THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 29, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4 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 by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses, and members of the public watching our proceedings. My name is Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario, and I am the chair of this committee. I would like to begin by doing a roundtable of introductions from senators, starting with the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, senator from Manitoba.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
Senator Lankin: Frances Lankin, senator from Ontario.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, senator from New Brunswick. Welcome.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher from Nova Scotia.
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler from Manitoba.
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Witnesses, this may be a bit of a truncated meeting. This is a bit unusual for us today, but we have votes in the Senate. Bells will be rung, so senators will have to leave. We will suspend the meeting so that we can go and vote and then resume after the vote is concluded. This may happen twice. I would like to thank you for your patience, forbearance, flexibility and understanding. I hope it is not too disruptive.
Today, we continue our 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 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 witnesses appearing in person and for those in our audience. The sign language interpretation will be video recorded and 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.
Joining us on our first panel is David Kron, Executive Director, Cerebral Palsy Association of Manitoba; Jenel Shaw, Executive Director, with Arts AccessAbility Network Manitoba; Sid Frankel, Associate Professor, Faculty of Social Work, University of Manitoba; and by video conference, from Kickstart Disability Arts and Culture, Jenna Reid, Artistic Director; and Kait Blake, Administrative Director.
In the interests of being efficient with our time today, Ms. Shaw and Professor Frankel have kindly provided opening remarks in writing which were shared with the members in advance of the meeting and will be distributed in the room.
We will begin with opening statements from Mr. Kron and Ms. Reed, following which I will give Ms. Shaw and Professor Frankel time to respond briefly before we proceed to questions from senators if you wish. I remind Mr. Kron and Ms. Reed that you will each have five minutes for your remarks. Mr. Kron, the floor is yours.
David Kron, Executive Director, Cerebral Palsy Association of Manitoba: Thank you very much, senators, for this opportunity to present on Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit. As part of my duties as executive director, I sit on several different community committees that deal with both poverty and disability.
I am President of the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg and in the disability community, I am a member of the Disability Matters Vote Steering Committee and sit on various other coalitions.
I want to thank this Parliament for finally providing a national benefit for working-age Canadians that have a disability. The Canadian disability benefit is a generational change in order to lift individuals with disabilities out of poverty now and in the future. Thank you.
I also wanted to thank the committee members and the Senate for listening and considering some important yet simple changes and additions to the act that will make it stronger.
First, I want to highlight that Bill C-22 is rooted in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN convention and the Canadian Human Rights Act. My members are not looking for charity. We appreciate that this benefit is based on human rights because disability issues matter for all Canadians.
Second, I would like to talk about the interaction between other benefit programs. The Manitoba Court of King’s Bench found in 2022, between 2005 and 2018, Manitoba clawed back more than $330 million in children’s special allowance benefits from Indigenous children in the child and family services system. Provincial clawbacks of federal benefits are a real risk and should be addressed in the bill.
Currently in Manitoba, an individual on EIA, or Employment and Income Assistance Program, collects between $823 per month in general assistance up to $1,278 per month with those with severe and prolonged disabilities. As you can see, all these levels of income do not come close to the cost of living.
As stated in the preamble, provinces do take the lead on disability benefits, services and direct supports. I am concerned that given the history and the potential for clawbacks, both in income and wraparound benefits, that the Canadian disability benefit needs to be protected. We need those benefits, both provincially and federally, to be stackable so they can actually make an impact on disability, alleviate poverty and give recipients a dignified and fulfilling life.
The next question is: How do we do this? There are two steps I want to bring to your attention. Step one is in proposed section 3, the purpose of the act. This needs to be more than one sentence. The bill has ambitious goals that need to be reflected here. The purpose of the act needs to be more specific with a benefit level, more than just basic needs like food, security and housing. There are also additional expenses when living with a disability — transportation costs, social inclusion and social opportunities are some examples. In the purpose of the Canadian disability benefit, the need is to give a certainty of the federal government goals and to discourage provinces from interfering with the achievement of those goals through their own social benefit programs.
The importance of having clear and specific purpose of the act is twofold. First is to discourage the provinces from making clawbacks to benefits. This enhanced purpose will give guidance to the courts and Parliament in the future of the intention of the act if there is a dispute between federal and provincial jurisdictions.
Second, in proposed section 11, the regulations, a lot of the details of this act are left to be developed in the regulations. Having a more specific detailed purpose and some general goals in clause 3 will help guide and create a better Canadian disability benefit.
Step two, the federal government already has the tools to protect this benefit if Parliament does not want to change the bill with an amendment. The Canada Social Transfer has the ability for the federal government to withhold an equal amount of funds transferred to the provinces that clawback benefits. However, in order to avoid long and expensive court challenges, a change within Bill C-22 is preferred. In section 9 (c), this benefit has been protected from clawbacks with other federal benefits, so you have already made that point.
In closing, I would like to thank you for listening. Canada is a wealthy country and we all need to value its citizens, including the 6.2 million Canadians living with a disability.
In the past we were looked at as a burden, a cost to society. Given all the proper supports, we can achieve more, live more and add to the economy, to the society, and to the workforce. In order for the Canadian disability benefit to achieve its goals for the next generation, we need to start today to work together no matter what the jurisdiction with no clawbacks in a clearly defined goal and purpose with Bill C-22. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kron.
Ms. Reed, your five minutes, please.
Jenna Reid, Artistic Director, Kickstart Disability Arts and Culture: Thank you. Hello, my name is Jenna Reid. My pronouns are she and her and when I introduce myself, I like to reference the late psychiatric survivor Diana Caponi in saying I am a woman who wears many hats. I do this because it speaks to my community accountability, speaking to a lineage of knowledge, activism, politics, ethics, and political organizers and community members that I have learned from.
The hats that I wear are artist and arts administrator. I’m coming to you in my role as the artistic director of Kickstart Disability Arts and Culture. I’m an activist with over 15 years of organizing experience in the psychiatric survivor community, as well as doing front line cross-movement solidarity work. I am an academic with a PhD in critical disability studies, and I identify as a mad psychiatric survivor, queer, White settler and cis woman. I reference these particular hats because artists and especially disabled artists are in a very unique position in relation to poverty and these perspectives deserve to be heard. I have worked on the board of a social-purpose enterprise that is built out of the psychiatric survivor community in order to create our own solutions to poverty, stigma and various forms of marginalization. This organization believes strongly in the wisdom, value, and skills of people with lived experience of mental health, addiction, homelessness, trauma, newcomer and refugee challenges. These issues of poverty are intersectional.
I have also done a two-year-long post-doctoral fellowship at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health specifically researching poverty and experiences of social assistance programs in intersectional 2SLGBTQIA+ communities with a heavy focus on disability.
I think it matters to reflect in this bill that this bill is not enough. It’s not moving fast enough and it is clear to our communities that our needs and lives have not been a priority.
The Chair: Ms. Reid, unfortunately, we have to suspend. Interpretation is not working. Therefore, let’s take a few minutes to figure this out. I apologize profusely.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
Senator Patricia Bovey (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators and presenters, I will be chairing the balance of this afternoon’s discussion.
To our presenters, I am very sorry we had the vote. I’m not certain if you watched it, but I can tell you there will be another vote coming up.
Without further ado, colleagues, we have agreed that this meeting will run until 6:30. We hope that is alright with everyone. There will be no steering meeting afterward.
I gather that Mr. Kron was able to conclude his remarks. I will ask Ms. Shaw to give a brief presentation if she could. Then we will go to Dr. Frankel. To our witnesses online — and Ms. Reid — we are very sorry about the translation issues. I understand that Ms. Blake is still online and will be able to answer questions following the responses from Ms. Shaw and Dr. Frankel, but I don’t know whether you’re in a position to finish giving Ms. Reid’s testimony. We have had this problem before, and we will make arrangements to try to make amend for the issue with Ms. Reid.
Without further ado, up to five minutes for Ms. Shaw and then up to five minutes for Dr. Frankel and then unless Ms. Blake wants to make a statement we will move to questions.
Jenel Shaw, Executive Director, Arts AccessAbility Network Manitoba: Honourable, senators, I thank you for welcoming Arts AccessAbility Network Manitoba, or AANM, to be a witness to speak to Bill C-22. I’m honoured to be representing AANM and others who are deaf and disabled at these important proceedings. We are speaking of issues that reflect our lived experiences of disability and our professional expertise.
At AANM, we focus on supporting artists by providing professional development and opportunities to showcase their work. We also take on advocacy projects within Manitoba to improve access to the arts for all.
As a result of disability, many of our artists are not able to work a full-time job, but an arts career allows them the flexibility to work when they are capable on their own schedules. Unfortunately, much of the work available to those with disability is most precarious in nature. It isn’t about hours worked nor about salaried opportunities with benefits, but about honorariums or art produced being sold.
Though art, many of our artists with disabilities are questioning the assumptions of normality and how the mind and body perform. Our artists use their platforms to increase the knowledge of disability and to dispel harmful stereotypes. One of our members, Adam Schwartz, uses comedy as a way to speak about neurodiversity. Those who attend his shows can expect a laugh and hear from Adam about his experiences living with autism. Alice Crawford, another member of AANM, is a hard-of-hearing artist who uses type and print making to express the obstacles and communications she experiences in her daily interactions.
While many of our artists are working to improve their lives and the lives of others in the disability community through their important work, they live in poverty and struggle to make end meet. It can be difficult for artists to reach their full potential with the stresses of poverty and the lack of accessible and affordable spaces for them to do their work. It’s also important to note the hidden or extra costs of disability which affect the community. For example, some folks need non-prescription medication, precut food or aids that are not or only partially covered. These additional costs force those with disabilities to pay out of pocket or go without these important supports.
AANM is fully supportive of Bill C-22 to ensure those with disabilities have the financial security they desperately need and to uphold the dignity of our community. The impact of a national disability benefit would allow our community to afford basic necessities to ensure their health and well-being and to help cover the hidden costs of disability.
This bill would ensure that artists with disabilities could continue their important work to create an inclusive and accessible future. While AANM does support this bill, we have concerns. The bill explicitly states that this benefit is for those under 65 who are of working age. As we all know, poverty doesn’t end at 65. Artists with disability, there is no retirement age. Our artists continue to create work long into their senior years, and are as deserving of financial stability as their younger counterparts.
Another concern is the lack of information on the income amount people with disabilities should receive. Upon passage of Bill C-22, guidelines need to be put in place in consultation with organizations of disabled persons such as AANM. This historic legislation will ensure a more inclusive and equitable society, but to guarantee the bill has the impact it is intending, we must ensure that section 11.1 is respected. The real experts of disability and poverty are those with lived experience. They know best what is needed for themselves to be financially secure. And we hope that section 11.1 will be respected and enacted.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the honourable senators for their invitation to speak about this important bill today. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, the lights are flashing. The vote will be at 5:08. For our guests, these are supply bills. These are the money bills that we all need to get out there. So we’re very sorry about this.
Dr. Frankel, we have time for you to make an intervention and colleagues I will make sure that we leave the room by 5:03 to get to the 5:08 vote.
Sid Frankel, Associate Professor, Faculty of Social Work, University of Manitoba, as an individual: Thank you, senators, for the opportunity. I speak to you with a lot of humility sitting with my colleagues, who are experts on disability. I do not have a disability, but I think I can make some points which will be cohesive with what they are saying.
Basically, I have made four points. I know that you have my written comments. First of all, I think the act and regulation should take more of a human rights approach to poverty prevention and amelioration. That would mean guaranteeing the benefit as a right, using the various human rights treaties to which Canada is a signatory as a normative framework and the minister required to report annually on compliance with it as well as with the Charter.
Accountability measures, the minister also reporting annually on the rate, depth and duration of poverty among people with disabilities, a consideration of people with disabilities as a vulnerable group and trying to lower the risks that occur because of the intersection of poverty and disability. One way to do that is to ensure that the eligibility processes and the appeals are accessible to all. The act should guarantee the technological and human resources required by some people with disabilities to render them accessible.
Finally, a human rights approach argues that people with disabilities must participate in the administration of the act, not merely in preparation of the regulations. There should be something more comprehensive and more enduring, perhaps a committee representative of all people with disabilities that could monitor the implementation of the act, make recommendations for improvement and respond to recommendations of others.
Second, the bill requires the minister to take account of the market basket measure, Canada’s official poverty line, in establishing the benefit level which will then, of course, become the standard for assessing how much poverty has been reduced by the bill. There are some problems with that. The way the Market Basket Measure, or MBM works, many costs are not included in the basket that are subtracted from income. I recount them in what I have written. But one of them is the cost of medically prescribed, but uninsured goods and services. My argument would be that the benefit will be set too low using the market basket measure.
Beyond this, none of our poverty measures take account of the additional costs related to disability to have an equivalent standard of living for those who are not disabled, and we have some recent research that I have cited that documents that very fact with regard to the market basket measure.
I would recommend an adjusted low-income measure. This is a relative measure rather than the absolute market basket measure. Relative measures are much more highly correlated with health and well-being indicators. The market basket measure would have to be adjusted. First of all, it doesn’t take account of the additional costs of disabilities, so something would have to be built in to assess those. Because the Market Basket Measure is based on median incomes, it would go down likely in times of recession and certainly in depression.
I would argue that the last year before the recession or depression should be taken as the benefit level. Beyond that, again, others have made points about clawbacks. We know it happens. It happened with the CERB, despite very strong statements from the federal minister asking provinces and territories not to claw back.
The relevant act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, already contains a condition that disincentivizes provinces from establishing a waiting period for the application for social assistance. A similar condition could be put in with regard to clawing back provincial disabilities.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I do apologize for this disrupted meeting. I know you all know how the government business has to go on.
Colleagues, I’m going to suggest, please, that we suspend while we go and vote. The vote is at 5:08. It takes about 10 minutes to do the standing vote. We will be back. We will then ask questions.
Ms. Blake, I don’t know whether you would like to make a few remarks before we move to questions, or wait for questions. Okay. We’ll ask questions when we return.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues and guests, we are back online, and there are no more votes today. The chamber either has risen or is about to rise momentarily, so we will carry forward uninterrupted.
Colleagues, as I said earlier, our meeting today will go until 6:30 p.m. We’ll keep this panel going until 5:40 p.m., and the second panel will be from 5:40 p.m. to 6:30.
I understand Ms. Blake, that you would like to make a few remarks, and then we’ll go to questions. At the beginning of the question period, we’ll let you know how long you have for questions and answers.
Ms. Blake, please.
Kait Blake, Administrative Director, Kickstart Disability Arts and Culture: Thank you. I will continue from where Ms. Reid left off.
This bill does not adequately address the complexities of poverty. Poverty is not an absence of sufficient income. Poverty is built into the social relations and power inequities inherent in our systems, society and institutions.
This bill does not address the sheer inaccessibility of the social assistance programs, systems and institutions and does not attend to the discrimination and violence that disabled people face within them.
The bill does not account for how many are excluded or inadequately served, let alone the fact that it is disappointingly minimal in its goal. The reduction of poverty still leaves our communities in dismal condition.
Jenna Reid approaches this feedback from the point of the incredible privilege of being White, growing up in the middle upper class and having a PhD in critical disability studies. Within those pieces, nothing in how Ms. Reid and Kickstart were invited to come to this table adequately supported in giving the type of meaningful feedback, as in every step of this process, has been inaccessible from our point of view, as disabled people.
“Nothing about us without us” would mean that we are involved in meaningful change in this bill at all stages. Currently, we do not see how that has been built into this process. Surely you all know this. You have been told this and you are able to understand that this is the way it is designed to go, with a lot of performative inclusion — knowing that inclusion means that your table is set, dressed and ready for service and the best you might do is put a coaster under one leg to slightly improve the wobbles in a superficial way.
The best that I can say to you, on behalf of Ms. Reid and Kickstart, is that we don’t see any meaningful attention being given to the unique needs of disabled artists, the experience of the gig economy and unstable work, and the dismal ways in which disabled artists and arts administrators are funded and resourced. We do not see any meaningful consideration for things like episodic disabilities, nor the faulty and inaccessible process of getting adequate proof of being disabled, or being disabled enough, or disabled in the right way. There is also no accounting for the influence of racism and anti-indigeneity in our frame of disability rights.
All of this to say that to reduce poverty, we need to consider more than just the impact of insufficient income. Do we need more money? Yes. Will that fix the issue of inequity? Absolutely not.
I will end of my statement. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Blake, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you and thank all our presenters.
Colleagues, we have a little more than 15 minutes. May I ask each of us to have three minutes for a question and answer; and if we have time, we can do a second round. I know that sometimes we repeat questions and dig deeper. May I suggest, in the interest of time, that we try to ask different questions to the best of our ability?
Senator Poirier: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.
My question is for Professor Frankel. In your remarks, you recommended that the act should require an appeal mechanism and guarantee that appellants be provided with resources to support filing and arguing their appeals.
Applying for disability supports and appealing decisions is often heavy. Given your experience, I’m wondering if there is a Canadian or international example of jurisdictions that are doing a good job of supporting people with disabilities through that process. What should we be looking to? Do you think this benefit should be based on individual or family income?
Mr. Frankel: A few questions there. I’m not aware of the effectiveness of various approaches to appeals. However, I do know — and my colleagues can also speak to it — that the support that is available for the appellant is important. For example, when it comes to Employment Insurance appeals, there is some support available. I think that’s worth looking into and it’s given me a good idea to look at where there are effective appeal mechanisms.
The general approach in Canada for almost all benefits is to focus on household income. There are two issues. One is what income is taken into account in providing the benefit, and the other is who receives the benefit. It has been our tradition that household income is taken into account. It is based on the assumption that all household members have access to the benefits. But I think the person with the disability should be the recipient of that income, not a household head if they are not the person with the disability.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. If during your research in the next little while you come up with an idea, could you please send that to the clerk? That will help inform our work.
Senator Poirier: If you were to make an amendment to Bill C-22, what would it be?
Mr. Frankel: I think the most important thing is to have a more enduring and comprehensive way for people with disabilities to be involved. I would require something much more than being consulted on the regulations, although that is important. I would argue for a committee to be established that is appointed by an all-party committee and that has the mandate to monitor implementation, to make recommendations to the minister — recommendations that should be made to the entire House — and to be consulted on recommendations made by others.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all of the witnesses for your thoughtful testimony.
Ms. Blake, you were talking about social relations and power. Dr. Frankel and Ms. Shaw, you spoke of financial security and poverty reduction. Mr. Kron, you spoke about how the purpose of the act needs to be expanded.
My question is for all the witnesses. The preamble of the bill lists social exclusion as one of the reasons working-age persons with disabilities are more likely than those without disabilities to live in poverty.
In your opinion, how can the Canada disability benefit be designed to promote social inclusion for persons with disabilities? Dr. Frankel, you spoke about that a little bit.
Mr. Kron: The best part of the bill is that in the preamble, it gives weight to the bill in terms of some definitions and examples. That is the important part.
Ms. Shaw: I would agree with what Dr. Frankel said before. The inclusion of the voices of deaf and disabled individuals is really important. We are the experts in terms of our own experiences. We know what it is like to live in poverty and the extra costs that we incur. It’s essential to ensure that we have full participation in all aspects of this plan.
Ms. Blake: I’m answering on behalf of myself and Jenna Reid as well. Ms. Reid has indicated that inclusion needs to allow for addressing the power imbalance through participation.
Personally, as someone who is neurodiverse and lives with various intellectual and learning disabilities, doing my own research and trying learning more about this bill was incredibly inaccessible. There was no lay-term version available to me. You have to come in from a place of privilege and understanding to even understand all of the information and the nuances in the bill. I feel that is a very important thing to point out. Thank you.
Mr. Frankel: I think the bill should describe the benefit as a right or an entitlement so that it does not carry the stigma of more contingent benefits like welfare.
Senator Burey: Thank you to our witnesses for sharing your experiences and your expertise.
I’m going to hone in on the issue of legislation versus regulation and the permutations in between. We have heard from many witnesses who have one view: “Let’s get this bill passed. No amendments. It’s going to die.” Knowing that the majority of the Canada disability benefit would be established through regulations, specifically order-in-council — while clause 12 of Bill C-22 establishes parliamentary reviews of the Canada disability benefit act, a regulatory process limits parliamentary review of regulations to the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.
In your opinion, regarding the majority of the Canada disability benefit description being determined through regulations rather than legislation, what are the potential advantages or disadvantages? We’ve been hearing the two sides.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Burey, our time is very tight. Perhaps two people can answer this one and another two the next. I’m really sorry.
Mr. Kron: I’ll be more than happy to reply.
A human right can’t be based on good intentions. Not having clawbacks need to have the weight of law. Regulations can be changed at any time in the Privy Council, so we really need to have those protections within the law or within the Canadian Social Transfer. It must be somewhere like that. Governments change expectations, and we forget why we are here today. We really need to embed that into law so we don’t have to keep coming back every five years to fight for the same human right that we already have.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Blake, would you like to respond to this?
Ms. Shaw: I defer to my colleagues.
Mr. Frankel: I will be brief.
I understand the tension. Many people with disabilities are living in terrible poverty right now, and we want to do this right. I would argue that principles like referring to the various human rights treaties to which Canada is a signatory should go into the bill; they should be established as a normative framework, and the minister should be required to report on compliance.
Senator Bernard: I don’t think there will be time to get answers to my questions, so I’ll ask the questions and respectfully ask for a written response later, if you can.
My first question is to Dr. Reid and Ms. Blake. You have highlighted the complexities of poverty and also talked about the intersectionality of poverty with indigeneity, racism and so on. I would like you, if you could, to send us more of your ideas around what might need to be amended in the bill to ensure we take account of the complexities of poverty, because many people don’t fully understand it, especially that piece on inclusion.
My other comment is really about what you’ve shared in terms of the inaccessibility of these meetings themselves. I have to say — I will put it on the record — that I feel very embarrassed that we’ve created a situation where we’ve invited you here and that the meetings themselves are inaccessible. If you have specific recommendations for us as to how we can do better as the Senate of Canada to be more inclusive and create conditions where your voices can be heard, I would like to hear from you. We would welcome your suggestions. Thank you.
I don’t want an answer now; we don’t have the time. I want to invite those responses.
The Deputy Chair: Very good points.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for being here.
Madam Shaw, you talked about the complexity of being an artist with a disability. I have to admit, I don’t know much about it, but you did mention the fact that it is a gig economy, it’s via honorariums and small contracts, et cetera. Do you know if the arts community for and with persons with disabilities have been part of the consultation up until now? That’s my first question.
My other question might be for Mr. Kron and, if we have time, others. The bill calls for taking into consideration the poverty line. What I’m hearing more and more is that this will not be enough; we need to go beyond that. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I would like to hear you about that, but maybe first on consultation.
Ms. Shaw: I’m not aware of any consultations at the moment, but it would be very important. It is very difficult for artists. Even when they receive honorariums, there is a chance that if they put that cheque in their bank, they can get kicked off a disability. That brings a lot of stress to our members. It is important to speak to more artists with disabilities to understand the complexities of going through these different systems we have and how they affect their poverty levels.
Mr. Kron: In speaking to the poverty levels, I’m going to defer to Dr. Frankel, but I am going to say that if you double the benefit that people get in Manitoba right now, they’re still below the poverty line. That is just to put it into a little context.
Mr. Frankel: Very briefly, none of the poverty measures take into account the additional costs related to disability for an equivalent standard of living to those without disabilities. Something has to be done about that if you’re trying to limit poverty among people with disability. The market basket measure has a technical problem — what’s not in the basket — and that will lead to setting too low a standard.
Senator Petitclerc: I want things on the record. Yes or no, would you all agree that, no matter the disability, living with that disability comes with extra costs?
Mr. Kron: Yes.
Ms. Shaw: Absolutely.
Mr. Frankel: There is evidence of that, yes.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Blake, do you agree with that?
Ms. Blake: Yes, I do.
I would also like to just answer the bit about the engagement of disabled artists. Kickstart Disability Arts and Culture has been a professional disability arts organization for 25 years, and we do not feel that the disability arts community has had a meaningful part in this until the invitation to this particular hearing. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I want to thank you all —
Senator Bernard: I want to continue with the last question that Senator Petitclerc asked. Does that change when you hit the magic age of 65 — for the record?
Mr. Kron: For the record, yes, you’re cured at 65 because your benefits go away. That’s why they need to be stackable. I’ll send the Senate a bit more information so you can consider it.
The Deputy Chair: Again, I’m apologetic and embarrassed that this first panel this afternoon has had interruptions, both technical and due to two votes. You have been both gracious and generous. We would love to receive more information to dig deeper on any of the things you have said.
For our colleagues who didn’t have a chance to ask a question when we ran out of time, could you send your questions to the clerk so that we can forward it to the panel and get the responses? This is about inclusivity and about getting questions on the table to best of our ability. If we can do that, colleagues, I would be very grateful.
Again, to panel one, thank you for your graciousness, for your information and for coming here this afternoon. You’re welcome to stay and listen to panel number two.
I would like to welcome our second panel who are here by video conference. We have, from the Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec, Paul Lupien, Président; and André Prévost, Director General; and from the Quebec Intellectual Disability Society, we have Amélie Duranleau, Executive Director; and Samuel Ragot, Senior Policy Analyst and Advocacy Advisor.
I want to thank you for being with us today. At the outset, with great apologies, I want to tell you that our time is truncated, too, because of the issues we faced earlier this afternoon. We will continue until 6:30 our time. It’s now just about quarter to 5 p.m. May I ask you each to begin with your presentations? You each have five minutes for opening statements, and then we’ll have questions from our members. I will start with the senators who weren’t able to ask questions in the last round, and then we can have people deliver their questions and have written responses if we run out of time.
Mr. Lupien, please begin.
[Translation]
Paul Lupien, President, Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and esteemed senators.
I’m Paul Lupien, President and board chair of COPHAN, the Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec. I am a person living with a disability and I am also a member of the Institut national pour l’équité, l’égalité et l’inclusion des personnes en situation de handicap, the INÉÉI-PSH. I am here with André Prévost, Director General of COPHAN, who will briefly discuss the Canada disability benefit, its necessary harmonization with the Basic Income Program and the need to avoid bureaucratic ill effects in its implementation.
The Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec, or COPHAN, is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1985. Its mission is to make Quebec inclusive, in order to ensure that people with functional limitations and their families are fully and meaningful integrated into society. Most of the directors in COPHAN’s board are persons with disabilities. This organization includes more than 50 national and regional organizations and groups of people with all types of disabilities.
COPHAN relies on the expertise and skills of its members, many of whom are persons living with disabilities. Its mandate is to represent persons with disabilities and their families and to advocate for their rights before the relevant bodies and authorities.
The principles that guide COPHAN’s work are full and meaningful inclusion, the rule of law, the right to equality, universal accessibility, accommodation and compensation for the additional costs of living with a disability.
This last principle is particularly dear to us, in the context of the proposed Canada disability benefit. Indeed, for COPHAN, compensation measures must be put in place to meet the different needs of people with disabilities. These measures seek to reduce the consequences and additional costs associated with living with a disability. Compensation can take different forms, as goods, direct services, allowances, tax measures, and so on.
I would invite André Prévost to take the floor.
André Prévost, Director General, Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec: Good afternoon, everyone. COPHAN believes that the timely passage of Bill C-22 by the Senate would be a very positive step forward for many persons living with disabilities. Involving persons with disabilities as equal partners in the process of co-developing regulations — known as the “by and for” principle — is certainly a good way forward.
Accordingly, the benefit should be implemented as soon as possible, considering the progress already made in several provinces and territories, particularly in Quebec. This federal benefit should be a supplementary benefit and be used to enhance the programs that are already in place in the provinces and territories.
To make this happen, a lot of work has to be done on harmonization and coordination, since it is vital to ensure that the benefit does not conflict with local provincial and territorial programs. Indeed, at the planning or actual definition stages of this future benefit, we also need, or will need, to assess the possible negative impact of its implementation or the expected perverse effects on persons living with disabilities.
Nevertheless, we are confident that thorough harmonization can be achieved without incurring significant delays, given the many initiatives and consultations that are either under way or have been completed to date. In Quebec’s particular case, the experience of developing regulations for the Basic Income Program has been very successful so far.
Let’s take a look at a few aspects in this area that merit consideration. We will have to figure out a method to develop a single escalator for the federal benefit and the Quebec Basic Income Program to avoid having two different indexation rates, which could lead to bureaucratic chaos. We obviously support full indexation based on the cost of health care rather than the cost of living, considering the costs associated with living with a disability, which we talked about earlier.
We would advise the government not to make future benefits available through the Disability Tax Credit, or DTC, in its current form. Indeed, this sole eligibility criterion for the Canada disability benefit is not viable, as Quebec’s long-term lag in take-up compared to the Canadian average is just too great.
This situation might be a result of cultural or informational factors. For example, Quebecers make up 22.6% of Canada’s population, but only 9.7% of recipients are from Quebec. Theoretically, there is a shortage of 165,000 program users, which is quite significant.
Finally, the combined benefits of the Canada benefit and the Basic Income Program should fully and unequivocally lift people out of poverty, taking into account the costs of living with a disability and accessibility restrictions. We could think of education, employment, transportation, and so on.
We believe that the combined individualized benefits should not take spousal income into account; this is very important. There is also the important issue of employment income, and here there should be clear income progressivity for eligible individuals. Taking spousal income into account has a number of negative effects. There is a risk that Quebec and federal benefits could be reduced or that people could become ineligible for certain support programs, such as access to housing, the home adaptation program, in-home support and so on. There is also the risk that spouses could be separated, which would lead to isolation and even unwanted institutionalization, which is very costly.
Also, it is important to ensure that provinces and territories do not take advantage of the Canada benefit to make cuts to their social programs or reallocate resources to other areas. When it comes to transferring the Canada benefit to Quebec, the surplus not distributed to persons with disabilities should be reinvested in other disability-related programs for needs identified —
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Prévost, would it be possible —
Mr. Prévost: I’m done. It is to respond to the unmet needs.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Prévost, I’m afraid we’re going to have to move on. We all appreciate your opening testimony, and I’m sure we’ll be able to continue it during our questions.
But, with time as it is, Mr. Ragot, I wonder if you could take your turn, if you will, please.
[Translation]
Amélie Duranleau, Executive Director, Quebec Intellectual Disability Society: Members of the committee, Madam Chair, thank you for inviting us.
My name is Amélie Duranleau, and I am the Executive Director of the Quebec Intellectual Disability Society. I am here with my colleague Samuel Ragot, who is a senior policy analyst at the society and a doctoral student at McGill University’s School of Social Work. He is working on the issue of financial security for persons with disabilities.
We are pleased to be here to discuss our position on Bill C-22 with you, especially in the days immediately following Quebec’s Intellectual Disability Week, which addressed issues related to financial security and dignity.
First, as we have done in the other place and as hundreds of other organizations have called for, we must stress the urgency of moving forward with the rapid passage of Bill C-22. This bill could play a key role in lifting persons with disabilities out of poverty across the country. In this sense, this is an opportunity we have not seen in decades.
Of course, we realize people might feel uneasy voting on framework legislation that falls short on detail. However, considering the amendments made in the other place, we believe this is the right thing to do.
For one thing, there is an urgent need for action to ensure the financial security of persons with disabilities across the country. For another thing, we have the experience of successfully developing regulations associated with framework legislation in the context of the Basic Income Program in Quebec.
Like Bill C-22, Quebec’s Basic Income Program is the result of framework legislation seeking to lift people out of poverty. As we intend to do with Bill C-22, we worked with the provincial government to reach an agreement on final regulations that satisfied most of the parties involved.
In the case of the Canada disability benefit, we believe that the regulatory process could be expedited, since the other place has already adopted several major amendments, numerous consultations have already taken place, and there is ongoing dialogue with the provinces and territories.
In addition, the sums reserved in yesterday’s federal budget point towards a robust consultation process. We are very happy with this important signal.
Samuel Ragot, Senior Policy Analyst and Advocacy Advisor, Quebec Intellectual Disability Society: Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I would like to discuss the importance of working with the provinces and territories.
As you know, the provinces and territories all have financial assistance programs for persons living with disabilities. It is important to keep this in mind, because this bill does not seek to address the problems with these programs. Still, it is crucial that these programs be coordinated with the new benefit so as not to penalize recipients or encourage local governments to withdraw from their engagements on social protection and financial security for persons with disabilities.
For example, we now have in Quebec, as of January 1, 2023, the Basic Income Program, a first in Canada and probably in the world. While this program is not perfect and we continue to make representations to the provincial government, we must ensure that the Canadian disability benefit will interact positively and coherently with it.
To date, the Quebec government has shown an interest in seeing a federal benefit that complements its programs, as long as it truly helps those who need it. We are pleased with this collaborative approach and will support all such efforts. We are confident that any such negotiations will be successful.
Beyond our collaboration with the provinces and territories, we think it is also important to ensure that the Canada benefit is fully individualized, that it is not based on spousal earnings, to minimize issues of financial dependency, that it provides a real pathway out of poverty, and that it allows people to work without seeing clawbacks to their income. In our view, it is a matter of dignity.
In this sense, it is remarkable that Bill C-22 proposes the creation of a universal benefit for working-age persons with disabilities, based on the definition of the Accessible Canada Act, breaking away from the punitive vision of social assistance and the “welfarization” of disability.
Now we have to hope that such a bill will also encourage provincial and territorial governments to overhaul their own programs.
Ms. Duranleau: Since several amendments were adopted in the other place, we believe that it is time for the Senate to proceed with the speedy passage, without amendments, of Bill C-22. In our view, the amendments adopted are sufficient to ensure that the regulatory process will be inclusive and that it will have clear and relatively binding guidelines for the federal government. The fact that the federal level has already set aside funding for consultations is also an important signal.
With regard to Quebec, we are confident that the governments will negotiate in good faith and ensure that all persons in need of the benefit will receive it. Many persons with disabilities can no longer wait. It is time for action.
Finally, Madam Chair, members of the committee, rest assured that we will be available to participate in the regulatory process, including by offering you the benefit of our extensive experience in Quebec on these issues.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you all for your testimony.
We will now move on to the round of questions from senators.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. Although you didn’t bring it up, I really want to hear your opinion on this particular issue. A number of witnesses have discussed the concerns around the phrase “working age” and that the bill limits disability payments to people of working age. I would like your thoughts on this. Does it make sense? If not, what should be done with this phrase? Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Who wants to take that question?
Ms. Duranleau, go ahead.
Ms. Duranleau: We do have to start somewhere. I think the age issue is a good start. That could be a good starting point.
Mr. Prévost: Of course, the age of 65 is a statistic that features in many programs. At that age, people usually become eligible for Old Age Security, the OAS, or the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the GIS. This raises the issue of coordination with other programs.
Now, could we define parameters to ensure that the income is ongoing, without clawbacks for persons with disabilities? I must say I am telling you this without having consulted our members.
Mr. Lupien: As a person with a disability, I can tell you that your expenses don’t change when you turn 65. I have a disability, so I have additional costs, and all our programs are being taken away from us. It would be good if the programs lifted us out of poverty, even after we turned 65.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: Thank you to the witnesses for sharing with us very powerful points of view. I am interested, though, in your reasoning for feeling that there should be no changes whatsoever at this stage. In particular, I’m sure you are well aware that the Canada disability benefit has no amount and nothing in this bill that would actually see a livable disability benefit come from it. In fact, it could be as low as a dollar that was decided on.
I am hoping you can help me understand why it is you feel so much faith in this process when there are still so many gaps in the bill that we have before us.
The Deputy Chair: Who would like to respond? Mr. Prévost.
[Translation]
Mr. Prévost: Since this is framework legislation, the duration of this Parliament is a major consideration, so it’s best to move forward as quickly as possible. That way, the regulations can be developed. We have to believe that everyone is acting in good faith to achieve a real benefit that will align perfectly with what’s being done at the provincial and territorial levels.
If we don’t believe that, if we don’t have faith, we won’t get there. We won’t have framework legislation, and we certainly won’t have regulations. It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. We are choosing to have faith — faith in Parliament, faith in the Senate and faith in us all. It’s as simple as that.
The Deputy Chair: Did you have anything to add, Ms. Duranleau?
Ms. Duranleau: I’m going to let my colleague Mr. Ragot respond.
Mr. Ragot: Thank you for your question. It’s a very good one. A lot of questions have to do with the poverty measures being used. We asked that the Market Basket Measure be used. It’s determined on a regional basis to ensure true equality between the various regions of the country.
We are afraid that Parliament will be prorogued or dissolved, that we’ll end up with no benefits and that people will continue living in poverty forever. This isn’t an ideal bill. It could certainly be improved, but it’s a bill people need now, tomorrow. They need it right away, not in 5, 10 or 15 years. It’s needed immediately. People are living in extremely precarious situations, and they need help.
We expect it would be wildly unpopular if the benefit amounted to only a dollar. If that happened, the government would have us to deal with. We would keep pushing the government until it established a proper benefit, one that truly helped to lift people out of poverty.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Thank you to our witnesses for your thoughtful contributions today.
My question has to do with the timeline for the Canada disability benefit and the rollout of funds. Your organizations in a joint submission as well as others to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, or the HUMA committee, recommended an initial implementation phase that provides access to the benefit for recipients of provincial and territorial financial assistance programs for persons with disabilities and mental health conditions. You cited the example of the basic income program in Quebec and the successful development of regulations with framework legislation. Recognizing that there are barriers and that some members of the disabled community may not currently benefit from these programs that you’ve quoted, why do you believe that the benefit should be implemented in this manner?
[Translation]
Mr. Ragot: Thank you for your question. If the goal is really to provide access to the benefit, it can be done in stages. The first stage might be to make the Canada disability benefit accessible to recipients of provincial and territorial programs. That shouldn’t be the only way to access the benefit, obviously. If the government wants to move quickly and make the benefit accessible to those who need it now, that’s one way to go about it, but it shouldn’t be the only way. It’s really a bridge, a gateway to make the benefit accessible quickly.
There are other people who don’t have access to it. In Quebec, it’s very difficult to qualify for the Basic Income Program. Eligibility needs to be expanded. The reference in the bill to the definition in the Accessible Canada Act is a good way to expand eligibility to prospective recipients, if the bill is passed.
Mr. Prévost: I would say that, in Quebec’s case, the Basic Income Program was launched in January, but access to the program is not set in stone. Discussions are under way to improve program access.
Like with other programs, a starting point is always helpful. Perhaps it’s a good idea to start with what we know, with what exists, and to then improve upon it. If we don’t do anything until we have the perfect approach, this Parliament will have come and gone. As my colleague pointed out, we don’t want people having to wait 5, 10 or 15 years for this support. That’s what we desperately want to avoid.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: Ideally, I would like all the witnesses to answer my question, time permitting. Mr. Ragot, you were very clear about the fact that people were in need, that immediate action was necessary. You say people need help now, tomorrow. I think everyone understands the sense of urgency, so here’s my question. Are you confident in the bill?
When the minister was here, she said that the conversations, discussions and consultations were quite far along, except the bill, in its current form, indicates that the regulatory process is to be reported on. That means a report will be tabled on the progress made in the regulatory process over the year. Technically, it can take up to a year just to get a report on the regulatory process, which strikes me as a pretty long time in the face of this urgent situation.
This is my question. Do you think the process will advance as quickly as they say, even though it’s not stipulated in the bill? Mr. Ragot, you can go first, if you like.
Mr. Ragot: Certainly. Thank you for your question. It’s a good one. All we have to go on is faith that the government will do the right thing.
That said, consultations have already taken place, including federal consultations on the disability action plan. The plan identifies certain financially oriented priorities, in terms of financial security for persons with disabilities. Insights as to what should be done are already available. Researchers have already published scientific articles on the bill, myself included, addressing the measures that should be taken, the best approach and so forth. The best indicators are the subject of much discussion.
We are fairly confident given that people in government, persons with disabilities and members of the academic community have begun considering the issue intensively and providing content, so we think it’s doable in a year. The regulations don’t have to be overly complicated.
To be frank, what concerns me the most is the whole discussion or negotiating process with the Treasury Board, at the federal level. It’s a political negotiation that will probably result in political concessions within cabinet, and we have no control over that. From a regulatory standpoint, I think it can be done. The political discussions are in the hands of the politicians. All we can do is contribute to the regulatory process.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Lupien, would you like to add anything?
Mr. Lupien: No.
[English]
Senator Poirier: I appreciate both of your organizations for taking the time to join us today.
Your groups along with three other organizations jointly submitted a briefing to HUMA in the house in which you jointly wrote:
Women with disabilities are more likely to experience violence and financial abuse than the rest of the population. Therefore, it is essential to fully individualize the future Benefit to limit financial dependency and abuse.
In this sense, we believe that the benefit design should not consider the spouse’s income, assets and liquid assets. This would allow more women to have access to the Benefit and thus strengthen their financial security, giving them more independence.
To confirm, I would like to hear from Mr. Lupien to confirm that this is still the wish of the federation. Mr. Ragot, since you authored the document, I would like you to elaborate how crucial it is that the Canada disability benefit be individualized.
[Translation]
Mr. Lupien: Yes, it’s true that people with disabilities are much more likely to experience violence when they are financially dependent on their spouse. I receive only $900 a month, and my wife sometimes comments that she supports me. That kind of situation needs to stop. A man or woman can experience violence. Yes, women are subjected to violence, but in the disability community, so are men.
It’s important, I think, to address that. Furthermore, as was mentioned earlier, benefits need to continue after the age of 65. I’m sorry, but when I hit 65, I will still be a person with a disability. My cost of living will still be much higher than that of a person without a disability. The expenses related to my disability won’t go away.
Mr. Ragot: Thank you for your question. Yes, the issue is still very pertinent and crucially needs to be addressed. It’s a fact that people with disabilities, mainly women, experience higher rates of domestic violence and financial dependence. It’s a fact that people with intersectional identities are more likely to experience such violence. We know that one way to help people with multiple intersecting identities, arising from the convergence of a number of systems of oppression, is to give them financial security.
Ensuring financial security is one way to help prevent certain types of violence against a person with a disability, a woman with a disability or a woman of colour with a disability. Obviously, it won’t fix the whole problem of violence, but it’s at least one measure that can make a difference in efforts to address gender-based violence.
It’s important, it’s documented, and it’s the right thing to do. It also goes to the fundamental principle of dignity, and the Senate has a unique opportunity to do the right thing.
[English]
Senator Osler: Thank you to all of the witnesses.
Mr. Ragot, you expressed confidence that the regulatory process will be inclusive. Clause 11.1 of Bill C-22 does require the minister to provide persons with disabilities meaningful and barrier-free opportunities to collaborate on the development of the regulations. My question is for both organizations, all witnesses.
How would you describe meaningful and barrier-free opportunities to collaborate and how would you describe an inclusive regulatory and application process?
[Translation]
Mr. Ragot: That’s a good question. There is no magic recipe for an inclusive consultation process. For example, we represent people with varying degrees of intellectual disability. Someone with a mild disability won’t have trouble keeping up with a discussion about poverty, about their wishes, to help determine where they want to live. Someone with a severe or profound intellectual disability will need the help of their friends or family to understand the discussion and express their preferences or wishes.
Measures are available to support those individuals. What matters is making sure the terms and concepts are easy to understand. Obviously, that’s a significant challenge because, by definition, a regulation is complex. It tends to have a legal component, but it’s entirely possible to address these fundamental issues in practical ways that are deeply rooted in people’s day-to-day lives. For example, if you’re going to ask someone how much financial support they need, you should ask them how much they need to live in Montreal or Quebec City.
A number of strategies are available. The federal government has expertise in this area. Yesterday’s budget includes more than $20 million in funding, so we believe the keys, the knowledge and the capacity exist.
What’s more, federal organizations representing persons with disabilities are being engaged through the consultation process. For example, our organization is a member of Inclusion Canada. It’s possible to conduct focus groups, surveys and individual interviews regarding people’s needs. That approach has already been used and continues to be used. We are optimistic that certain consultation methods will be used, and even if the process isn’t perfect, lessons can be learned. The report to Parliament may be a good way to gain understanding and improve the consultations the next time around.
Ms. Duranleau: I’d like to add something, if I may. Through the associations we work with in Quebec, our activities truly embody a certain spirit. We engage in consultations on our end. We also represent thousands of people. It’s important to have confidence in, and rely on, the mechanisms we have in place to ensure free-flowing and inclusive communication. It’s also important to be able to question the people concerned about the implementation of accommodations.
The current work embodies that spirit, so the environment is very promising from a synergy and momentum standpoint.
Mr. Prévost: Our organization, the Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec, has 45 regional and national members, representing people with a range of disabilities, from visually impaired people and deaf people to people with multiple sclerosis and people with multiple chemical sensitivities.
By working with us and fellow organizations like the Quebec Intellectual Disability Society, as well as our other partners, we can help you and the federal government quickly come up with a regulatory framework that would provide swift access to the benefit. That’s what we would like.
The Deputy Chair: Do you have anything to add, Mr. Lupien?
Mr. Lupien: My colleague covered it. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Osler: I noticed on the screen that someone commented in the chat. Will those comments be captured in the witness testimony?
The Deputy Chair: I’ll ask our clerk to respond.
Emily Barrette, Clerk of the Committee: No. That comment was from the first panel.
Senator Osler: That was from the first panel? Thank you.
Senator Bernard: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. I would like to ask about the basic income in Quebec. Can you give us more information about it? Is it high enough to actually lifted people out of poverty? For persons with disabilities who may qualify for the basic income, does that basic income account for some of the hidden costs that we’ve heard other witnesses talk about?
The Deputy Chair: Who would like to start this round?
[Translation]
Mr. Ragot: The Basic Income Program is for people with a very limited capacity for employment in the long term. They must have been receiving benefits under the Social Solidarity Program for five and a half of the previous six years.
Unfortunately, no, the Basic Income Program does not help lift people out of poverty. We’re almost there, but not quite.
Certain disability-related costs are covered under additional benefits. Other costs that people may have aren’t necessarily covered under the exceptional benefits. We are glad to have the program, but it could always be better.
A federal benefit would certainly give program recipients a better quality of life and possibly a lot more financial security.
Mr. Lupien: People who become disabled as a result of an accident or people who live on a disability pension do not qualify for the program, unfortunately. They are still living well below the poverty line. What’s more, when people hit the age of 65, their old age pension is clawed back, so that automatically puts them even further below the poverty line.
As a person with a disability, myself, I can tell you that when I receive the disability pension, the Quebec government doesn’t cover it, unfortunately. Who knows whether Quebec will cover it one day, but as of now, people are really living below the poverty line.
[English]
Senator Burey: Thank you so much for being here and for doing a bit of a marathon session.
I’m going to go back to the poverty line issue and the use of the Market Basket Measure. We heard from our witness in the first session that it is probably not the best measure to capture and alleviate poverty, especially for people living with a disability, with their increased needs. I would like to ask all of you to comment on that. The Market Basket Measure is in the legislation, so what is going to happen if we can’t really use it? Please comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Ragot: I would say that, in terms of regional fairness across Canada, so taking into account the entire country, the Market Basket Measure is the best existing measure for one simple reason. It is based on local costs, so the cost of housing, food and so forth. However, it is true that the Market Basket Measure doesn’t take into account the additional costs related to the needs of a person with a disability, so that’s important to keep in mind.
What’s been proposed elsewhere is adding a 10% to 20% buffer to the Market Basket Measure to take into account costs related to living with a disability. Putting a number on those costs is very tough to do. Canada’s Disability Inclusion Action Plan addresses the issue of quantifying those costs.
Something that’s been proposed in the media is using the Market Basket Measure plus a supplement to reflect disability-related costs. Then, once more data are available, the information can be used to establish more accurate compensation measures for people with certain disabilities.
Clearly, the Market Basket Measure is a good tool to achieve true equality across regions, but it’s not the right tool to compensate for disability-related costs. Why not compromise and use both to come up with an amount? That would ensure that someone living in Vancouver was no worse off financially than someone living in Montreal or better off financially than someone living in New Brunswick, say.
The Deputy Chair: I want to extend our sincere thanks to you for participating today and contributing to our study of Bill C-22.
[English]
I also want to thank our second panel, as I did our first, for your grace and dignity during this interrupted afternoon. I apologize for that again.
I also want to say, for those who are watching us online, that as we examine Bill C-22, we are trying very hard as a committee to balance the backgrounds, disabilities and knowledge that can help us to arrive at our conclusions and write our report. If you have other material to add, we’d be grateful for written submissions. Those are taken into consideration, as is the live or virtual witness testimony.
We have several more panels to come in the next few weeks, so there’s time for you to submit further thoughts and ideas. I think that’s particularly important for this afternoon’s panels because we’ve been forced to shorten our time. Great, heartfelt thanks to all our witnesses in both panels.
Colleagues, we’re going to continue our study tomorrow morning at 11:30. With that, I declare our session adjourned. Thank you all.
(The committee adjourned.)