the creation of this bill, which was concerning in that we see that so many people with mental illness have a disability and would be covered under this type of legislation. So we were delighted to get this invitation to join the Senate, but we are definitely concerned that the voice of mental illness has not been part of the development of the bill.
Senator Cotter: Thank you very much. I have a question I wanted to ask each of our three witnesses, but first I’d just like to make this observation, because this is an enriching experience, I think, for all of us to be here. We get to attach “honourable” in front of our names and, with luck, get to keep it until we drop dead. It’s a different issue for us. I apologize. What I want to say is that the work that you do on behalf of your communities of interest is truly honourable, and I am, as all of us are, so appreciative.
There are so many questions, but it would be helpful to understand, as of today, how well-positioned people are in the communities that you represent who have mental health challenges or disabilities to be able to make their way through even an average process to achieve the benefit. Maybe, Ms. Carr, you could send a note. Could I add a supplementary question of Ms. Wilcox? I am curious to know what the words are on the sign behind you. I can’t quite read them. Maybe you can send that into us.
The other is a somewhat more serious question. Maybe I could start with Mr. Baker.
Mr. Baker: I am sorry. I lost the thread of your question.
Senator Cotter: It is all my fault.
It was about the degree to which communities of interest and individual people are well enough positioned and whether there is help for them to be able to complete the process to get the benefit online for them.
Mr. Baker: History has shown that applying for different programming, government or not, has proven to be fraught for persons with disabilities in terms of accessibility, whether it is people with vision loss or hearing impairment or physical disabilities trying to access forms, or people with intellectual disabilities. In the work that we have been leading as an organization — and, as I mentioned in my introductory notes, with Prosper Canada — we have been holding focus groups with Canadians with disabilities across Canada and have provided the minister with an interim report with some recommendations. I was happy to hear her echo some of the recommendations that came from that report in her comments to the committee.
The work in regard to ensuring there isn’t a heavy financial cost or burden for individuals to be able to apply for the benefit has to be topmost in our minds. I know the CRA has been doing some work to help make the application process easier. We certainly, in our notes to the Senate and to the House of Commons, indicated that we as an organization have provided a lot of work in helping to make processes more accessible for people with disabilities in Canada, and we stand by ready to support that opportunity. If we do not have an easy, accessible platform that is devoid of a financial toll on individuals to have to pay to apply for the Disability Tax Credit — if that will be the gateway to the Canada disability benefit — then we failed, and we will leave people behind.
Senator Cotter: Can I get a short response from Ms. Eaton on the challenges for people with mental illness?
Ms. Eaton: We do, at CMHA local branches, provide support through case management for people with mental illness, but we know people are falling through the cracks if they have not been able to access CMHA’s service, and it is onerous for people with a mental illness to complete a lot of forms. So any efforts to make that easy would be appreciated.
Senator Kutcher: Thanks to all the witnesses for your presentations and also for the work that you do in improving the lives of persons with disabilities.
I will focus my two questions toward Ms. Eaton. Do you think it is important that the voices of persons with mental disorders be part of the regulatory development going forward? The second question is: You raised the issue of episodic illnesses and disability, and that is an important one, yet it may not be appreciated by everyone. Can you please elaborate on this issue as it relates to the bill?
Ms. Eaton: Thank you so much. Your first question was about whether it is important that people with lived experience of mental illness be part of the discussion, and there has been tremendous stigma over many years around people with mental illness. It’s very hard to be present at the table. When many people think about disability, they think about physical or intellectual disability, but they have forgotten about the importance of mental illness as part of this picture. People with lived experience have a great deal to add to the conversation. So many people with lived experience are living in poverty and are struggling to make ends meet. This bill could have a huge impact on their lives, so it would be very important to bring their voice to the table.
Second, you asked about episodic illness. I gave the example of bipolar, but there are many other major mental illnesses that can go into remission for a time or can respond to treatment and then suddenly you’ll find that treatment is not working as well as it did, which can cause relapse and make recovery difficult. It could also mean that people are experiencing their mental illness and need to step back to find new medication, take time to work with their therapist or psychiatrist, and they will not be able to work in that period. It doesn’t mean that just because you only have that occurrence episodically that you shouldn’t also have access to the benefit of this bill. This is another great reason why we need to hear from those voices as well.
Senator Dasko: Thanks to the witnesses. My question has to do with issues around the lack of awareness of the benefit. I know that a lot of people lack awareness of government programs, and people without disabilities lack awareness when it comes to those with disabilities and those in poverty. When we’re talking about awareness, there are challenges when it comes to learning about the programs. I’m not talking about the platforms. I’m talking about how you know it’s there in the first place.
What I would like to ask, Ms. Eaton and Mr. Baker especially, is: What can be done to raise awareness? First of all, what should the government be doing? Should the government be doing more, and what should they be doing? How do you raise awareness among particular target groups like this? Second, what role would your organizations play in this?
Mr. Baker: Thank you for the question. March of Dimes Canada, in our written submission and in the work that we’ve done in identifying ways to enhance awareness of the Canada disability benefit, has been holding focus groups, as I mentioned. There is a lot of work that can be done at the grassroots level by community organizations like ours, but they need to be supported in their efforts to ensure they have the right tools and information. The government could be providing that type of support to organizations so that when we are informing people with disabilities about the Canada disability benefit, the Registered Disability Savings Plan or the Ontario Disability Support Program — all of these programs, which particularly new Canadians or marginalized communities may not be necessarily aware of or even comfortable in applying for. We have been working to secure some funding to be able to do some campaigning to help more people become aware of this program and also other income support programs that could help more Canadians than is currently happening. We’re taking a real leadership role in that space.
Ms. Eaton: Similarly, CMHA reaches over 1.6 million Canadians dealing with mental health issues every year. We would see ourselves to be in an excellent position to reach out to people who would find this benefit of most use. It would certainly be useful if the federal government could also make tax filing much simpler so that those who would be eligible for the benefit would find it was automatically part of their benefits. They would just be triggered by automatic filing for their taxes. That means that you don’t have to necessarily go out and talk to people; the government can do it for you. As long as you are identifying as a person with a disability, you would automatically be eligible. We see that as being a key method to ensure people get access to the benefit.
Senator Bernard: I want to start by saying a huge thank you to each of our witnesses. Thank you for being here today, but more importantly, I want to thank you for the essential work that you do as community-based organizations in this sector every single day. As a social worker and during National Social Work Month, it is important for me to say that.
I have a particular interest in intersectionality and the intersection of race and disability. I know that many Indigenous people and many racialized people with disabilities have some challenges in accessing many community-based organizations that are providing services around disabilities. Many people have their own barriers because they don’t want to claim the disability identity. Do any of your organizations collect disaggregated data so that when you are talking about consultations that you have done that your consultations are addressing those issues of intersectionality?
Ms. MacKenzie: I would say that we’re very early in this process. We have been engaged in this for just for a couple of years and we’re not collecting disaggregated data in our focus groups that we have done so far. Certainly, that is something we are pursuing as it concerns the funding proposal that we have put forward for a summit to prepare people to receive the Canada disability benefit. That will require a lot of pre-work, including surveys and reaching out to our partners in other organizations and also reaching into racialized and low-income communities like our own in Thorncliffe Park in Toronto where our headquarters are located for the moment. It is about to be relocated somewhere else.
In preparing people to receive the Canada disability benefit, we need to understand what all of those issues are and we need to be able to work with the organizations that are well placed to address those issues. There are community organizations that are much closer to communities that are trusted allies and supports for people in marginalized, Indigenous, rural and remote communities around the country.
Ms. Eaton: Thank you so much for that question. We know that there is a mental health impact for racialized people and that microaggressions and racism absolutely affect people’s mental health. We do not collect disaggregated data in all of our CMHA local branches across the country, but it is something that we are now considering as we are seeing more deeply the impact of that racialized experience in people’s lives. Certainly, we know that it is harder to get help from your own racialized community with people who speak your own language, and this is certainly an area of concern and an area of work for us. Particularly in accessing this benefit, it means that we have to work harder to reach out to racialized and immigrant communities.
Senator Moodie: Thank you for being here today and helping us understand this area in more detail. I want to dig down more in terms of access. In order to receive this benefit, people with disabilities really will have to have filed their taxes. We’ve talked about that. About 10% to 12% of Canadians don’t file their taxes, particularly among low-income and vulnerable populations. Some of those are, as you describe it in your words, the hardest to reach with the most barriers. These are particularly women and people with disabilities.
I want to dig a little bit more into the role of tax simplification in ensuring benefits are more accessible to those who need them in the future. Can you give us examples of what this looks like? I know about jurisdictions like Denmark and Spain that have introduced similar types of changes to their tax systems to enable smooth and seamless access. Can you tell us what this actually looks like?
Ms. Eaton: I’m afraid this is not an area of expertise for me. I will definitely look at Denmark and Spain to see how they have implemented this. Thank you for that.
Ms. MacKenzie: I think the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, in the U.S. has a system where they are doing proactive tax filing for those with simple, low-risk tax situations. I’m unclear why we can’t do that here when it’s a simplified situation. There has been some community discussion about that; in fact, we had a meeting with Senator Forest this morning where we had this same discussion, given his area of interest as well.
When it comes to accessibility of the benefit through that system, there really needs to only be one way that people access the Canada disability benefit. We all know the Disability Tax Credit has its challenges, and it can be a distressing and traumatizing thing for people to go through — although it is certainly easier now than it was 18 months ago.
It’s a challenge, but I think we can get there. This is an issue where perhaps an observation that could be attached to the legislation.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
The Chair: If you have any more information on how the IRS does it, we would welcome that as well.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for all the hard work you are doing. Of course, this topic resonates with me. You see senators asking about access and barriers because all of us who do this work know that is the critical juncture where people are not able to get these services. I’m also thinking about the lessons from the pandemic, when we did not look into what was happening in marginalized communities and the fallout in the pandemic. I hear all this talk, saying, “Yes, we’re going to engage them; yes, we are doing surveys.” But I want to know specifically how you will do it up front so that people who are marginalized and living in poverty are not at the back end.
I know you have the organizations, but we have to learn from the pandemic. We need them at the table. Somehow, we need to get them to the table. Can you outline any of that process or your thinking on that or where you have reached on that?
Mr. Baker: There is an onus on our government, which is introducing this legislation as a way of helping lift all working‑age Canadians with disabilities out of poverty, to ensure we are able to reach all of them. Organizations like March of Dimes Canada and the Canadian Mental Health Association and others, certainly, in our efforts to support the needs of the people we serve, will be highlighting for them and educating them on these programs and trying to reach out to communities that we underserve right now across our country as well as communities in the North who are not receiving as many services as other Canadians.
I think there is an opportunity. I take your point that we need to be working in collaboration with the government as a community because we talk about the support of the community for this legislation and the opportunity for the community to have input into the design of the legislation. There also has to be a sharing of responsibility between the government at all levels because all citizens will benefit from this. Working in collaboration with organizations like March of Dimes Canada and others, we are a wonderful conduit and a mechanism for people to be able to learn about programs that will benefit them. But we can’t do that alone.
Ms. Eaton: I have had the great pleasure of going across the country over the last six months and meeting with communities and CMHA providers working with lived experience. I had a wonderful experience in Charlottetown where the CMHA provides housing units for over 100 people with severe mental illness. They provide regular opportunities for social activities and support, and the people with lived experience create their own newsletter.
We have these deep feelers into the community. We’re meeting regularly and working with people with lived and living experience, people who are suffering from major mental illness who would be the prime candidates for this work. It really is a simple matter of going into these communities, speaking with people, explaining how this works and supporting their efforts.
I really take Mr. Baker’s point that the government could be very helpful in supporting a larger outreach effort.
The Chair: Let me pose the last question to all witnesses. Ms. Carr, I must apologize profusely. We are trying to be inclusive, and here I find that our interpretation issues are getting in the way of that. I sincerely apologize.
I would like to probe the question of eligibility. So far, we have talked about income as a threshold for eligibility and disability as a threshold. I would like to explore the issue of assets. How will the government deal with assets such as home ownership? Is there anything in the bill that gives you direction as to how this onion will be peeled?
Mr. Baker: I don’t think there’s anything in the bill right now that addresses the issue around assets and the value Canadians have in terms of home ownership or savings, et cetera, and how that would be factored in. That’s why the regulations period will allow us to have some discussions with government on that very important issue — among others — even considering how we will define populations who will benefit from this and support more Canadians with disabilities to be able to do that.
I take your point, Madam Chair, that I don’t see anything clearly stipulated right now that speaks to that issue.
Ms. Eaton: We heartily believe that the program should be income tested and not means tested — that income should be the determination and people should not be dipping into their assets, especially as we age. We need those assets to support us, especially with the cost of housing being so high.
There are models such as the Henson Trust that was set up for persons with disabilities so that you could get the benefit of a lump sum of funds, which would not mean that your disability benefits would be clawed back. So there are models in legislation that the federal government has put together — through Henson Trusts, for example — that could be a model for this work.
The Chair: Thank you so much. I want to thank all our witnesses, not just for your presence here today but for the excellent and important work you do in the community. You have enriched our understanding of the bill considerably and given us perspectives that will be valuable in our consideration of our report.
We will continue our study on Bill C-22 at our meeting tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)