THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 30, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 11:31 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 Patricia Bovey (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy 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 Patricia Bovey, I am a senator from Manitoba and deputy chair of this committee.
[English]
I would like to begin by doing a round table and ask senators to introduce themselves. Senator Lankin, may we start with you?
Senator Lankin: My name is Frances Lankin, and I’m a senator from Ontario.
Senator Dasko: I am Donna Dasko, a senator from Ontario.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Moodie: Senator Rosemary Moodie, senator from Toronto.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Hello everyone. Thank you for being here. Chantal Petitclerc, senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Burey: Good morning, everyone. Senator Sharon Burey, from Ontario.
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler from Manitoba.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
The Deputy 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.
[English]
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 online, that the committee has taken steps to allow for the full participation of all witnesses and members of the public in the context of our 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 recordings 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 today for the first panel, we welcome by video conference Neil Belanger, Chief Executive Officer with Indigenous Disability Canada. Joining us in person is Krista Carr, Executive Vice-President with Inclusion Canada.
I want to thank you both for being with us today. Ms. Carr, I want to particularly thank you for your time in being with us again. Your opening remarks last week have been shared with the committee, and we look forward to you answering our questions today. I do again, on behalf of this committee, want to apologize publicly for the technical glitches that happened to you the other day. Welcome in person and thank you again.
Today, we will begin with opening statements from Mr. Belanger. I remind you, sir, that you will have five minutes for your statement. Ms. Carr has indicated that because everybody has her report from the other day, she will be available for questions during question period.
Mr. Belanger, the floor is yours.
Neil Belanger, Chief Executive Officer, Indigenous Disability Canada: Thank you. Good morning. I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak briefly today on Bill C-22, the Canada disability benefit act.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Esquimalt and Songhees people whose territories I’m presenting from today.
As noted, my name is Neil Belanger. I am a member of the Lax Yip clan in the House of Nigidane of the Gitxsan First Nation. I’m also the Chief Executive Officer of Indigenous Disability Canada, or IDC, and the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, or BCANDS, which is a national Indigenous disability organization that has been in operation for over 30 years.
IDC-BCANDS provides a variety of disability-related supports and services to thousands of Indigenous individuals and families with disabilities, the majority of whom experience poverty.
As you have heard through prior testimony, 22% of the general population of Canada has a disability. However, for Indigenous people, the rate of disability is much higher at over 30%, and that is coupled with the fact that Indigenous people are more likely to experience poverty in Canada.
In Canada, many Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons with disabilities have been subjected to a life of systemic poverty. They have been told to do more with less and to be thankful for what they have. They are expected to navigate through inaccessible systems in communities not designed by or with them, but in reality largely without them. Many cannot afford adequate, safe and accessible housing, groceries, medication, transportation costs, education, their necessary disability aids and supports or even go to a movie. They face anti-Indigenous racism, ableism, employment exclusion, violence and the list goes on and on.
This is in Canada, a country where the opportunity to be included, active and thriving members of our communities should be on an equal opportunity for all. Unfortunately, we see that some are more equal than others. The Canada disability benefit can lessen that inequality and is a positive move forward in addressing the historical marginalization in working-age persons with disabilities in Canada by reducing the poverty they experience.
We have heard that some feel that the legislation is not strong enough, does not contain enough detail, has too many unknowns and that these must be worked out before the passing of the bill. As this committee knows, amendments have been adopted in the other place strengthening the bill, and any further amendments would have to go back to the House for consideration and debate, and if not agreed with, then back to the Senate to begin again.
The fear that what we have now is that continued delays may jeopardize the passing of the legislation in its entirety. Some might suggest that we have tried, but there are too many conflicting views on the legislation and maybe we need to go back to the table to begin again, conduct further consultations with the disability community again identifying their needs, then redraft the legislation to make sure we get it perfect the next time.
We do not want to see the implementation of a potential $9 billion annual benefit for persons with disabilities further delayed, substituted with a few million dollars to conduct further consultations in an effort to gain 100% consensus from the disability community on the wording of the legislation when these details can be worked out during the development of regulations.
Persons with disabilities living in poverty need the Canada disability benefit today. They needed it yesterday. They needed it years ago, decades ago. The time to act is now.
While we do not and cannot speak on behalf of all persons with disabilities, we can relay from the individuals we serve that seeing this framework legislation passed into law as quickly as possible and then moving to the work of developing regulations so that the financial relief can be seen as quickly as possible is critical.
We would urge this committee to fast-track the passing of Bill C-22, and in doing so, enable the work on regulations to proceed and progress directly with the disability community, specifically those living in poverty and on the development of the regulations and the design of the benefit.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Belanger.
We are now going to move to questions. Before we do so, I would like to ask members in the room with us to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. That will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact committee staff in the room.
Colleagues, I’m going to follow the procedure that I followed when I’ve had the honour of chairing this committee before. I do have a list of everyone’s name, so you don’t have to put up your hand to get on the list. Everyone is on the list, and we’ll move from name to name. If you don’t have a question, you can concede your time to the next person. With time permitting, we will move to a second round.
With each of us, what our process is, Mr. Belanger and Ms. Carr, is that we have five minutes for each senator to ask their question and get your response. It helps if our questioners direct their questions to a specific witness. That saves time unless you specifically want to hear from both.
Senator Osler: Thank you, Mr. Belanger, for your testimony. You spoke about fast-tracking Bill C-22 and developing the regulations. Clause 11.1 in Bill C-22 requires the minister to provide persons with disabilities meaningful and barrier-free opportunities to collaborate on the development of the regulations that will design and implement much of the Canada disability benefit.
You spoke about some being more equal than others. What are your recommendations for the regulations and the application process to ensure that they take an intersectional and anti-racist approach?
Mr. Belanger: Thank you, senator, for the question. There are a number of things that have to happen. The people who are at the table have to be people who are living in poverty, experiencing poverty and understand the devastating effect of poverty and what is required to assist them and lift them out of poverty.
We have a number of mechanisms that can be engaged. The federal and provincial governments are two of those things, and organizations like us to reach out to those marginalized communities to make sure they’re aware of the opportunity to sit and to make sure they get the opportunity to be part of this.
Things in the past, doing online surveys or online engagement, trying to get people to participate, that’s part of the process as well, but we actually have to go out and physically talk to people. We have to have different organizations recommend people go forward and spread the news so that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate. Again, prioritizing those living in poverty.
For our organization, we certainly want to be part of the process. We can give a certain perspective as an organization and what the people that we serve tell us, but it’s fundamental that the people at the table must be those that this legislation is being developed for and the regulations are being developed with and by so that their voices are heard quite well.
Senator Osler: Sir, would you provide this committee with any recommendations on what your organization would like to see in the application process?
Mr. Belanger: Do you mean the application process for applying for the benefit?
Senator Osler: Correct.
Mr. Belanger: We would like to see a lot of things. We would like to see that persons who are on federal, provincial and territorial disability benefits now be grandfathered in and automatically eligible for this benefit. We would like to see the development of an application with the disability community and with those living in poverty for those people who may not be eligible under current provincial, territorial and federal programs but should be eligible for this benefit, and for those Atlantic provinces that don’t have a disability benefit per se that they administer other than just the income supplement.
The application process must be easily accessible. It must be easily completed. It has to have relative information to the individual to make sure that they’re eligible for this, of course. It must be distributed widely.
One of the things here that is important to note is that this legislation and the Canada disability benefit shouldn’t be an initiative by one minister or one ministry. This is an initiative for all ministries. Every federal ministry has a role in this and in promoting this, as in line with the Accessible Canada Act. They should be there.
We should have no problem getting the information out to people through community-based organizations, the provincial and federal governments, individuals and social media. This shouldn’t be a difficulty. The process should be as easy and as seamless as possible.
Again, we need people from the community to tell us how that works and how that will be.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. My first question is for you, Ms. Carr. It is always a pleasure to have you at the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Most of our witnesses tell us that this bill asks that we take into consideration the poverty line and grocery bills — that is one thing — but what witnesses and people with experience with a disability tell us is that there is a cost to being a person with a disability. There are extra expenses. I see you nodding your head. This has been well documented.
I would like your opinion on whether this cost can be quantified. Some have told us that a person with disabilities may have 30% more expenses; some even have 40% more. Does anyone, including your association, know if there is data to back this up?
[English]
Krista Carr, Executive Vice-President, Inclusion Canada: Thank you very much for the question. That’s a tough one.
We’ve done extensive consultations across the country on the disability benefit and what people with disabilities living in poverty want to see as part of the benefit, and a lot of people have said that we can’t just talk about the poverty line. We need to recognize that people with disabilities have additional costs that even go beyond.
There is not a lot of Canadian data on it, but anything that’s out there, we will say 30% to 40% more. It does depend on the nature of the disability and some of the additional equipment or other costs, but that is about the range in terms of what we hear at this point in time.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. My next question is for Mr. Belanger. There is also a lot of talk about clawbacks and the thing I am interested in is whether there are clawbacks that will be easy to find, in the sense that if a government cuts a direct benefit from a person with a disability, it quickly becomes apparent.
The thing that scares me with respect to the services, tools and for example, independent living health care equipment, is that a province says you are entitled to this-or-that of such-and-such quality, but now you are entitled to this or that at a lesser quality, which will be much harder to know, I think.
Does that scare you? Are you concerned about that? My sub-question is: Who will be responsible for monitoring all that and ensuring that persons with disabilities will not suffer any cuts in the fine print?
[English]
Mr. Belanger: Thank you, senator. That’s a very good question.
Clawbacks are a concern that everyone in the disability community has. We see them now with provincial governments in relation to private insurance, Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, that type of thing. We have a zero net gain to anyone who has paid into these insurance schemes.
There is no benefit there. Now, with the Canada disability benefit, it will be very important that those relationships are worked out with the provinces and territories so that this clawback doesn’t happen; supplemental programs are not reduced; and moving provincial or territorial benefits higher up — increasing them — doesn’t halt it.
Unfortunately, I saw a news story just this morning where a province — the government — was noting the Canada disability benefit and actually kind of using that as an excuse why not to be pushing forward provincial disability benefits. That’s wrong.
Again, the Canada disability benefit is a federal benefit, but it encompasses all of Canada. Provinces and territories have a role here, and the Government of Canada, the disability community and provincial and territorial governments themselves should not be looking at this and saying, “Oh, that’s coming now. We don’t have to do anything more.”
We have to hold them accountable as a community — and Canada itself. This is something that is finally a step forward, and if we get into the quagmire of pulling things back and living in the mindset that somehow persons with disabilities should have to be able to survive with less and somehow thrive, then we haven’t progressed very much.
It’s everybody’s responsibility. It’s every senator in that room and every MP. It is for them all, and every member of a legislative assembly, to make sure that we’re holding governments accountable so that persons with disabilities have the ability to thrive, and it’s not just looking good on paper. That’s across Canada; it is not just in some provinces that don’t claw back. This is across Canada. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Bernard: Thank you to both witnesses for being here and for your testimony. It’s appreciated.
I want to pick up on some testimony that we heard yesterday about the complexities of poverty. Of course, we know this bill is addressing that intersection of disability and poverty, but yesterday, two of our witnesses talked about the complexities of poverty and how, sometimes, exclusion is not just about ensuring that there’s a seat at the table but is looking at issues of power and imbalances there. We know that for many people, especially people with invisible disabilities, that there’s sometimes a shame attached to it. Sometimes people hold themselves back from accessing services and supports because they are worried about what type of experience they’ll have.
When we talk about the need for inclusion — and you’ve both talked about the need to ensure that voices are at the table — how do we get to those folks who are the most difficult to reach because of the complexities of life at the intersection of poverty, disability and other intersectionalities?
Ms. Carr: Thank you so much for the question.
You can’t expect to bring them to you; you have to go where they are. When we did our cross-country consultation, which was funded by government, the first tranche of that was to try to get to the communities that are the most marginalized. In order to do that, you can’t just get them to come to a consultation session. You have to go to the homeless shelters, the jails and the places where people are — meet them where they’re at, in their space — and hear what they have to say. Don’t expect them to come to your territory and do that.
You have to really listen, and they have to feel — you have to set the environment where they feel that they’re driving the agenda and you actually care about what they have to say and how they experience the system. Often, their experiences of the system are different. It’s worse, in many ways, for want of better terminology. That’s really important.
The other way we approached it was to conduct key informant interviews with people who work on the ground every day with those populations. It was really sitting with and hearing from the people who are working on the ground every day with the populations. That is another way to get at it.
But to just expect that because we have a consultation session, we want to hear from folks and we want to have them come to us on our terms and in our space doesn’t work.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Belanger, would you like to add to this discussion?
Mr. Belanger: I will, senator. Thank you for the question. I agree with Ms. Carr.
The premise has to be that we want people involved, not because we have to have them involved because we have to check the checkbox. We want to hear the hard stories and the realities. We want to know what their lived experience is.
Part of that is utilizing different organizations, but it’s going to them, as Ms. Carr said. Within the Indigenous communities, representing the five representative groups in Canada. It is to be able to go out and engage in that aspect as well in a legitimate manner to make sure their voices are heard.
We need to talk to people who have lived that life and have them tell us what’s the best way to engage as well. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Burey: Thank you for being with us today, both virtually and in person.
I have been asking this question because I heard it from different witnesses — the question of a legislative framework versus the regulatory processes that will take place. I’m going to read from your statement, Ms. Carr. Thank you for providing it to us.
Our concern is that any substantive amendments proposed by the Senate at this juncture will delay the passing of the bill, and people with disabilities can’t wait any longer.
Having heard yesterday of a number of significant concerns, such as using a human rights framework and having that wording in the legislation. We heard of a clawback. Then there is the poverty line, which is referenced in the legislation — specifically, the market basket measure and the inadequacy of that.
My question is for both of you. You use the word “substantive amendment.” I’m not a lawyer; I’m just a physician. Is there any room for any amendment that would strengthen this legislation?
Ms. Carr: The use of the word “substantive” was on purpose. I didn’t underline it when I said it, but there were a number of amendments made at the Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities Committee at the House of Commons that did strengthen the bill. When I say “substantive,” I’m talking about things like what the eligibility criteria should be or how much the benefit should be — those types of things. They are substantive, obviously, but the other concern is around who decides. Is it for Parliament to decide what those are or is that to be worked out shoulder to shoulder with people with disabilities and representative organizations, families, et cetera?
It’s those big things where we really would need to do some substantive consultation. We would need to know — and putting those types of things in the bill — putting something in the bill to make sure it’s a human rights framework. I see that as a strengthening of the bill that doesn’t require substantive work, reflection or consultation, and I certainly know that wouldn’t be something the disability community would argue with.
When we’re talking about “substantive” amendments, it’s about big things that would need to be debated, discussed and consulted on. Maybe, with all due respect to parliamentarians, they aren’t the best people to decide what those should look like.
Mr. Belanger: Again, I agree with Ms. Carr. Things that need to change can happen in the regulatory process, driven by persons with disabilities living in poverty. They have the best information. They have the knowledge, and they should be steering the ship at this point here.
From some of testimony I’ve heard before and some of the comments, some of the proposed changes that have been suggested just aren’t possible when we talk about introducing amendments to the bill to restrict clawback from provincial and territorial governments. I don’t think that can be legislated. I could be wrong, but I just don’t think it is.
When we talk about the eligibility, age criteria and those types of things that some people are putting forward, that would not need to have the bill go back to the beginning to be redesigned and create a new bill.
Those are the things I’m concerned about, and I’m concerned that with further delays and looking at big changes to the bill, the government might say, “Let’s just take that time.” Like I said in my notes, “Let’s get it right next time; let’s go back. We’ll throw some money out for consultation. We’ll put the $9 billion away for a couple more years. We’ll get it right, and we’ll go back.” As an administrator, for me, if I was looking at my organization spending $10 million a year or $9 billion a year, I might go for the $10 million.
Those are just my concerns here that if we spend a lot of time going back, we might lose and delay it even further.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you both for being with us, for your assistance in this and for the incredibly good work that you do. My first question will be for Ms. Carr and then for Mr. Belanger, if we have time.
The issue of periodic disability was raised with us earlier by the CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association, or CMHA. If I understood her correctly, she also mentioned that that organization, which is the largest organization that serves people with mental illnesses, was not involved in consultations on this bill. She was urging us that we should consider the importance of periodic disability being addressed in regulations.
Within Inclusion Canada, are there any organizations that specifically focus on persons living with a mental illness, and if there are, have they raised the issue of periodic disability with the organization? Whether they have or haven’t, what are your thoughts on how best to address this particular issue?
Ms. Carr: Thank you for the question, Senator Kutcher.
There are a couple of ways to answer that. First, the consultations that we did were not just within Inclusion Canada’s membership. We were tasked to do cross-disability consultations across the country, and 28% of the people who were involved in those consultations identified as having a psychosocial disability, so there’s that piece to answer that part of it. I think we did hear from that population, for sure.
In addition to that, 40% of people who have an intellectual disability also have a co-occurring mental health issue. Those are the stats. There certainly are some similarities.
Episodic disability came up in the consultation. People felt very strongly that the benefit should be something that people would be able to go on and off of easily, meaning that we know people with episodic disabilities have periods where it is very challenging to work and then they have periods where things are very good. That can be said just generally of people with psychosocial disabilities as well.
People said that the definition of “disability” in terms of eligibility for the benefit should be the definition in the Accessible Canada Act, which, obviously, is a very inclusive definition of disability, and that that issue of episodic disability does come up frequently, and that those individuals should be eligible. If there are times when things are good, they are able to work and make a reasonable income — all of those things; not living in poverty — they might not need the benefit, but they may need to be able to go back on it when they do need it.
Senator Kutcher: That’s very helpful. I appreciate that.
Just for further clarification, do you think going forward that organizations that specifically represent people with mental illness — not just psychosocial challenges — and the disabilities that are unique to people with mental illnesses should be involved in the drafting of the regulations?
Ms. Carr: Yes, 100%. Absolutely. The Canadian Mental Health Association and their member organizations, yes, absolutely. For sure.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Mr. Belanger, seniors are the age group which has the highest level of poverty in Canada, and the working age, which is undefined in the bill, is a concern for many. You specifically alluded to that just a moment ago when you suggested that if working age was addressed as an amendment, it would “require the bill to be redesigned.”
Can you help us understand how, if this was an amendment, the bill would need to be redesigned?
Mr. Belanger: Thank you, senator. I think that because the bill itself says “working-age persons” — and maybe I’m assuming wrong, but I believe that’s 18 to 64 — and I think at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities this question was brought up as well, or an amendment in this regard to extend it to seniors was brought up, and I think at that stage it was stopped, saying that it could not be introduced as an amendment because it would mean a substantive financial difference in the bill, if I remember correctly.
I think that is the thing. I think that’s what is stopping it. I think that when the bill was introduced, it said working-age persons. I mean, there are Canadians that work who are 12 years old as well, absolutely, but I think that the premise of the bill was 18 to 64 in order to supplement benefits that are not in place now, where the Canada child benefit is for children and families, and the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Old Age Security are for seniors. I think that was the intention of the bill.
I’m just assuming that if they go back with a higher price tag, they would have to reformat the bill.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the witnesses today for joining us.
I wanted to pursue this line of discussion around application and administrative design that will follow at the regulatory level.
We touched on episodic conditions and how their fluctuation might affect people’s access to this benefit. There are others that we have heard about — the issue of income testing and the question of tying eligibility to income, not means; and the question of tying it to individuals, not families.
I’m wondering how you would recommend that we ensure equity to not leave anyone behind by addressing some of those issues in the design that will follow?
Ms. Carr: In terms of application processes, what we heard in our consultations across the country was that people thought that applications needed to be, as we talked about earlier, simple and all of those things, but that they also needed to be available to do online, in-person, by telephone — by many means — to make it as easy as possible for people to get onto the benefit.
Another thing would be that once you become eligible for the benefit, you may go off it, but your eligibility doesn’t stop. For example, for someone with an episodic disability who qualifies for the benefit and who might not be working, for example, if they go off the benefit because they go back to work and their income goes up, they don’t lose eligibility for the benefit. They might not be receiving it at that time, but their eligibility stays in place because, at the end of the day, their condition doesn’t go away. That’s another thing that was suggested.
The other thing is heavy promotion of the benefit, so heavy promotion and assistance where — disability organizations, for example, are in great positions to be able to assist people to apply for the benefit where people require assistance. Or organizations working on the ground with marginalized populations of individuals with disabilities who might be able to support people’s applications for the benefit.
I don’t know if that answers your question, but I think that is some of what we heard in our consultations.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Belanger, would you like to add to this?
Mr. Belanger: Yes, thank you, senator. Certainly, it is a very good question, individualized or tied to income.
I think anybody that has a disability should have the opportunity to apply for the benefit, and I’m thinking more — and we have had this discussion here — about persons with disabilities in a family unit that experienced violence, whatever form that violence might take. Because of the income that the family has, they would be deemed ineligible for doing income and asset testing, which I’m sure some people will require and say we have to have some kind of income and asset testing as part of the eligibility process.
However, I don’t think that should necessarily stop somebody from being eligible. They may not receive the benefit at that time, but they should be deemed eligible to get that benefit. In circumstances where they are experiencing violence, we should fast-track them and get them out of there. Those things have to be worked out, but I think that’s the thing: I think that everybody who would be eligible due to their disability should be deemed eligible. Whether or not they get the benefit because of their financial or income levels is another thing. But there have to be mechanisms in place that we can fast-track people who are experiencing violence to get out of those situations as quickly as possible. We shouldn’t have to wait 30 or 90 days to apply. They should be deemed approved; if their circumstances change financially, that there would be no waiting on the fast-track period.
Again, there are so many other dynamics that come with this and so many other departments that need to be involved — government level, community, this type of thing. Being determined eligible to get the benefit because you are going to be leaving a violent home environment doesn’t really help you if you have no transportation in your community, if you don’t have the mechanisms or if you have no place to go.
But I do think in that regard that we broaden the eligibility. If you have a disability and apply for it, you are deemed eligible. You may not receive the benefit because of your financial situation, but should that change, you are fast-tracked on. Thank you.
Senator Lankin: Thank you very much for your appearance here today. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with both of you. My first question was much more eloquently covered by Senator Burey than I could. This is framework legislation and the issue of substantive amendments. You will know that we have heard from many parts of the disability community here at committee and individual correspondence asking for us to do substantive amendments. I understand your position on that.
Taking that as the position we are talking about today — framework, not substantive — the other kind of recommendations that have come forward that might be considered in substantive amendments also bring into mind for me federal-provincial jurisdiction. I would like to get into that.
The legislation sets out a poverty line measure. We have had representations that say the market basket isn’t good enough when we are talking about the disability community because of additional costs like medically adaptive assistive devices and other matters, and have suggested a different measure to be calculated after consultations for the criteria, but a net adjusted income. I’m wondering if you have looked into that.
Second, the issue then about how you would come to name an amount or a percentage interests me because many of the assistive devices programs exist at the provincial level in jurisdiction. Whether it’s within health — for example, I’m from Ontario, so the Ontario Disability Support Program. There are a range of organizations that provide supports and help in this area as well.
So not only does the cost vary depending on the disability and the individual, insurance coverage and other things, it also varies depending on provincial jurisdiction and on what benefits are available at that level.
I have been struggling to try to figure out how you could give guidance in an amendment to the government about a benefit level to be established that takes account of these things that doesn’t run afoul of federal-provincial jurisdiction. I wonder if both of you could comment on that, please.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Carr and then Mr. Belanger. We have two minutes left for this so I’m going to suggest that Ms. Carr, you go, and perhaps if we run out of time, Mr. Belanger, you can follow up in the second round.
Ms. Carr: I’ll try to go quick so Mr. Belanger will have a chance.
It’s a tough one. It’s a really tough one, particularly because we don’t have a good handle on the additional costs of disability and that does vary, as you say, between provinces and territories. I believe your question is whether or not an amendment is possible that takes that into account. I’m not 100% sure, to answer the question honestly, because I don’t think we can legislate what provinces and territories do. That makes this very complicated and complex.
I think part of the magic of this, if there is any magic in this, will come in figuring how to negotiate those agreements with the provinces and territories that in every possible way will enhance what people are getting for income and not take away anything from any other part of that. Now, whether that is through a net adjusted income, maybe that is better than the — I know the market basket measure definitely isn’t the answer for sure. I would agree with witnesses who have said that. I think that is something we have to try to figure out. I wish I had the magic bullet, but I don’t.
Mr. Belanger: Thank you. I would be interested to see exactly what the poverty line we would be using is and how they calculate what the actual costs or what persons with disabilities are getting across Canada. Unfortunately, when we look at things, governments often say, “Well, this is the benefit they are getting, but they are also getting health supplement cards so we’ll add that too; they are getting their GST so we’ll add that too.” All of a sudden the money in someone’s pocket, which is $1,200 a month, suddenly in the eyes of the government is at $1,800 because of the supplemental benefits. We wouldn’t want that. What we would want to look at is all the benefits they received, the supplemental benefits are in place and not counted towards what would be considered the poverty line, and we build on that.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to both witnesses for being here today. My question, first of all, is to Ms. Carr, and this builds on your comments when you came the other day with respect to poverty and the incidence of poverty among people with disabilities. The bill says — and the minister when she came here said that a really important goal of the bill is to actually reduce poverty. It’s right in the name of the bill, so it’s pretty prominent.
In your comments, you said to us that 22% of the Canadian population are people with disabilities, and 40% of them are living in poverty. I guess you must be using the standard measures to calculate poverty.
Just looking ahead, what percentage of the population living in poverty do you expect to be lifted out of poverty because of this bill? I mean, is it 40% of 22%? We are talking, again, about the population with disabilities. What improvement are you expecting as a result of this bill?
Ms. Carr: Thank you very much for the question. I expect all of them to be lifted out of poverty. That would be the objective. If I were to sit here and say I think it should only be 20% —
Senator Dasko: Not what it should be —
Ms. Carr: Exactly. I mean, 73% of adults with intellectual disabilities, which is the population I work with on a day-to-day basis and have dedicated the last 26 years of my career to, live in poverty. In New Brunswick, that’s $800 a month. I’m saying New Brunswick because that’s where I live. To shoot for anything less — I realize the act says it is an act to reduce poverty, and, of course, we want to reduce it. But I’m here to push us a little further and say let’s eliminate poverty. At the end of the day, it should be for everybody.
But there is no question that people with disabilities have far higher rates of poverty than any other population in Canada, and I think our goal should be to leave no person behind.
Senator Dasko: Do you expect the bill is going to do that?
Ms. Carr: I’m going to do everything I possibly can do to make sure we push as hard and as far as we can to lift as many people as possible. But my goal would be to not see people with disabilities live in poverty at all.
Senator Dasko: Mr. Belanger, you said to us earlier that 30% of the Indigenous population has a disability.
Do you have figures as to what percentage of the population actually is below the poverty line? I have the same question for you. I know we hope that it is going to reduce poverty this year, but are you expecting this benefit to actually do so?
Mr. Belanger: Thank you, senator. We know that poverty experienced by Indigenous people dropped during COVID, largely due to quite a bit of funding support from the government. However, it is typically quite high. I think in 2016, within First Nations communities, 80% of communities had a median income under the poverty line. So it is pretty substantive.
How many do I think should be lifted out of poverty? I agree with Ms. Carr — all of them. If we are working toward half or 90% or even 98%, then we are failing. There are a number of things going on in the country. We have the Accessible Canada Act, which wants to make Canada fully accessible by 2040. Canada won’t be a fully accessible country by 2040 unless everybody has the equal opportunity to thrive. Do I expect that 100% of people will be lifted out of poverty? Yes. Why would we be doing this if we didn’t expect that? What does that look like? Does it mean a dollar over the poverty line? No. We should give people the opportunity to thrive.
Persons with disabilities have much higher needs. The costs are there. They are asked to survive and thrive in communities that are inaccessible and discriminatory. We need to consider that when looking at and developing this. Until such a day that Canada is an equal place for everybody, let’s invest some money within the disability community and with persons living with a disability so they have the opportunity to thrive.
It’s a win situation for Canada to be able to support persons with disabilities. We have ignored them for generations, and this is generational legislation now. Let’s do it right and make sure it is over and above adequate. Why does it have to be adequate? They’ve had to live inadequately for generations. Let’s do it right.
So, senator, the short answer to your question is “everybody.”
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We have a few minutes to have a second round. We’ll take it as far as we can. Let’s say two minutes for question and answer — short questions and maybe yes-or-no answers.
Senator Osler: Thank you again to both witnesses. My question is for both of you. This committee has heard from you and other witnesses a request to fast-track the bill and not delay passage of Bill C-22. Do you have any recommendation that would not take the form of a substantive amendment to make Bill C-22 a better piece of legislation?
Ms. Carr: Wow. That’s a question. Recommendations that would not be substantive could include your point earlier around ensuring a human rights framework and putting more emphasis on ensuring the process engages the most marginalized. So the intersectional aspects, perhaps, could be strengthened.
We’ve brought the bill back three times. This bill has died on the Order Paper three times with a recess in Parliament and had to come back again. We are really just hoping that this time we can get it across the finish line. When I say people can’t wait, they just can’t wait.
Mr. Belanger: I agree with Ms. Carr as well. The time to get this done is now. I think the nine amendments that were put in the House are great moving forward. As Ms. Carr said, for the people we serve, the time is now. If it were passed today, it still wouldn’t be soon enough to get the resources into the hands of those who need them. So move this forward. Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: A quick question that is a little beyond the bill, but I want to hear what you think about it. Some people will say — and have said — that this bill is an expense, and others will say — and I believe — that it is an investment. Mr. Belanger used the word “thrive” so many times. Do you believe — because that’s my hope — that this bill, by lifting persons with disabilities out of poverty, will allow them to thrive and open windows to the workplace and education? It will have a positive snowball effect that will make it truly an investment. What are your thoughts on that?
Ms. Carr: I think it is 100% an investment. There is all kinds of research about that, and I would love to send it to you. What I would say is that when you can’t get your basic needs met, when you don’t know where your next meal is coming from and when you are unsafely housed or unhoused, you can’t think about going to work. You can’t do any of those things. You are barely surviving day to day. Of course, when people can get into a position where they don’t have to worry about those types of things, the world opens up — school, work and all of the things.
Not only that, they are healthier. They are going to cost our systems less money. They are going to contribute to the tax base. They will spend the money they have. An investment in people with disabilities getting funding — they’re going to spend the money. It will come back in tax revenue. So absolutely, it is 100% an investment.
Mr. Belanger: I agree completely — investing in persons with disabilities and helping them have a better life. It will make their lives better to be sure. It will be at varying degrees for individuals. That’s why we need other departments and provincial, territorial and federal governments to step up and do more. The Canada disability benefit is not the end of the game. This is not where we stop because it gets implemented. But it certainly has the potential to make a difference in the lives of many.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Senator Lankin, I’m going ask if you can put your question on the table, and our witnesses can respond in writing.
Senator Lankin: That’s so wise of you because you know I’ll take up all the time in asking the question. Our chair knows me.
I understand the importance that you place on getting this bill past the goalpost this time. Trying to bring something to reality in the long-term is a strategic position. You know many others disagree with that. If you have any comments on the dialogue and debate going on within the community, I would appreciate hearing that.
One of the alternatives we have — an alternative to passing amendments — is to list observations in which we have the opportunity to put input from the witnesses that have come here into the document that goes back to the House of Commons and informs the government of what we have heard. Certainly, this is something you could give some thought to and submit in writing to us.
Would you prefer that route of no amendments — because any amendments have to go back to the House — be considered and come back here? If you prefer that, what observations particularly do you think would strengthen the process of the Senate’s review of this bill and inform the government of important future direction?
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Witnesses, we would be very grateful if you could submit to the clerk any observations you have or, in addition to that, any further reflections you have on the questions that my colleagues have asked today.
We are very grateful for you being here. We thank you so much for your thoughtful responses and the work you have done in your communities across this country. I’m going to use the word substantive. Your work is very substantive and really important. I would like to congratulate you on what you have done and what you do. I want to thank you for your help today with our consideration of this bill.
Colleagues, with that, we are going to get ready for our second panel.
I would like to welcome our witnesses who are with us in person today. Thank you so very much for being with us.
From the ASE Community Foundation for Black Canadians with Disability, we have Jheanelle Anderson, Vice-Chair; and Nkem Ogbonna, Manager, Research and Policy; and Bernard Akuoko-Dabankah, Director, Partnerships. From the DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada, or DAWN Canada, we have Bonnie Brayton, Chief Executive Officer; and Samantha Walsh, National Director.
If I have mispronounced anyone’s name, I am very sorry. But I do welcome you all, and we’re very grateful that you’re giving of your time to our committee as we study Bill C-22.
We have until 1:30, so I am the clock minder and apologize for that in advance.
I’m going to ask you to make your comments. We’ll start with Ms. Anderson. I believe you are speaking on behalf of your group, is that right? I believe, Ms. Brayton, you are speaking on behalf of the DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada.
Bonnie Brayton, Chief Executive Officer, DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada: Ms. Walsh will have some comments, but we know we have five minutes.
The Deputy Chair: Let’s start with the ASE Community Foundation for Black Canadians with Disability. If you could commence, I would be very grateful.
Jheanelle Anderson, Vice-Chair, ASE Community Foundation for Black Canadians with Disability: Thank you. I’m here with Ms. Ogbonna and Mr. Akuoko. We are here to speak to Bill C-22 as Black disabled people and as representatives of ASE Community Foundation for Black Canadians with Disability. ASE is a national organization grounded in principles of disability justice and led by Black people with disabilities. Our mission is to work collectively with institutions, researchers and service providers and individuals to drive a cultural shift that disrupts disparities at the intersection of blackness, disability and gender.
Bill C-22 is a critical step towards reducing poverty and increasing financial security for disabled Canadians by providing that framework for addressing some of these existing disparities. However, without explicitly naming the barriers faced by the most marginalized Canadians with disabilities, we miss an important opportunity to create long-lasting solutions for reducing poverty.
As outlined in ASE’s report The Intersection of Blackness and Disability in Canada: A Brief Overview & A Call to Action, Black Canadians with disabilities are some of the most vulnerable and invalidated communities across the nation. We know that disability and poverty are inextricably linked, and also that poverty is heavily racialized. Due to structural and systemic anti-Black racism, Black people with disabilities have fewer job opportunities, career development opportunities and, as referenced by Krista, Wilcox, most disparities experienced in poverty are Black people with disabilities.
Experiencing poverty means that you’re more likely to be working in precarious jobs, further elevating life stressors, exacerbating health conditions and, overall, leading to poorer health outcomes. Structural anti-Black racism and ableism significantly exclude and create disadvantaged conditions and barriers for Black people with disabilities in creating and exacerbating disability and accessing life-saving resources.
To address these unique barriers, it is crucial that any bill, policy, regulation or program designed to support disabled people actively includes those of us with intersecting experiences from the get-go. Amending this bill is an opportunity to exemplify responsive and equitable leadership that truly realizes the spirit of “nothing about us without us.”
We first propose a clearly defined, inclusive eligibility criteria, written anti-discrimination measures to prevent discrimination in the administration of the benefit and allocated funds to cover costs associated with accessing this benefit. For example, we know that many in our community experience many inequities in accessing health care and might experience barriers in obtaining an official diagnosis, for example, or even having access to a primary care physician to complete eligibility forms.
Next, we are calling for the development of a comprehensive knowledge mobilization strategy led by Black disabled people that includes education, training and outreach strategies that build trust, increase awareness and disability literacy and support individuals in accessing this benefit. This work includes partnering with and specifically allocating funding to Black and disabled-led organizations.
Additionally, this bill should include accountability measures and evaluations that embed an equitable lens in collecting and analyzing disaggregated race-based data.
Finally, there must be a commitment to ensure that the data is purposefully collected and not used to over-surveil communities that have historically been excluded. We know that with this principle of targeted universalism, everyone will benefit from an equitable and inclusive approach.
Moving forward, we must ensure that Black disabled Canadians are included in the decision-making processes. This means moving beyond hosting community consultations and moving toward a commitment to engage us as co-designers and subject matter experts.
In conclusion, we urge that this committee support Bill C-22 with these considerations raised today in our efforts to reduce poverty and increase financial security. We must ensure that Black disabled Canadians are not left behind as a regulatory afterthought.
We have a real opportunity to make a difference here, especially in the lives of Black disabled Canadians. Let’s seize this opportunity and work together to build a more equitable and inclusive Canada.
Thank you very much for having us here today. Special thanks to Senator Bernard for connecting us here.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We very much appreciate your opening remarks. Now I will ask Ms. Brayton and Ms. Walsh to make their statements, and then we’ll move to questions.
Bonnie Brayton, Chief Executive Officer, DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada: Thank you very much.
And thank you so much, Ms. Anderson. You covered so much ground with your presentation.
Good afternoon, and thank you again for inviting us to present today. We acknowledge with thanks that we are together today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe peoples. I am reminded that we are a nation that has committed to truth and reconciliation, so let us all be reminded of the urgent and pressing needs of our Indigenous sisters, mothers, grandmothers and children today, and how we may make reparations and make their lives better now and for their future generations.
Earlier today, you heard from our colleagues Mr. Belanger and Ms. Carr, and Mr. Belanger laid out some of the important facts that make the passage of Bill C-22 urgent. In case you missed it, we’re going to back that up with more facts, and, once again, ask you to act on the facts.
There is a lot of research that DAWN Canada has available, and we will forward that to the committee. We had limited time to prepare, but we have lots of information and data to support what we are asking of you today.
Our organization has had the same mission for nearly 40 years, and sadly, we have seen no change. We seek to end the poverty, isolation and violence that permeates the lives of Canada’s most oppressed, by far: women, girls and gender diverse people with disabilities.
The highest rates of poverty, by far; the highest rates of unemployment; the highest rates of gender-based violence, including sexual assault, childhood sexual assault and abuse, belong to our community. The majority of human rights complaints across every jurisdiction, for years now.
These are the facts: 24% of all women — fully one quarter — through Statistics Canada, have identified as having a disability. For Indigenous and Black women, as our colleague Ms. Anderson has reminded you, it’s about 30% in terms of intersecting discrimination and the impacts.
Ms. Walsh, can I invite you to speak?
Samantha Walsh, National Director, DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada: Thanks. As Ms. Brayton has already highlighted, women with disabilities are the most marginalized by a system that does not work for us.
When we think of women living in Canada, we need to imagine a wide variety of experience. We also need to remember that disability is a group that is open-ended. Every woman has the possibility of becoming disabled, and as she ages, she likely will — the rates of gender-based violence in older women; the deaths of so many during COVID in long-term care, lest we forget.
A lack of financial independence robs us of choice. Things like attendant services are often tied to housing or geographical location. Accessible housing is often hard to find, and many support programs have waiting periods.
Having financial resources offers choice and agency. Gaps in financial security force women to stay in precarious situations, as they are often reliant on family and friends for support, if they are fortunate enough to have that. Many folks with disabilities live in isolation. This means a woman with a disability is more likely to stay with an abusive partner and much more likely to experience interpersonal violence.
If she wants to move from one province or territory to another, there is no alignment between provincial disability support programs, so women with disabilities are expected to navigate and negotiate provincial policy, often during a stressful time. Women often find themselves not eligible for provincial supports because of their relationship status but are also unable to leave because of a lack of financial independence. The federal disability benefit would offer women with disabilities choice, and, in many cases, ensure they are not trapped in violent or abusive situations.
From a personal perspective, as a woman with a disability, I have cerebral palsy, but I also have class privilege, I am employed and I have quite a bit of education. I am still beholden to a system that does not expect me. I am constantly thinking three and four moves ahead for everything I do. Even with my privilege, I think about my own life. I am hesitant to invite my partner to share my home because if I ever need to leave, it would be a struggle to rebuild the support system I have and find housing. If he lives with me, and I lose my job or my savings, I would not be eligible for provincial supports given his income. Women with disabilities need financial support. We cannot wait.
Ms. Brayton: As many of you will recall, we appeared before this committee last September during the study on GBA Plus as a policy framework. We urged you to push for accountability and outcomes, as our community has been left behind.
We have better access to medical assistance in dying, or MAID, than we do to safety, housing, dignity and a decent life today in Canada.
I have their names, senators — the names of women who gave up hope. Little Post-it Notes on the wall of my home office that were written when I was speaking to them when they were alive and needed help, housing, food, safety and support. And now they’re dead. Nothing can be more important than this until it’s done, senators — nothing.
We recommend passing the legislation without amendments, and let us all begin the work together in the regulatory process that will follow.
We welcome the opportunity to respond directly to your questions, and we strongly support the recommendations you’ve heard from our colleagues here and earlier today. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you all very much. May I say that in the chamber this afternoon, I’m going to have the privilege of tabling our report on GBA Plus.
With that, I’d like to move to questions. I will start with Senator Osler, who is on the steering committee of this committee, followed by Senator Petitclerc.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimony today.
I’m going to follow a question that the Honourable Senator Lankin had asked in the last round. This committee has heard from multiple witnesses not to delay but to fast-track so that the work on the regulatory process can start.
My question is for all of the witnesses. Could you provide us with your thoughts, comments, recommendations or observations on how the regulations in their design and their implementation can be possibly equitable, anti-racist and intersectional?
Ms. Anderson: Thank you. That’s a great question.
I mentioned it has to be a co-design effort. It can’t come from the top down; it won’t be equitable. Communities know how to define the problem because they experience it. They live it. People on the top don’t experience or have the lived experience of poverty.
It’s definitely doing that co-design and having those who are most marginalized within the disability community use their expertise to help with that process. It should be collaborative.
Additionally, like we mentioned, we come from a framework of a disability justice lens. That means that we prioritize those who are most marginalized — Black, immigrants, Indigenous folks, gender-diverse folks with disabilities — because often their voices are left out of the conversation. Usually when you think about disabilities, it’s usually a White disabled space, not necessarily someone who is experiencing poverty. It is really important to uplift those experiences.
It’s also important to come from an approach of confronting anti-Black racism as well to really tackle and address systemic anti-Black racism. These are foundations built on systems of oppression, and you have to address that in the regulation.
The Deputy Chair: Would you like to add to this?
Nkemakolam Ogbonna, Manager, Research and Policy, ASE Community Foundation for Black Canadians with Disability: Just to talk about what that could tangibly look like, such as having Black people with disabilities as policy writers, as researchers evaluating the bill, having a set time to see how often the bill would be amended or looked at to ensure that any anti-discriminatory measures that were put in place are actually being met.
Again, like Ms. Anderson said, partnering with Black disability-led organizations in the implementation of this program. There is a lot of space to do this work within the regulation. We do often see that Black people with disabilities slip through the cracks. There is also an opportunity really to write this language into the bill, setting a precedent so that once this bill moves into regulation and program development that precedent for the “nothing about us without us” principle is there from the get-go.
Ms. Brayton: Thank you, senator. That was a nice way to start this discussion because I think you’ve already heard from our colleagues that it is absolutely critical that the most marginalized people with disabilities — Indigenous, Black, gender-diverse people — are at the centre because they are facing the highest rates of poverty and being unhoused, all of the data we keep repeating over and over again. Again, this isn’t changing and that is why the urgency of this benefit is so clear.
DAWN Canada’s four pillars are research, education, policy and advocacy. For sure, the presence of the organizations that we lead in this process is part of how those successful negotiations will occur with the provinces and territories because they have to hear from us. It’s part of the processes as we go forward because every step of this has to be informed by and we have to be included in it.
We’re the people who will sell it to our community. We will get our people to know and be able to take advantage of this. We’re the same ones who can give you advice on what needs to be understood. We have colleagues across the country, provinces and territories and the networks that can be connected in this process.
Again, what this allows you to do is to build the capacity of disability organizations to work as civil society partners with the government, whether at the federal government, provincial government or even municipal level. It’s important to place us in the leadership role in this and to understand that the whole point to this process is empowerment of people with disabilities. It’s not just helping us. It’s an empowerment that is ours to take. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today. My first question is for Ms. Brayton or Ms. Walsh. You mentioned in your introductory comments that women with disabilities are particularly vulnerable and that situations of violence, as we know, have been documented.
How important is it for this benefit to be individual, in other words assigned to the person with the disability and not to the family?
We heard Mr. Belanger say earlier that he agreed with that, but it would seem that this depends on the family unit’s income. Should this be taken into account independently, in other words regardless of the family unit’s income, should the benefit be tied to the individual? Is there any flexibility?
Ms. Brayton: I will answer because I know Mr. Belanger’s position. As Ms. Walsh told us earlier about violence, women with disabilities are at risk — even privileged women.
Another point that Mr. Belanger and Ms. Carr raised is the issue of eligibility. The person needs to be eligible, regardless of the situation, whether they are in need now or later in life. This is to protect the person for life, knowing they always —
[English]
It’s a small way to tell somebody you don’t have to feel that if something happens to you that your life is going to fall apart. Women with disabilities have all these intersecting challenges in terms of their daily lives. That insecurity makes it really difficult to think about moving forward and being positive if, as you heard earlier, you’re worrying about your housing, transportation, incontinence and menstrual products, food and housing, child care and all these things. If you’re a woman with a disability or a single mother, can you imagine how difficult it is to imagine yourself going to work? You can’t find accessible child care and, far less, enough revenue to do it well.
I’m quite clear on the fact that, whether we figure out something that does take into account differences, the individual is quite clearly the first place to go because of the fact that you have family situations. While that could be a safety net, in many cases we have well-documented that it’s a risk situation. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Ms. Anderson, you explained how important it is for you to be present when we reach the regulatory process stage.
The disability community is so diverse — we are talking about types of disabilities and all sorts of other intersectionalities. I get the impression that we often hear about the same big organizations.
Do you feel well represented? Do you want to be represented or do you want to represent yourself at every stage of every consultation now and later? How important is this?
[English]
Ms. Anderson: Thank you for that question. It’s really big, but a really good question. This is something that we talk about a lot. We did a capacity-building project last year with Employment and Social Development Canada. We’re not represented. We were never represented; we were excluded. A lot of the times with disability organizations, it’s focused on a single issue, and we know that disability is not a single issue. We’ve talked about it here today — intersecting identities really impact your experience with disability.
In terms of where we see ourselves, we should be represented at every step of the way. It shouldn’t just be at one point and then you come back with the final result and say, “Is this okay?” It should be along the way at every step.
In our research, we found that there are some organizations that represent folks at the intersection of blackness and disability. Unfortunately, they’re often grassroots organizations. They’re often run by folks who are volunteering their time and often working at the side of their desk supporting some of the most vulnerable folks.
It’s important to actually build, as Ms. Brayton mentioned, capacity because we are the ones who should be doing the work reaching out to the community, building trust and building awareness. I definitely agree with that. As we mentioned, funding should be allocated towards Black and disability-like organizations for us and by us to make sure the most vulnerable in our communities are actually going to benefit and access this bill.
The last thing I’ll mention when we talk about building anti-discrimination measures, that’s why we talk about anti-Black racism. Our experience within the health care system or even just accessing social benefits are really impacted by folks who are administering the benefit with their biases that might exclude us from access or make us jump through additional hoops to access benefits. You get over-surveilled because you are using the system and you shouldn’t. That’s where I stand with that.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Anderson, may I now suggest that we move on to Senator Bernard because I’m sure this conversation will carry on.
Senator Bernard: Let me thank my colleagues because that’s exactly where I wanted to go with my question. I was really trying to think what I can ask to follow up on this. I think it is really important. Let me ask this: One of the things I have experienced in Nova Scotia is that many people of African descent who have disabilities don’t access services because they don’t see themselves represented, they don’t see those organizations as representing them — I think you have spoken to some of those things — and also in terms of the lack of access.
Is your organization doing some work at that level as well in terms of working in communities with those folks who are not getting access to services? What kind of work are you doing there and what kind of support do you have to do that work?
Ms. Anderson: I’ll start and then Ms. Ogbonna will finish. We do a lot of town halls with Black disabled Canadians. That’s something that comes up a lot with folks around the Greater Toronto Area. They don’t get the same supports because either they’re not referred to the supports — again, that’s based on biases as well. They are maybe not having access to a primary care physician, or if they do go, they are not believed. It takes 10 years or so to get diagnosed with any disability or chronic health condition. Those are things that we do. We hold space to validate those experiences at the intersection of anti-Black racism and ableism.
We do a lot of research and advocacy to make sure folks are thinking intersectionally when we talk about disability and when we work with disability organizations as well.
Lastly, in regard to programming, there is a lot of disability awareness that we are doing in terms of within the community. Folks in the community might understand disability differently, and that’s what, sometimes, the mainstream organization might miss. How is disability spoken about within our community? Our community is very diverse — cultural understandings. It might not be explicitly stated as a disability. It might be referred to in other terms.
Ms. Ogbonna: Absolutely. One thing I want to pick up on that Ms. Anderson said was that our Black community is not a monolith. In regard to some ways that you might hear about disabilities within our communities, you might hear the terminology “exceptionality.” That’s why it’s really important to have Black folks with disabilities doing this work to pick up on those nuances that have been traditionally and historically missed by non-Black folks who are administering these programs.
Just to build upon what Ms. Anderson had shared and some of the work that we are currently working on, we are working on a few different research projects. One is looking at the experiences of Black youth with learning disabilities within the Halton-Hamilton region and the barriers they’ve been facing when accessing education and employment. We are also working with Dr. Hilary Brown at the University of Toronto Scarborough looking at the experiences of people with disabilities accessing reproductive health services within COVID-19. We’ve been working with Realize Canada looking at Black folks with episodic disabilities accessing employment and the barriers they face.
What we are hearing time and time again is that there isn’t that cultural understanding of disability when people are going to access these services. We need more folks who are not only there as service providers, but are there to walk folks through the programming, to write this programming to make sure these nuances within our community are not missed.
At ASE, we really work to try to get those diverse experiences. We also do a lot of youth focus work as well. We have our Black Student Success Summit that we run annually. We have specific positions for Black youth with disabilities to share their insights in terms of where they want to see our future go.
All in all, what we are hearing is that not only do we need to be in these spaces and heard, but at the end — like Ms. Anderson has mentioned — having our voices there from the beginning to guide how these bills, programs and policies are written so that we aren’t missed as an afterthought.
I believe that Mr. Akuoko has something to share as well.
Bernard Akuoko, Director, Partnerships, ASE Community Foundation for Black Canadians with Disability: I absolutely agree with everybody in this room, for sure. I love the question because it prompts us to speak the language that we have to speak for individuals with these diverse identities. For example, at the ASE community, we are always inviting different types of diverse identities to the table.
A great question was about the people who are falling through the cracks. Looking at the intricacies of even Black men with disabilities where there are instances where they are not admitting that they have a disability and it gets them into trouble where incarceration is up and mental health services are not accessed. The most beautiful thing about this discussion today and the work that we are doing in ASE and the communities that we also work in is that we get a different perspective and we get people having the ability to sit at the table and be heard. For those people who are quieted down historically, we give them the opportunity to have their voices amplified. I’m very proud of what work we are doing currently.
The Deputy Chair: I want to thank you for what you said and what you are doing.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much to everyone who is here today. I am moved by all your testimonies and sharing your experiences. It is really powerful. This is a sacred space. I feel like I’m in my office actually. Where to begin?
My first question — and I am going to be quick as I want to get to the second one which is specific — pass this bill right away. I was listening carefully and I said, “Yes, we have to get this through the door because we don’t know what is going to happen.” But I heard from Ms. Anderson and Ms. Ogbonna that there are things that we are missing. Should we be working on amendments or shouldn’t we? That’s the first question. That could be a yes or a no.
Ms. Anderson: Yes, because you can’t build it after the fact. It is not going to be inclusive at that point. I know that there is an urgency, but this is like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a lot of folks with disability, and it is very meaningful bill. It has been echoed since the start of the study.
We want to do it right and make sure we get it right. We want to make sure it will actually impact people at the margins, people who are very much so “multi-marginalized.” Disability is not just this one thing. Ms. Brayton cited some stats and we have heard stats over and over again. Intersecting identities — folks who are Black, women, Indigenous folks are even further marginalized and living disproportionately in poverty. You want to make sure that the bill is going to have the impact that it was set out to.
Senator Burey: Ms. Brayton, would you —
Ms. Brayton: I was going to say I don’t disagree with Ms. Anderson in principle, but, of course, from DAWN Canada’s perspective we feel that the regulatory process is where we can work through some of those issues and actually build capacity in the community. I will say that I really don’t want to see any more amendments or to go back —
Senator Burey: Just getting you on the record.
Ms. Brayton: We want to see it pass.
Senator Burey: Talking about the barriers that we face — and I include myself because I am a privileged person; I’m educated, but I’m also a Black woman.
For example, I heard many of you mention the health care discrimination barriers: not being believed, not finding someone to fill out the forms and taking so long for the diagnosis.
Now, there are significant shortages of health care providers across the board. We know 2 million in Ontario, probably 8 million across Canada. In terms of getting these forms filled out, do you have some recommendations or some ideas that would not — because, of course, we are not going to have the physicians, we are not going to have the health care providers. How are we going to get those? Because that is your entry point. Do you have some suggestions for us?
Ms. Anderson: I don’t know if this is radical, but you have to look at what the purpose of these forms is, in a sense. I’ll speak for myself as a disabled person. When I was in school, when I was at university and then when I got a job, I had to fill out all these different forms that were saying the same thing. Can you use forms that were already filled out and completed? There are multiple different ways we can think creatively. I really appreciate that you mentioned the shortage of primary care physicians right now, which is going to be another barrier.
Are there alternative ways that someone can demonstrate that they are eligible? Is there flexibility in that? Is the form the be-all and end-all? We know that a lot of disabled people have not only issues that we mentioned here, but the cost of filling out forms is a barrier as well. We know there are lots of barriers to getting a form. Can we think of something else that could demonstrate eligibility other than this form?
The Deputy Chair: Our time is just about up for this question.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you all for being here. I appreciate your thoughts on this very important bill. I just have one question, and I want to direct it to Ms. Brayton and Ms. Walsh. Gendered poverty is particularly prevalent in the elderly. Statistics Canada tells us that 16.3% of elderly women live on a low income compared to 11.9% of men. In the bill, disability benefits apply only to persons of working age, which, again, is not defined either.
Some have raised concerns that unless this is changed, this will continue gendered poverty and could also make gendered poverty worse. I would like your thoughts on this particular issue.
Ms. Brayton: Thank you. The poorest, lowest-income person in this country is a Black single mother with a disability, sir. That’s data that I’m confident I could share and provide to you. I’m not denying that gender and age is a huge issue. You heard from Mr. Belanger and Ms. Carr earlier in regard to this, which is the idea that we have to do some focused work and get at the populations that are going to move our community forward. To focus on working age Canadians with this bill and with this legislation is a step, I think the Accessible Canada Act is a step and I think all the different pieces are.
I don’t think this is a panacea that is going to fix everything, but it is very much the most important structural thing we can do after passing the legislation because this is a response to Canadians and people across Canada telling them that in addition to legislation, we are going to back it up because it is not just words on a page.
I understand your question and why you want to go there, but I have to say based on all the facts — and like I said, we have been doing this for nearly 40 years — that there is no question that the first thing we have to do is get this passed because of the women I have told you about. The women on those Post-it Notes are dead. They gave up hope because they were living in poverty. Some of them were young and some were older. Some might not fit into this bill. But if we don’t start somewhere, we are going leave DAWN Canada in the same place we have been for 40 years, which is asking this country to understand that women and girls with disabilities cannot continue to live in these conditions in this country anymore.
I don’t know how people can sleep at night knowing that this is something that, again, has gone on for 40 years and that we have one organization — and I’m not taking anything away from the other organizations — that has focused on women and girls for 40 years, and nothing has changed. We are still the poorest. We still have the highest rates of unemployment, the highest rates of violence and the highest rates of poverty. Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just concerned about this gendered poverty in the elderly. I’m wondering how we should address that because we do have an opportunity to do that in this bill.
Ms. Brayton: I don’t have very much time, but I’ll quickly tell you that I was the president of social enterprises in Quebec in a volunteer capacity, and we were providing home care services to seniors and people with disabilities through a social enterprise. The majority of the women who were working in those caregiving roles were racialized immigrant women, many of them with disabilities, in their 40s and with low levels of education. Through the social enterprise and bringing them into employment, we gave them pensions — we got the government of Quebec to recognize caregiving as a profession — we gave those women dignity and they retired, some of them on my watch that I saw hired and retire with pensions. I think that’s a good way of saying that there are lots of ways we can begin to address these other things, and I certainly have lots of ideas I would love to share with you about it, but I guess my time is up.
The Deputy Chair: We would be happy to receive anything you would like to send us. You can send it to our clerk, and I know she will get it around to all of us. You can tell all of this is very important to each and every one of us.
Senator Moodie: Thank you very much to our witnesses today for helping bring some significant insight. You have helped us understand more and more the disparate challenges faced by Black, racialized and marginalized disabled people and women. You have helped this particular committee to focus on the need for disaggregated data, something that, frankly, does not exist. It is not available and was not considered in the development of this benefit, and there are no mechanisms to capture this data right now.
We have heard from past witnesses about modelling being used as a tool to project numbers, to estimate and to help us understand the impact of absolute numbers and of intersectionality on the poverty of disabled people. Do you have any thoughts on how we would capture this data? What is the role of this data going to be in administering this benefit and, over time, tracking the impact of the benefit?
Ms. Anderson: In terms of data, I feel there is sometimes data there, but just not publicly available.
Senator Moodie: Collectively.
Ms. Anderson: Collectively, yes. Those should be analyzed to make sure you are capturing in the bill — anything that is mentioned there is inclusive and it will actually have an impact on the most marginalized. After the bill, you definitely have to evaluate if it is reaching folks that are most marginalized.
We suggested maybe doing something community-based, again, led by Black and disabled folks or organizations. Collecting that data about folks who are accessing the bill, and again, it is not to surveil. I know a lot of times when you think about data, it is to surveil. It is really to be purposeful, and again, it is to evaluate. You said this is supposed to reduce poverty. Is it actually reducing poverty? Also, who is it impacting? Who is accessing this bill?
I can look at, perhaps, the disability tax credit. If you looked at any available disaggregated data for the disability tax credit, can you see who is accessing it? Who are overrepresented in accessing it? Who are left out? Then you start asking questions. If Black folks with disabilities are not accessing the tax credit, then why? Are there barriers we can address?
That’s the purpose of collecting this disaggregated data to make sure folks at the margins are accessing and benefiting as well.
Ms. Brayton: Thank you for the question. We bring it up all the time and complain about it all the time. At the same time, I agree with Ms. Anderson around the surveilling, the risks people feel in terms of self-identification and even some of the reasons Mr. Akuoko talked about in terms of why folks won’t. If you are going to collect the data, it has to have the purpose of serving the people you are interested in finding out about. I wouldn’t say I could come up with a sharp answer for you today, Senator Moodie, in terms of what we should do or how. What you are bringing up is very important and also what Ms. Anderson said about the mechanisms by which we use some kind of a model for ensuring the most marginalized are getting at this.
That probably includes what we have both been harping on, which is that you have to build the capacity of the organizations who need to connect with that community and build trust. Peer support is such a fundamental gap for our communities. In terms of the work DAWN is doing around gender-based violence, it is completely focused on peer support. As you know, we are the only ones who show up here. You know why? Because there are no other women-led women’s disability organizations. There’s a lot of work to do, but it does start with this data and how we use it.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I’m afraid your time is up, Senator Moodie. If you can send any material in, that would be helpful.
Senator Lankin: I’m going to ask one quick question to Ms. Anderson, and if there is any time left I cede that to either Senator Moodie, Bernard or Burey for them to decide if there are areas they want to focus on with ASE in particular. We don’t hear your voice often and it’s important.
You have heard the discussion as part of the last panel and this panel of the strategic difference in approach that’s being suggested to us. Amend the framework now or substantive now, or get this out and let us to do that when our voices can be heard through the consultation process. You said yes, we want the amendments now. The alternative is some of these things can be captured and put back into the process as observations. I would like you to reflect and maybe you want to speak with your organization. Would you be with comfortable with a process that says pass it now, make significant observations but let’s get this done?
It is a strategic question and you don’t need to answer it today. You can tell us whether you want to or not.
Ms. Anderson: That is something we definitely would want to think about. But we still want to say that we should be included from the start. When you are an afterthought, it is demonstrated. We would want to think about that and write in our brief back.
Senator Lankin: The rest of my time I cede to my colleagues.
The Deputy Chair: We all would appreciate you thinking about this and sending it in. If there is a way to get us the material by April 14, it would be very useful as we move forward.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to the witnesses. It has been really helpful to hear what you have to say. I wanted to press with Ms. Anderson on the topic of the amendments. You did say in your comments that you feel the bill should be amended. You referred to eligibility criteria.
I want to ask: What specifically did you have in mind as an amendment that we might consider? Setting aside for a moment whether we should consider any. You did specifically say it should be amended. Can you articulate what that might look like?
Ms. Anderson: You mean specifically about the reference to eligibility or all the amendments?
Senator Dasko: Any of them, but I think you did mention something about changing or clarifying the eligibility criteria in an amendment. But if you have any other suggestions for amendments, articulate a little more because I wasn’t quite clear. As you know, the bill right now says that the eligibility criteria will be dealt with by regulation, but you are saying, “No, make changes now.” So if you wouldn’t mind describing?
Ms. Anderson: I think it is not outlined or not clear right now what exactly it is. There is actually no definition of what a disability is, and granted Minister Qualtrough said it will be set in the regulation. When we think about the definition of disability and you all talked about medical model versus social model, we want to move towards that but also make it inclusive to those who are more marginalized. You don’t want to exclude how different communities, culturally, might understand disability or even have access to having an official diagnosis if that’s a part of the criteria. That is something that definitely should be considered.
The other thing is to make it explicit, these anti-discrimination measures. It should be explicit — whether it’s in the bill or regulation — because, like I said, folks who are Black and accessing a service centre in front of the person, they are informed by their biases of whom a disabled person is or what’s a legitimate disability. I think a lot of it is rooted in what is considered a legitimate disability and folks sitting outside of that mould might not get access to what they need.
One of the last few amendments we talked about was the importance of having a knowledge mobilization strategy so that folks know it exists, the different intricacies of the bill, in lay terms, and what is eligible. That is really important. Anything that is made for us, we should be co-designers in that because we know the nuances, where the barriers and where the disparities are.
Senator Dasko: Do you see that as part of an amendment process? That piece of it — the promotion, awareness and connecting with communities to make them aware of the benefit — should be part of the bill as opposed to kind of putting it off to regulations?
Ms. Anderson: Yes. Also the anti-discrimination part is important. Again, inclusivity has to be stated in the bill. You have to prioritize and really state the prioritized — those who are “multi-marginalized,” those who are disproportionally impacted by poverty. It should be stated there. It should be a goal to reduce poverty among that population.
With the principle of targeted universalism, although there is a target here, everyone still benefits in a sense. I look to practical examples of ramps and elevators. Not only disabled people are using it. They benefit, but other folks who might not have a disability benefit from these ramps and elevators.
Senator Dasko: I wasn’t quite clear about what the substance of an amendment would look like. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Akuoko, you didn’t have an opportunity to comment on Senator Burey’s question earlier. We have a minute or two left. I wonder if you would like to have the last word.
Mr. Akuoko: Actually what was the question again? I apologize.
Senator Burey: So many questions going through my head. I know I mentioned the issue of legislation versus regulation.
Mr. Akuoko: I believe it was the question on documentation and such. Yes. Exactly what Ms. Anderson was saying, it is so important. Even in the work I do in advocacy and accessibility, I’m finding it is so many documents. You could go a year and have to do six or seven documents to access technology, post-secondary education or accessible transit. It is so important that we keep this in consideration and maybe having a universal way to track and improve disability instead of putting people against the wall in trying to figure out how to get this documentation, even to access family doctors, for example. This is a conversation for another day, but access to family doctors for certain demographics. Yes, maybe potentially looking at different methods in acquiring proof of disability for sure.
The Deputy Chair: I have to say I often feel 24 hours a day aren’t enough. This panel has been so rich. These discussions in the past few days have been so rich. I want to thank you.
We could go on and on. You have contributed immeasurably to our various interests and perspectives with this bill, and have handed us some very real challenges as we bring our deliberations forward based on what we’ve heard from the witnesses.
On behalf of all of us, and on behalf of everyone with an interest in this bill from coast to coast to coast, thank you for being with us today and for your candour, honestly, integrity and your personal circumstances. I know how hard that is to bring forward.
We do appreciate all you’ve done for us, and please send us anything you think of, wish you had said or the facts and data that will help.
(The committee adjourned.)