THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 23, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 11:33 a.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 by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses and members of the public watching these proceedings. My name is Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario, and I am the chair of this committee. I would like to begin with a round table and I will ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting with Senator Bovey, the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Bovey: I’m Patricia Bovey, senator from Manitoba.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I am Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator from Ontario.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, senator from Alberta in the beautiful Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, senator from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler, senator from Manitoba.
The Chair: Today, our committee continues 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 moment to remind all 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 procedures, 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.
Joining us today for our first panel, we welcome by video conference Michelle Hewitt, Co-Chair of the Social Policy Team with the Council of Canadians with Disabilities; and Glen Hoos, Director of Communications with the Down Syndrome Resource Foundation. Thank you very much for joining us today. The witnesses will have five minutes allocated for opening statements followed by questions from our members.
Ms. Hewitt, the floor is yours.
Michelle Hewitt, Co-Chair, Social Policy Team, Council of Canadians with Disabilities: Thank you so much for inviting me to speak to you. My name is Michelle Hewitt. I’m a disabled woman. I live in Kelowna, B.C., on the traditional and unceded territory of the Syilx Okanagan people. While I sit on a number of boards and committees, today I speak to you as the Co-Chair of the Social Justice Committee of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, often just called CCD.
The CCD is a social justice organization of people with all disabilities that champions the voices of people with disabilities, advocating for an inclusive and accessible Canada where people with disabilities have full realization of their human rights as described in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We recognize that for disabled people to live with dignity, autonomy and independence, they must not live in poverty. With this in mind, we strongly support Bill C-22 and the Canada disability benefit, and enjoin you to work to make this benefit available to working-age, disabled Canadians as soon as possible.
In the time available to me, I wish to make three key points about the legislation.
First, the bill declares that:
. . . in the spirit of “Nothing Without Us”, the Government of Canada recognizes the importance, in developing support measures for persons with disabilities, of engaging with the disability community, in accordance with the Accessible Canada Act . . . .
That landmark law specifies that “persons with disabilities must be involved in the development and design of laws, policies, programs, services and structures.”
Particularly important is that Bill C-22 authorizes the Governor-in-Council to implement most of the benefit’s design elements through regulations. In this first piece of major federal legislation for disabled people since the passage of the Accessible Canada Act, we believe it is crucial that fulsome co-creation of regulations takes place with disability organizations sufficiently supported to be able to participate.
Furthermore, our faith in Minister Qualtrough’s vision of this process being realized depends on these regulations being developed in an accessible manner that is transparent and understandable, and must include a diverse group of disabled people at the table speaking for themselves.
Second, we value the work done by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in producing a set of amendments that improve Bill C-22 — in particular, the amendment to clause 11 that reads:
. . . respecting the amount of a benefit, the Governor in Council must take into consideration the Official Poverty Line as defined in section 2 of the Poverty Reduction Act.
We believe that this is an especially important provision for this legislation. Without it, disabled people run the risk of still living in poverty from an inadequate benefit.
Third, the most important part for disabled people living in poverty is that this bill move quickly through these legislative phases so that the work on crafting regulations — and the process of delivering this benefit — can begin in earnest. This bill was first proposed in the Throne Speech of September 2020. Since then, the federal government has only offered one payment of $600 — to those disabled people who could qualify for it — to mitigate the incredibly difficult times in which so many of us with disabilities find ourselves.
In the 18 months that followed, we have seen considerable inflation. The cost of food impacts those living in poverty particularly hard. The most recent figures for food inflation in February show it to be 10.6%. Currently, no provincial or federal disability benefit even reaches the poverty line, and most provincial increment system benefits are not indexed to inflation. Imagine living way below the poverty line for this entire pandemic with no relief in sight.
The approximately 1 million working-age disabled Canadians living in poverty today are in dire need of support. We — at the Council of Canadians with Disabilities — urge you to complete your work thoroughly with the aim of sending Bill C-22 back to the House of Commons for Royal Assent with all haste.
Thank you for your consideration, and let’s get this done.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your comments, Ms. Hewitt.
Mr. Hoos, the floor is yours.
Glen Hoos, Director of Communications, Down Syndrome Resource Foundation: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you this morning about this critical legislation for the creation of the Canada disability benefit.
I come here today wearing two hats — the first as a representative of the Down Syndrome Resource Foundation, a Burnaby-based organization that provides programs, services and support to hundreds of people with Down’s syndrome and their families; the second as a husband and father whose wife and two children all have multiple permanent disabilities: physical disabilities in my wife’s case, and intellectual disabilities for both children.
I would like to commend the Senate for the speed with which you are working to create this first-of-its-kind benefit, with the aim of lifting Canadians with disabilities out of poverty. The establishment of the Canada disability benefit will make Canada a world leader in promoting economic, social and individual inclusion for all citizens, and these are values that we — as an organization — and I — as an individual — hold dear.
The case for a significant Canada disability benefit is clear. The Canadian poverty line for 2022 was estimated to be approximately $26,000. Provincial disability assistance rates in all provinces fall well below this amount. In my home province of B.C., persons with disabilities received approximately $16,300 in 2022. This is one of the highest rates in Canada, but it still falls nearly $10,000 short of the Canadian poverty line. This is to say nothing of the other flaws of provincial assistance, including the fact that most married people with disabilities are not even eligible to receive it.
The poverty line of $26,000 is itself an underestimate for persons with disabilities who often face higher costs than people without disabilities for essentials like medications, equipment, special diets and other necessities. Here in Metro Vancouver, where the average rent is over $2,000 per month, shelter alone can cost more than the provincial disability amount. B.C. recently announced an increase in the monthly shelter allowance for persons with disabilities — from $375 to $500 — which remains self-evidently insufficient. Canadians with disabilities have suffered under poverty-level disability assistance amounts for many years, and the inflation of these past few years has created a true crisis situation.
At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government swiftly and admirably enacted the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, or CERB, at a rate of $2,000 per month — an amount deemed to be the minimum necessary to maintain a basic standard of living. This did not go unnoticed by Canadians with disabilities who, years later, are still expected to subsist on significantly less than this, even though the cost of living has dramatically increased.
As a result of low disability assistance rates, persons with disabilities disproportionately face the following: poverty and ongoing debt; homelessness and tenuous shelter; starvation and malnutrition; the inability to pay for much-needed medications; and depression and mental health issues. Inversely, lifting persons with disabilities out of poverty would help these individuals avoid homelessness and access safe shelter and housing; prevent starvation and malnutrition; afford life-saving medication and therapy; buy suitable clothes for themselves and their children; avoid being forced to choose between which bills to pay; break out of poverty and debt cycles; and improve their mental health.
The benefits extend far beyond persons with disabilities themselves. By giving these individuals the means to fully participate in the Canadian economy and society, everyone wins.
To ensure maximum inclusion, equality, economic security and personal dignity for all Canadians with disabilities, I urge the swift development and implementation of the Canada disability benefit before the end of 2023. I recognize that developing a highly complex benefit that meets the needs of a population with diverse needs takes time. Unfortunately, poverty does not wait — and persons with disabilities cannot wait any longer.
Thank you for recognizing the urgency of this crisis, and for working to make the Canada disability benefit a reality.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hoos. Thank you both for your remarks. We will proceed to questions from senators. Colleagues, you will have five minutes for your questions, and that, of course, always includes the question and the answer. Before asking questions, I would like to request the members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone, or remove your earpiece if you are doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
Senator Bovey: I would like to thank both of our witnesses. I think you’ve made very compelling statements, which I appreciate very much.
I have the same question for each of you. I’m one of the people who are concerned that once this disability benefit is paid out, various provinces — maybe not all of them — may implement clawbacks which would likely negate the purpose of the bill. I’m also concerned with what I’ve been hearing: People are concerned that services like rent assistance and wheelchair assistance — those sorts of important aspects — may also be cut back. I wonder if these are concerns that you have, or am I overly concerned?
Perhaps, Mr. Hoos, you can start, and then we can move forward.
Mr. Hoos: Absolutely; those are valid concerns — and concerns that we share. This benefit is only meaningful if it supplements what’s already in place. If the money gets clawed back — either in the form of reduced disability payments, or increases in the cost of services that are currently provided by the provinces — then it’s going to be no benefit whatsoever. I think a crucial part of this process is to negotiate with the provinces to ensure that this does not happen.
Senator Bovey: Ms. Hewitt, I would be really appreciative of hearing your concerns on this. With your work on the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, are you finding discrepancies across the country with regard to clawbacks?
Ms. Hewitt: Thank you very much for your question. I would reiterate everything that Mr. Hoos said.
I think the issue of clawbacks is incredibly complex. They’re already happening. I’ll give you an example from Alberta that I read in the news: a young woman with spina bifida in her twenties. She’s a vibrant, active young woman with incontinence. One of the things that was covered by her province was a discreet incontinence pad — that is no longer covered, but what is covered is an adult diaper which is bulky and huge. That’s a clawback. It’s a cost differential that she can’t make up herself being somebody on a disability benefit. That in itself is a clawback. We’re not just looking at things that are easily quantifiable, such as amounts of money, transport passes or things like that. We are looking at someone somewhere making a budget decision by saying, “Instead of number two in the catalogue, we’re going to go with number three because that’s cheaper.”
We are extremely concerned that this happens everywhere. Our concerns would be that we’re not sure that we have the power — through federal legislation — to be able to correct those things. I know that the disability community is extremely aware of this, and we are going to be monitoring this carefully once this comes into force.
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much. When it’s time to negotiate or discuss the regulations, are these the issues that you’re going to bring up, and will you be part of the negotiations?
Ms. Hewitt: The important part here, as I mentioned, is who is going to be part of those regulation discussions. It’s incredibly important that disabled people themselves are seated around those tables, and actually having those discussions, so that they can bring up these sorts of things that aren’t necessarily on people’s minds. I don’t think any of us know who is going to be involved in those discussions, but I know that all of us in the disability community are ready to do the work. You ask and we will be there. We are so ready for this.
Mr. Hoos: Yes, I would agree. Again, I don’t know who exactly will be given the opportunity, or what that will look like, but, as an organization, we’ve participated in every way that we can so far, and we certainly intend to continue to do so. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I have three immediate family members with permanent disabilities, so I have a very personal interest in seeing this happen. Personally, I would be delighted to be involved in any way that I can.
Senator Bovey: I would like to thank both of you. This is very compelling and heartfelt. Thank you.
The Chair: If I may briefly ask a question on the clawback issue, can I assume that in your relative provinces — just as you have organized around this bill at the federal level — you are organizing provincially to talk to your provincial counterparts in government about the issue of clawbacks?
Ms. Hewitt: Absolutely; the CCD is an organization of 14 different organizations from across the country. For example, Mr. Hoos and I are both in British Columbia. I’m on the board of Disability Alliance BC, which is one of the CCD’s member groups. All of our member groups are talking to provincial governments.
I also know that across the disability spectrum, you have groups like Inclusion Canada, which is a federation of organizations, who are talking. I’m the chair of the board of Disability Without Poverty; we have provincial strategies that are under way. We are — all of us — leading these conversations with provincial governments at the moment.
The Chair: In her presentation to us yesterday, the minister said that she’s drawing a red line on clawbacks. No clawbacks — that’s her position. It’s an admirable position.
Do you believe that the benefit should be rolled out after all clawback agreements are signed, or should money start flowing — province by province — as soon as a clawback agreement is signed? You can also get back to me later on.
Mr. Hoos: My opinion would be that the money should start flowing as soon as possible — or sooner. One of the recommendations that we made in our initial brief to the House was that there should be some kind of interim emergency funding put in place — while the benefit is being developed — because, even if we achieve our goal of implementing the benefit by the end of 2023, that still leaves nine months in the interim during which this problem is continuing and growing. The faster that we can get money into pockets, the better. I’m sure that Ms. Hewitt would agree with that.
Ms. Hewitt: Yes, I do agree. I think it’s very complicated for us to say, “Leave people in other provinces behind,” but we have to get relief flowing at some point in some way.
I understand and I deeply agree with the minister’s red line. However, I think that method — of monitoring those clawbacks — is going to be something that we will need to talk about regarding how that happens, as well as the organizations that are best placed to understand what disabled people are actually facing. In the example that I just gave, those are the ways that we must ensure that we see it being monitored.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Seidman: Many thanks to both of our witnesses for their presentation of issues that we desperately need to understand as best as possible in order to ensure this legislation is what it should be, ultimately, for the disability community.
I want to pursue this issue that we’re now discussing regarding getting the money flowing as soon as possible to people who can really benefit from this. Ms. Hewitt, your organization — in your brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities — recommended that “All governments commit to simplifying the administration and provision of benefits . . . .”
We talk about access. We talked yesterday about how to simplify the process. How can we be certain that the people who really need this are going to know about it and gain access to it? How complex is that process going to be? Are there going to be clawbacks? The issue is — and we heard a bit about it yesterday — whether we will have a sole point of contact for members of the disability community who are trying to gain access to this. Will there be an advocate, or an agent, that they can call who understands the process and procedures, and can help walk them through it, or deal with appeals if they don’t find themselves eligible for one reason or another? We know that there were huge problems with the Disability Tax Credit program because this committee did some work on this several years ago, specifically around this access issue.
I would like to know what you think about this. Will it be left to the ground and organizations like yourselves to walk people through it, or is there some way to build into the regulations an access advocate who can deal with problems?
Ms. Hewitt: First of all, let’s talk about the Disability Tax Credit. It’s a tax credit. Currently, the people who apply for it are those who pay taxes so that they can claim it back. The people that we’re talking to — who live in dire poverty — typically do not claim the Disability Tax Credit.
I understand the need for the federal government to have, as the minister called it yesterday, “a bucket” or “a list,” and the Disability Tax Credit fits that mandate. But it doesn’t fit the mandate of the people who need this benefit.
We currently have in many provinces — not all provinces — a disability assistance payment of some sort. As the federal government is prepared to go into partnership with them over this combined Child Disability Benefit and the provincial payment, presumably they trust, or accept, the process that they go through. In my mind, that eligibility is already there for those who have already applied.
One thing you will hear disabled people say over and over is, “Do not make us jump through more hoops, because every hoop is of a different size and shape, and it is incredibly complex.” As disabled people, we are made to prove that we are disabled, and we are made to do this repeatedly. Many of us have permanent disabilities that are never going to go away.
I believe there is a lot of simplification that could be learned provincially, territorially and federally as we go through this. I think the idea of having somebody who is an arbiter of accessibility is a great place to go, but it should exist in every province.
Disability Alliance BC, a group that is part of the CCD, does much of this work already. We advocate for people. We help them fill out forms, and help them with the appeals process — that kind of thing. The federal and provincial governments partnership needs to come with these provincial organizations that already have the expertise.
Senator Seidman: That’s very helpful.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. My question is for both of you.
In the spirit of “nothing about us without us,” Bill C-22’s preamble recognizes the importance of engagement — engaging people who have disabilities, along with the provinces and territories, in the design of the Canada disability benefit.
Have your organizations participated in any of the consultations that have taken place so far? If so, what concerns did you raise in those discussions? And, if you have not participated in the consultations, are there concerns with either the bill or the yet-to-be-developed regulations that you would like to share with this committee?
Mr. Hoos: We have not yet been involved in any of these discussions. We have contributed a number of things in writing. We would certainly welcome that opportunity.
With regard to people with Down’s syndrome, it is a little more complicated in terms of being able to get their input. In many cases, people with Down’s syndrome would probably need their caregivers or their parents to be involved alongside them, helping them to understand the issues and frame their needs, but they should certainly have the opportunity to do so.
In terms of our concerns, we already talked about clawbacks. That’s probably the biggest one.
Another concern would be that it should function as guaranteed income for individuals with disabilities. It must not create a disincentive to work. Of course, that is one of the limitations of provincial assistance. Although it’s not a lot, if you earn too much at your job, you start losing your disability amounts. At times, even my organization has offered work to individuals with Down’s syndrome, and their decision has been that they would lose more in benefits than they would gain by working with us. That cannot happen.
Inflation has been mentioned. We believe that the benefit must be indexed to inflation, rising annually with the cost of living. That’s a limitation of the provincial disability amounts that are not indexed to inflation.
We want to open this up widely. In regard to the provincial regulations, at least here in B.C., where there is family means testing, I have recently done a fair bit of legwork on this myself: It has become apparent that my wife will likely be unable to work for the rest of her life. I have looked into whether she can apply for provincial benefits. The answer is that she cannot because her husband makes more than $40,000 a year. If anyone has tried raising a family in the Vancouver area on $40,000 a year, that does not go far.
Under the current system, we are essentially forced to be a single-income family for the rest of our lives. We believe that a married person should have as much right to this income as anyone else. I would say that we need to open the gates as widely as possible.
Ms. Hewitt: In terms of consultation, yes, the CCD members have been involved in round tables in the pre-consultation that the government took part in, and have been involved in focus groups for Canada’s Disability Inclusion Action Plan, or DIAP, as well as any surveys and so on that came out of that.
In terms of concerns that were raised, it includes all of the ones that Mr. Hoos just mentioned. If I had more time, I would talk more about the individualization of the benefit.
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the witnesses who are here today. I want to drill down a bit more on access, and how the application and the administrative design of what we set up can actually stand in the way of access for disabled people.
We heard yesterday about some potential issues: We heard about episodic conditions that fluctuate in their severity and affect people’s income from time to time. We heard about issues around income testing, and issues around tying eligibility to income, not means. We are hearing again about the income of individuals not tied to household situations.
Can you give us some specific examples of design that you know have worked so that, as we write our report, we can ensure these are known to the folks who will be reading it? Are there any jurisdictions — including in other countries — that have dealt with this issue very well that you would like to highlight?
Ms. Hewitt: It is hard to think of good examples of access, to be quite frank. The examples I would lean toward are from non-profit organizations that physically go out and look for people. There is an Access RDSP program in B.C. from a coalition of organizations. People who should be able to obtain a Registered Disability Savings Plan, or RDSP, are walked through the process, which includes going to the bank and opening an investment account, as this is extremely complex. The people who are doing those things are walked through that with people from organizations like Disability Alliance BC. I think it’s that one-to-one mentorship and support that is crucial for people feeling extremely vulnerable when thinking they have to go through these pieces.
In terms of obstacles, one of the obstacles is often cost. We know that for someone like myself, and probably for most of you, if I need my doctor to sign a form — I have known her for many years — she signs it, and there is no cost to me because I have that privilege. Many of the people who are in most need of these benefits often don’t have a family doctor. We know that, particularly in B.C., we have a million people without a family doctor, and that pattern is repeated across the country. If you don’t have that relationship, that person will ask you to pay $50 to $100 to access a benefit that you need because you live in poverty. You can see how the cycle traps people.
You can probably tell from my accent that I spent many years living in the U.K., and that’s not an example that we should look at — the English example is extremely poor. However, I understand that Scotland is striking out more on its own and is having more success, but I can’t talk anymore to it right now.
The Chair: We won’t have a second round, colleagues, so we’ll have a 10-second response from Mr. Hoos.
Mr. Hoos: I agree that there are not a lot of examples out there. I believe this bill will make Canada a world leader. In that vein, I’m not aware of any other countries that we are really following.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you so much to both of our witnesses. I will ask my first few questions to Ms. Hewitt, but if we have time to hear answers from both witnesses, that would be great.
Ms. Hewitt, in your introduction, you spoke of the poverty line and the level of benefits in different provinces that is way under the poverty line, as well as the impact of that and the importance of indexation to inflation. This bill, as you know, does not prescribe an amount. It is a framework bill. It does not ask to respect that poverty line. All it asks is to take into consideration the poverty line.
My questions are as follows: How important is it to do more than take it into consideration? How important is it to ensure that we aim for it, or even — in my humble opinion — aim over it, if we take into consideration the extra costs of living with a disability?
Ms. Hewitt: I’m well known in my community for what I’m about to say: The poverty line is no lollipops and rainbows — it’s the poverty line. That’s what we’re talking about lifting people to, particularly in the Atlantic provinces. The people in New Brunswick get just over $700 a month. Can you imagine living on that? I don’t know how people live on that amount of money. Being disabled, as I’m sure you know, costs more than not being disabled. Research tells us this: For the amount of disability it takes to qualify for the typical provincial benefit, research from other countries tells us that it can be around 40% extra. That now takes our $2,100 poverty line up to $2,800 or $2,900. Even if we lift people to the poverty line, disabled people are still going to be living in poverty. That line is the minimum that we need to lift people to.
I understand that we do things incrementally. We are not going to come out of the gate with everybody getting $3,000 — but that increment can be no lower than the current poverty line. Otherwise, we do not meet the bill’s criteria. We are not lifting disabled people out of poverty by any measure. I believe that the poverty line is the starting point and not the finish line.
Mr. Hoos: I would certainly agree. With things like this, I think there can sometimes be the perception that people are living in luxury on the government’s back. That is not the case whatsoever. Even living at the poverty line is very difficult day to day. As has been stated a number of times, the official poverty line is definitely an underestimate for people with disabilities. I think the poverty line should be the bare minimum that we are aiming for, and anything below that would be very disappointing and inadequate.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to the witnesses for being here. My question is also about the poverty line; I want to pursue it in a slightly different way. Both of you talked about the importance of poverty reduction, and you both spoke about the importance of the poverty line in your comments just now. Ms. Hewitt, you were also more specific about your hopes.
I want to drill down a little bit on this. Yesterday, we heard from some witnesses regarding this figure: 40% of people with disabilities live below the poverty line. I want to get a little more granular here to ask you this: What is your expectation about what the benefit will do? How many people with disabilities do you think will be moved beyond the poverty line with this benefit? What are your hopes, or expectations, for this benefit and the extent to which it is going to move people beyond that poverty line — beyond that 40% figure that we heard yesterday? Thank you.
Mr. Hoos: My expectation would be that it moves every person with a disability above the poverty line. Of course, that’s going to depend on what is set up in terms of accessing it, and the ease of the process and the inclusiveness of it. As was mentioned earlier, I would urge us to take advantage of the systems that are already in place, including people who have gone through the process and been approved for provincial disability assistance and/or for the disability tax benefit. Despite its obvious limitations, I feel that anyone who has qualified for it should be automatic for this.
Obviously, there will have to be a new system for those who are new applicants to the whole system. It has to be as easily accessible as possible. In disability services, I feel like there are always gatekeepers who view it as their job to keep people out who shouldn’t be in, as opposed to opening the gate as wide as possible to ensure that everyone who should be in does get in. I would like to see that be the overriding philosophy of this benefit.
Senator Dasko: So you think that it will do this, as opposed to hoping that it will?
Mr. Hoos: Provided it is implemented in such a way that the amount is sufficient, and everybody who has a disability is able to access it, there is no reason that it shouldn’t.
Senator Dasko: Ms. Hewitt, do you expect it to move everybody out from under the poverty line?
Ms. Hewitt: Yes, I do. In my comments, I said that there are roughly 1 million working-age Canadians living in poverty. Those are 2017 figures, and they’re the figures of the people that we can actually count. I would imagine that now — six years later and after a pandemic — that figure is much higher. I couldn’t begin to estimate how much higher. But in this country — in Canada — my expectation is that no one should live in poverty, and particularly not because they are disabled.
Senator Burey: Thank you to our witnesses for sharing these very important real-life experiences. I’m also going to dig into this poverty line issue because I think we need to be getting sufficient money into the hands of the people who need it. Yesterday, we talked about the Canada disability benefit as being an investment — and I want to get that on the record again — in Canadians with disabilities so that they can fully access, participate and contribute to society.
In regard to the poverty line, the bill was amended by the House committee adding a new clause, which you spoke about, that would require the Governor-in-Council to take into consideration the official poverty line as defined by the Poverty Reduction Act. As you said, this would only require, and it would be a consideration — it would not be a mandate. We were talking about that.
Of course, the Poverty Reduction Act refers to market-based measures. Do you have any ideas that would expand these market-bases measures in order to get them into consideration so that the money would be sufficient to alleviate poverty for people living with disabilities?
This is about gaining more information on the market-based measures. Statistics Canada uses this market-based measure where they look at this basket of measures. One of them is inflation — we talked about food inflation. What other things should go into this market-based measure so that we can get the poverty thing increased?
Ms. Hewitt: I have met a few times with Statistics Canada to talk about this exact thing because the Market Basket Measure doesn’t reflect disability particularly well. The problem is that we — as disabled people — are a very diverse group of people. Other countries have chosen to look at this by a multiplier effect. I think that is a better approach than looking at what we could add — because what I might need as a disabled woman with MS and diabetes might be different than someone else, like Mr. Hoos with family members with intellectual disabilities.
We don’t have Canadian research on this, and we don’t have Canadian data on it, but I think we can look at comparable countries. Ireland, Australia and the U.K. have data, and we can look at the approaches they have taken to reflect that Market Basket Measure, because it certainly does not reflect disability at the moment.
Mr. Hoos: I would agree with Ms. Hewitt that a multiplier is probably the best route. Even within an individual disability, it can vary widely from person to person. I have a daughter with Down’s syndrome and autism, and I work with hundreds of people with Down’s syndrome. Some of them are very healthy and don’t have a lot of additional costs. My daughter has a lot of comorbidities that are common with Down’s syndrome and, as a result, has a much higher cost than many others with Down’s syndrome. I think it is too complex to try to capture all of that in various categories in the basket. I do think that the multiplier, which has a lot of research behind it, is probably the best way to go.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much to both witnesses for your testimony, and the work that you do on behalf of persons with disabilities.
My question is about after the bill: Once the bill is passed, what kinds of additional support do you think that disability organizations should receive in order to effectively provide input into the regulatory development process that the bill proposes? What else would you need in order to give the input that you need to give?
Ms. Hewitt: One of my other hats is as a PhD candidate in the area of community engagement in disability studies. I really believe there are many ways, as we move into the regulations, that we can reach out broadly and deeply. We could use things like mini-publics where a group of people are brought together on one thorny issue, they are educated on it over a weekend and the following weekend they reunite to discuss what they may do to work on that. There are many things out there, but the fundamental would require that it is open, transparent and easily accessible.
For example, Mr. Hoos and I are both here today from B.C., and we are taking part in this process virtually. Yesterday, for one of my colleagues, the process was not so easy to take part in because there were microphone issues and so on.
I’m immunocompromised. This is my bubble, and I try not to leave it. There are so many people throughout our country who would like to take part like this. If we look to the North, we know that in Nunavut the access to technology through high-speed internet is really reduced. We would need to find ways for them to take part by telephone, or ensure that methods like that within their own communities are particularly strengthened. That’s where the dollars come in. That’s where the money ensures that the access is easy, transparent and open.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
Mr. Hoos: It is important to have a variety of ways for people to participate because — among people with diverse needs — one way that works for one person may not work for another. We need to think creatively and make as many options available as possible, whether that is virtual town halls or surveys, as well as opportunities to have discussions by phone or to submit recommendations in writing. It’s important to open it up as widely as possible with as many different types of opportunities to contribute as we can.
The Chair: Colleagues, I will proceed to the second round. Senator Seidman, you had a question that was not answered by Mr. Hoos.
Senator Seidman: Actually, Mr. Hoos, you began by replying to that in your response to another question; I appreciated that. My question was in regard to the access issue and how we could simplify. You have a lot of experience with the barriers that the people you represent encounter when applying for the provincial disability benefit. Could you please give us a quick update on what we might consider in terms of access to this particular benefit based on your experience?
Mr. Hoos: Absolutely; I would echo what Ms. Hewitt said at one point regarding how people with disabilities are asked repeatedly to prove that they are still disabled. Even for a genetic, lifelong disability like Down’s syndrome, we repeatedly have to get letters from the doctor or some kind of documentation that proves our daughter still has Down’s syndrome. It is never going away.
As much as possible, it’s important to tap into systems where people have already jumped through the hoops and been approved. I would love to see it automatically implemented for those who have been approved for either provincial disability assistance or the Disability Tax Credit — neither of those are sufficient on their own because people are being excluded from those who should not be. There will still need to be a way for those people to be included. As a starting point — and in the interests of getting money into as many pockets as possible as quickly as possible — I would love to see us piggyback off of things where people have already jumped through all of the hoops and have been approved.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. This brings us to the end of our first panel. I would like to thank our witnesses most sincerely for your presence, your wisdom and your perspectives. You have enormously helped us in our study of this bill. Again, thank you very much.
Colleagues, for our second panel, we welcome Bill Adair, Executive Director of Spinal Cord Injury Canada. From the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, we welcome Marcia Yale, National President; and, by video conference, Linda Bartram, First Vice President.
Thank you very much for joining us today. You will have five minutes each for your opening statements. I understand that Ms. Yale and Ms. Bartram are sharing their time — please, the floor is yours.
Linda Bartram, First Vice President, Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians: Thank you. Good afternoon, senators. My name is Linda Bartram, and I am a blind senior. I appreciate you inviting us here today.
The Canada disability benefit aims to reduce poverty and support financial security for persons with disabilities, which is a laudable goal. Unfortunately, it leaves out a complete sector of the community of persons with disabilities in that it is restricted to working-age persons with disabilities and excludes, presumably, seniors. We are requesting that the term “working-age” be removed from clause 3 of the bill, and that this age consideration — the age eligibility criteria — be considered at the regulation stage, along with all of the other eligibility criteria. This is the only eligibility criterion that is outlined in the bill. We believe it should not be there, and that this should be considered at the regulation stage.
We have a rationale for that: First of all, “working-age” is not defined in the bill, so we’re not sure who this would refer to. Also, the term “working-age” may, in fact, be considered discriminatory in that there is no restriction in regard to age when it comes to people working. Many people work well into their latter years, myself included. I think that it’s problematic to have that phrase within the bill itself.
The unemployment rate for persons with disabilities is 59%, and the unemployment rate for blind persons is 75%. These are individuals that may never work at any point during their lives. They never have the opportunity to put funds toward their old age. They do not receive, obviously, a private pension. They have not contributed to the Canada Pension Plan, or CPP, so they will not receive a CPP pension either. They have had no funds to put toward registered retirement savings. If they were born before 1960, they are not eligible, and haven’t been eligible, to receive the grants and bonds that have been offered to younger Canadians in the Registered Disability Savings Plan.
They are forced to subside on Old Age Security, or OAS, and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, or GIS, alone once they turn 65. Our impact analysis of what this may mean for some seniors is a bit concerning: These individuals might be existing on $1,660 per month at today’s rate, which is well below the poverty line that we heard earlier.
We feel that the most vulnerable individuals need to benefit from the Canada disability benefit, and those include seniors. There are many that will fall into that category. Yet, if “working-age” is included within the bill, anyone who is over the age of 65 will probably be automatically not eligible for this benefit. Therefore, we’re asking the Senate to seriously consider removing the term “working-age” from the bill and, again, have age restrictions be considered at the eligibility criteria when regulations are being looked at, as per clause 4 of the bill. That way, the most vulnerable seniors at that stage will still be eligible to be considered for the benefit.
Thank you, and I’ll pass to my colleague, Ms. Yale.
Marcia Yale, National President, Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians: Thank you, Ms. Bartram, for your passion.
Bill C-22 should be amended to ensure that $2,200 is the guaranteed absolute minimum amount of a person’s total income after the benefit. The federal government valued working Canadians at $2,000 per month with CERB — add 10% for disability-related expenses. Hey, I would add 40%; why not? The amount should be adjusted annually for inflation and the cost of living, and right now it doesn’t do this. Cabinet only has to take into consideration — we’ve heard that before — the poverty line in the Poverty Reduction Act. So that’s not guaranteed.
The bill needs to provide public enforcement for the provincial agreements to not claw back the benefit. We support amendments recommended by Steven Muller and Hart Schwartz who revealed a serious hole in the bill regarding the fact that right now private insurance companies are free to claw back the benefit. Federal money that is meant to lift people with disabilities out of poverty should never be diverted to rich insurance companies.
The bill states that the Governor-in-Council may make regulations. Nothing in the bill guarantees that the cabinet will ever enact any of the important 21 regulations listed in clause 11. The bill does not establish any deadline to ensure regulations are developed within a reasonable time frame. Clause 11.2(2) of the bill merely requires the minister to file a report with Parliament on progress in the regulatory process a full year after the bill comes into force. That could be two years after Royal Assent. What if that report says the regulations are still not finished?
People with disabilities should not have to trust this government and every future government. Promises to work with the disability community are not good enough for us. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Adair, the floor is yours.
Bill Adair, Executive Director, Spinal Cord Injury Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m Bill Adair, Executive Director at Spinal Cord Injury Canada.
I’m here to declare the urgent need for the fast passage of the proposed Canada disability benefit.
I would like to acknowledge that I am presenting from Ottawa, the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. I recognize the Algonquin Anishinaabe people as the traditional custodians of this land. I pay my respects to their elders, both past and present.
Working with nine other disability-related organizations, we’ve given careful consideration how best to move the proposed Canada disability benefit forward. We first heard about the benefit in the 2020 Throne Speech — we are now well into 2023. People with disabilities living in poverty have waited long enough. The proposed Canada disability benefit must assume and assure a minimum standard of good living, and lift people out of poverty. It must be a catalyst to support everyone’s full participation in society.
We are grateful that the House of Commons approved nine important changes to Bill C-22 before sending it to the Senate. These changes strengthen Bill C-22. The changes include many recommendations presented by members of the disability community.
We recognize that there are many details to be worked out before funding can flow to people with disabilities living in poverty. We believe these details are best clarified through creating regulations after Bill C-22 receives Royal Assent.
Changes already made in the House of Commons give many of us in the disability community confidence that the government will fast-track the process for creating regulations.
Changes made in the House of Commons also give us confidence that the government will meaningfully engage the disability community in the co-creation of regulations. This form of engagement can ensure an intersectional, cross-disability and pan-Canadian approach that is so necessary.
Together, we will make sure the Canada disability benefit truly ends poverty for people with disabilities in Canada. We respect others in our community who call for Bill C-22 to be amended further by the Senate to include design details and technical elements. I agree, and many of my colleagues largely agree, with the design details and technical elements needed to make the proposed Canada disability benefit strong and effective.
But, as already stated, many of us believe these details will best be determined using a co-creation process with a broad range of people in the disability community. This meaningful participation will truly honour the “Nothing Without Us” commitment embodied in the Accessible Canada Act.
Introducing new amendments now to Bill C-22 on complex areas — such as adequacy, eligibility and coordination with provinces, territories and private insurance companies — will require extensive research and negotiations. This will take time and could slow down the approval process. It could even result in losing the bill altogether. We lost this bill the first time it was introduced in the House of Commons when the most recent federal election was called. We do not want to lose this bill again, and be forced to start all over again a third time.
Today, I ask that the Senate fast-track approval of Bill C-22 so that it can move to Royal Assent as soon as possible. This position is shared by many organizations and individuals across Canada as recorded in a letter received by senators this week. I urge you to take a second look at who signed the letter: You’ll find people with disabilities, people who experienced intersectionality, allies and people from all across Canada.
Thank you for inviting Spinal Cord Injury Canada to address the committee today. My comments represent the opinion of Spinal Cord Injury Canada. They have also been influenced by my personal lived experience with a disability, my decades devoted to promoting the social inclusion of people with disabilities and a shared position on Bill C-22 formed with nine other disability organizations, which is also shared by those people who have signed the letter — over a thousand people — that the senators received earlier this week.
Please, be quick with your decisions — pass Bill C-22 before the current session of Parliament ends. People’s lives are at stake. We have been waiting long enough.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Adair. We will proceed now to questions.
Senators, you will have four minutes each for your questions — that includes your question and the answer. We will start with Senator Bovey, the deputy chair of our committee.
Senator Bovey: I would like to thank the three witnesses, and appreciate very much what you said. If I may, I am going to start with a question I have for you, Mr. Adair. You talked about the urgent need for fast passage — and that you don’t want to lose the bill — and the co-creation process of the regulations. You won’t be surprised with my question because I know you’ve been here. My question is about clawbacks which are happening at different rates across the country.
Do you feel that the co-creation process of the regulations can easily and swiftly accommodate the very real concern across the country about provincial clawbacks and insurance clawbacks?
Mr. Adair: A central issue to the success of lifting people out of poverty, and the reason many of us feel that working on this through regulations is the right way to go, is this is going to take some time. This is going to take some negotiations. Yes, I believe agreements can be reached. I also know that Minister Qualtrough has started these discussions, as she explained yesterday. The following question posed earlier today is very pertinent: Is the disability community in each province and territory working within their own group, within their own geographical area, to encourage their province and territory to work collaboratively with this new benefit?
Yes, it’s going to take some time to do that, and we can do it as quickly as possible.
Senator Bovey: Ms. Yale, is the community of blind Canadians concerned about provincial clawbacks? You mentioned insurance clawbacks. Do you share concerns about provincial clawbacks?
Ms. Yale: Definitely; this benefit needs to be in addition to what is already out there. If it is clawed back, then the province is making money on the benefit, and we’re losing again. We are definitely against any clawbacks, but there also needs to be public enforcement of the agreements with the provinces because if a province says, “We’re not going to claw back,” but then they do, we need to be able to say to the federal government, “Deal with it. You’re the ones who talked to the provinces; you made the agreements; you need to deal with it.” People with disabilities shouldn’t have to. They should be able to come to the federal government.
Senator Bovey: Does that include services that are provided to the community of disabled Canadians?
Ms. Yale: Yes.
Senator Bovey: Thank you. I very much appreciate this.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for being with us, and for all of the amazing work that you do for the disabled communities.
I’ll briefly start with a question for you, Ms. Yale: We’ve heard that the disability benefit should be based on the individual’s income, as opposed to family income. We’ve heard a lot about poverty level, and how to make this an effective benefit for those who really need it. You did refer to this issue in your briefing note to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I’d like to know if you could expand a bit on that — we did hear that this aspect of the benefit was deliberately left to regulations because there is disagreement about it within the disability community.
Ms. Yale: We believe that it should be an individual benefit — it should not be a family income-based benefit — because each person should have the autonomy to have their own life. Regardless of whether they are in a family or whether they are by themselves, they still have the same disability-related expenses, and they still deserve the respect to be self-sufficient and independent. It shouldn’t matter what a person’s husband makes. It should matter what the person with disabilities makes because that extra cost doesn’t go away. It needs to be an individual-based income source.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much. Mr. Adair, do you think that this issue can be resolved in the regulatory process, given everything we’ve heard?
Mr. Adair: I definitely believe it can be resolved in the regulatory process. You mentioned that there’s disagreement within the disability community. That’s part of what the regulatory process can address: include people, engage people and, most importantly, engage people who are hard to reach. Some of the people who are most desperate for financial support can advise us not only on if it should be a group income or an individual income, but also on the following: How much should it be? How do we administer this? How do we help people who live on the street? How do we help them access this benefit? How can we help chart a path for that with people?
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all of the witnesses. We heard in Mr. Adair’s testimony about the importance of co-creation of the regulations. My question is for all of the witnesses. It’s specifically about the application process.
We heard earlier today a witness talk about ensuring that the application process is easy, accessible and understandable. We heard yesterday from the minister that community engagement and support are needed to ensure that people can access this benefit.
My question to all of the witnesses is as follows: Can you please share with this committee what your organization would like to see included in the application process?
Ms. Yale: What I would like to see is a federal point of contact so that someone who is trying to fill out an application — and has issues — has somewhere to go for information. That would help us in terms of us being able to ask those questions, or an individual could go and ask those questions. The applications must be in plain language; they can’t be in jargon. They need to be really clear as to what is needed. And the “what is needed” should be as simple as possible — keep it simple.
Someone said that we keep having to reverify our disability, and we shouldn’t have to. We should be able to say to the federal access point, “We give permission for the provinces to release our data.” The provinces should be able to give that data to the federal point of contact so that there is no need to reverify. This is the main thing: If we’re already on some kind of support provincially or federally, there needs to be a way to take away that reverify provision.
Senator Osler: Ms. Bartram, do you have anything to add before we proceed to Mr. Adair?
Ms. Bartram: Yes, I would add that the process — if there is, and I’m sure there will be, an online process — should be totally accessible to those of us who use screen reader technology. We are still struggling many years later after the human rights decision that all federal online and web-based applications need to be accessible to us; we are still struggling with that today. There should be no technological or informational communication barriers — for those of us who use technology — to applying with a very simple process. Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
Mr. Adair: I agree with what has been said. One important factor will be enabling organizations that already have easy access and trusted relationships with people who are living in poverty, people who are the outliers and people who live in remote communities. How have we done this before? We talked earlier about examples: One example is to work with organizations that reach into these communities. When we were consulting around the Accessible Canada Act, we wanted to hear from people in the Far North. We arranged an agreement with the Nunavummi Disabilities Makinnasuaqtiit Society, and they were able to reach within to the people who were part of their organization in order to get input for us. The same occurred with the Nokiiwin Tribal Council in northwest Ontario; I think it is eight different remote reserves. How would people on a remote reserve, or people in the Yukon or Northwest Territories, call a centre in the middle of Ottawa and find a person who is receptive, who understands their language and who understands many of the potential communication complications that people experience?
We need a central hub, we need clear information and we need an application process. But we also need this friendly outreach and engaging approach; otherwise, we are going to miss some of the most desperate people who we want to include in our society.
Senator Kutcher: My question is for Ms. Bartram regarding one of your comments that I also have concerns about. We know that, in the last decade, the rate of elderly people living in poverty in Canada has grown. We know that the poverty rate of elderly people is greater than it is for the general population. Your critique of what “working-age” means, I think, is very well taken because it is not clear what that phrase means. Actually, if you look around the Senate, it is really not clear what that phrase means; it’s true.
We also know that the percentage of people who are working after age 55 has grown in the last two decades — quite large for both men and women. Have you presented your argument related to the working-age criteria to the minister’s office or to officials? If so, what has been the response you received about that particular concern?
Ms. Bartram: I may need to defer to my colleague here, but I’ll take a stab at this, and then she can add to it. We certainly presented our concerns at every opportunity that we have had to present it, and we did include it in our brief to the House of Commons during the first round of this process. Ms. Yale, can you add to that?
Ms. Yale: That’s correct; we sent it to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and to parliamentarians, and we got nowhere. We were not invited to appear before the Human Resources Committee — again, we thank you for allowing us to appear today, and to express this major concern with the bill.
Ms. Bartram: Yes, I believe that conversations have been had privately with the minister in regard to this. The feeling is that the current system that we have right now with OAS and GIS is sufficient — but our analysis indicates that it is not. Our concern is that if it is left in the act itself, and it is suddenly discovered at the regulation stage, “Oh my goodness; there are very vulnerable seniors who are not going to benefit from this, because they can’t” — that cannot be changed. We are just asking for age to be considered at the regulation stage when it can be looked at in conjunction with all of the other eligibility criteria and a full impact analysis can be done. It cannot be done at this stage when we don’t know what the other criteria are going to be. We feel that it is very problematic to put an eligibility criteria into the bill.
Senator Kutcher: Mr. Adair, you don’t look like a spring chicken. What are your thoughts?
Mr. Adair: I agree with the last statement that this is, again, a complex issue. We have benefits for children; we have benefits for seniors — they are not perfect. They need to be improved. It is going to take some time and research to understand what those flaws are. Working on this during the regulations is something that we look forward to sinking our best advice, and our thinking, into.
Senator Bernard: My initial question was going to be the same one that Senator Kutcher asked regarding age, and I would like to continue with that for a moment. One of the things we have heard repeatedly is that persons with disabilities have a lot of extra costs. Would it be safe to assume that once you reach a certain age those costs become lower, and that might be the reason why this working-age criteria has been included? Or would you say there is a different way that we should be looking at this? If we could start with Ms. Bartram on this, please.
Ms. Bartram: Yes, I would argue that those costs do not become less when you become a senior — they potentially become more with comorbidities. Some of the natural aging puts seniors into what we would consider a disability category with hearing loss, vision loss, limited mobility, et cetera. Those are all disabilities when you are working age, and they are disabilities when you are a senior as well. In regard to somebody who has been living on a very low income all their life, I don’t think their costs are particularly going to be less when they become a senior. They still have to pay rent, and buy food and medications. That’s pretty well all they can do with the income they have — or getting a senior discount to attend a show, or a senior discount on some other things that they may have never participated in before because they have never had the funds. I think we are going to see some very vulnerable seniors who are going to be left way behind with an age restriction being in the bill.
There will be some seniors with disabilities who do not need this benefit, and that can be determined at the regulation stage, but to determine it here — at the bill stage — when it cannot be changed by the regulations, or not very easily anyways, and to keep saying, “We’ll sort all this out at the regulations” — they won’t be able to sort out the age criteria at the regulations.
Senator Bernard: Thank you. I feel that it’s important to have that on the record. This dovetails quite well with one of the other interests I have with regard to this bill, and that is intersectionality.
Mr. Adair, you talked a lot about intersectionality, and those voices that are not included. When we think about this notion of “nothing about us without us,” I’m wondering if there are other suggestions that you have regarding how to include those voices of persons with disabilities who may not belong to any of these recognized groups that are part of the consultation process. Are there other suggestions that you have?
I appreciated hearing about some of the things you have done in Indigenous communities in the Far North, but also thinking about other communities like homeless persons that you’ve identified, racial communities and so on — are there other ways to ensure those voices are included?
Mr. Adair: There definitely are. We talked earlier today that it is going to take many different strategies to ensure that we reach and hear the voices and the wisdom of people from a vast array of different living experiences and disabilities.
We would have heard yesterday from Krista Carr of Inclusion Canada, if she had been here, that they have done some good work over the past 12 months or so: talking to people with disabilities across the country, going beyond organizations and having one-on-one interviews and town hall meetings.
One of the recommendations in their early report, which has not yet been released, is the importance of intersectionality and including people who face some of the most marginalized and discriminatory practices that keep knocking people down. It is not enough to provide the funds to people, but this needs to be part of a larger package of housing, food security and access to transportation — all of the things that are going to allow people to re-engage in our society and be part of our communities.
I don’t have a magic answer to that other than there needs to be a think tank on this in terms of building the regulations. Who has done this before in terms of reaching people who are on the outskirts of society? Who are the outliers in society, and how can we engage them? Then, there should be funding to actually make that happen — not just going through the organizations that represent people with disabilities. You are quite right; there are a lot of people out there who don’t want to belong to an organization just because they have a disability, but they have a lot of wisdom to offer us to help make us a world leader, as has been said, in terms of lifting people out of poverty.
Senator Bernard: Have seniors been consulted?
Mr. Adair: Yes, they have. They have been consulted through the work that Inclusion Canada has done. They segmented all the different people with different kinds of disabilities. We heard yesterday from people in the mental health field regarding if people experiencing mental health challenges were consulted. I think, in Inclusion Canada’s work, they included 260 people and conducted 39 one-on-one interviews — I believe over 30% of the people interviewed reported having mental health challenges.
They have been consulted. This report is not available. I think it would be helpful for this committee to have early access to it; it has not yet been released. It may provide more information. It is not all of the answers; it is 260 people. We need to go much deeper than that when we build regulations.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. My question is regarding the timeline: I understand, and we have been hearing from different witnesses, that the one thing everybody seems to agree on is that we need this bill, and we need it quick. We all agree with that. Some are worried about the potential delays that may be caused as a result of improving the bill, and others are worried about potential delays due to the timeline within the bill not being very prescriptive.
I’m referring to the fact that the bill calls for a report on the progress made by the regulatory process within one year. In that time frame, we don’t know what the report could be, or could not be. This is concerning because I would like to have a definite answer to this: When are we going to get there and how?
If Mr. Adair could speak to this first, and maybe Ms. Yale could follow because I know you have a position on this. How confident are you when you hear that people should be receiving money within a year, but then the bill doesn’t say that or prove it will happen? That concerns me. I want to hear from you on that.
Mr. Adair: Thank you for this very important and critical question.
Yesterday, we heard a verbal commitment from the minister: Within 12 months after Royal Assent, she plans on having regulations available. She plans on having funds flowing to people with disabilities in poverty in 2024. Maybe there are specifics that the Senate would like to put in here.
What I can tell you is that many of us in the disability community do have confidence in the minister. We do have confidence that there is a serious commitment to engage people with disabilities. The most important thing to say is this: We are 6 million people in this country, and we will not let government off the hook on this. We have a bill, and we are pursuing regulations. We will be part of the process, and we will push to make sure it happens expeditiously.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Ms. Yale: I’m not confident. First of all, we have no guarantee that the bill will come into force within a year. It has to come into force before anything substantive can happen. The two reporting deadlines are after it comes into force. That needs to happen first.
The first timeline that needs to be cleared up is when this bill comes into force. Why is it not at Royal Assent? That’s the first concern. The second concern is that, yes, we are going to be able to co-create these regulations — we are being given an opportunity — but it doesn’t say that the opportunity is actually going to lead to anything.
If all the minister — whoever that minister is — has to do is report the progress, as I said before, what if the regulations are not finished? Minister Qualtrough did say it’s within 12 months, but, if it’s not in the bill, there is nothing that says what will happen if the government falls before this bill comes into force, or between Royal Assent and the bill coming into force.
The first timeline that really needs to be cleared up is the coming into force, and then there needs to be a timeline for when the regulations will actually be enacted — not created and in the Canada Gazette, but actually in law. Until they are in law, this bill does nothing.
The Chair: Mr. Adair, I wonder if I could ask you to weigh in. Canada is a diverse community, and we have different perspectives based on who we are and who we represent. Your perspective is to get this bill passed. You trust the minister to co‑create the regulations, and to flow the benefit as soon as possible.
We have heard from Ms. Yale and Ms. Bartram that maybe it is better to actually have something in the bill that says benefits will start flowing at Royal Assent, and it should be 12 months.
Where do you sit on this? Again, I want to hear from you.
Mr. Adair: Thank you for the question. I think it’s important to consider how best to move the bill forward — and how best to move us, as a country, to a place where we can actually lift people out of poverty and re-engage them in a meaningful way in our society.
What we heard from the minister yesterday is promising. I agree that this is not cast in stone; it is not in the bill. I still stand by the opinion that passing the bill as soon as possible — so we have a law — and then working on regulations is the most expeditious approach, and that the disability community will work earnestly and hold the government accountable. Ms. Yale, as you said, the minister — whoever that minister is — should make sure that the promise is kept, and that people with disabilities are included in creating the regulations and included in accelerating the time when they are law and must be followed.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Adair.
Senator Dasko: My question is a variation on exactly this. You may have just answered it, but I want to make sure I understand that, and also ask the other witnesses.
Mr. Adair, you have urged us to go ahead. This week, we received the letter that was sent by a number of organizations. You noted that the House of Commons made nine changes, and you are very positive about them. The Senate — in the way that we operate now — often likes to make improvements to bills. It is something that we find ourselves very interested in doing.
Is there anything that you would want us to change, or anything that would be a priority for change for us to address in this committee and in the Senate? I would like to hear from all of the witnesses. What would be a top priority for this bill in particular in terms of changes?
Ms. Yale: There needs to be at least two changes: The first that pops into my mind is the removal of “working-age” so that every criterion is done at the regulation stage. If you don’t do that, then you need to provide criteria for the benefits. Otherwise, you are discriminating, and we don’t want to do that.
The second thing is in clause 11(1). If everything is to happen at the regulation stage, then there must be a “must.” There “must” be regulations made. It cannot be “may,” because if it’s a “may,” it doesn’t have to happen. Those are my two points.
Senator Dasko: Ms. Bartram, do you have a top priority for the Senate to change in this bill?
Ms. Bartram: My top priority is to remove the wording “working-age” from the bill. That would be my top priority. I also agree with changing the word from “may” to “must.”
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: Witnesses, I would like to thank you for your attention to our study, and express our collective appreciation for your assistance to us today. We appreciate it greatly, and we hope that you come away from this committee appreciating how seriously the Senate takes this bill.
Colleagues, we will continue our study on Bill C-22 at our next meeting on Wednesday, March 29 at 4 p.m.
(The committee adjourned.)