THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 19, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:03 p.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, I begin by welcoming all members of the committee, our witnesses and members of the public watching our proceedings. My name is Ratna Omidvar. I am a senator from Ontario and the chair of this committee.
We begin with a brief round table of introductions from the senators, starting with our deputy chair, Senator Bovey.
Senator Bovey: I’m Patricia Bovey, senator from Manitoba.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Senator Petitclerc from Quebec.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Mégie: Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler from Manitoba.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Today, our committee continues its study of Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.
I remind those participating in today’s meeting, as well as those observing the proceedings in person and on video, that the committee has taken steps to allow for the full participation of all witnesses and members of the public in the context of the consideration of Bill C-22. In planning inclusive and accessible meetings, the committee has made arrangements for sign language interpretation in both American Sign Language and Quebec Sign Language for those witnesses appearing in person and for those in our audience.
The sign language interpretation will be video-recorded to be incorporated into the archived video recording of the proceedings, which will be made available at a later date on the 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 — and we welcome you sincerely — Megan Pilatzke; Lorin MacDonald, founder and principal of Hearvue Inc.; Noah Papatsie from the Nunavummi Disabilities Makinnasuaqtiit Society and director for Nunavut on Inclusion Canada’s board of directors — please forgive me if I got a little bit of that pronunciation wrong — and, by video conference, Angela Browne, Managing Partner, Invictus Legal LLP.
Thank you all for joining us today. The focus of today’s meeting is to hear from individuals with lived experiences with disability.
We are structuring our meeting slightly differently today. We are not dividing our meeting into two panels. Witnesses have been given 10 minutes for opening remarks, and senators will be given 10 minutes for each round of questions and answers. We will take a short break at 5:00 p.m.
We will begin with opening statements from Ms. Pilatzke, followed by Ms. MacDonald, Mr. Papatsie, and then Ms. Browne.
Ms. Pilatzke and Ms. MacDonald have submitted written briefs to the committee, which have been distributed to all of us electronically. If you would like hard copies, please let the pages know.
Before we begin, I would like to ask members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece if you need to do so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
With that, Ms. Pilatzke, the floor is yours.
Megan Pilatzke, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Hello, everyone, my name is Megan Pilatzke, and I am an autistic person from Sudbury, Ontario, a part of Robinson-Huron Treaty territory and the traditional lands of the Atikameksheng Anishnawbek and the Wahnapitae First Nation.
Thank you to this committee for allowing me to speak today on what is an important topic. As a person who has faced discrimination and stigma surrounding autism, as well as disability itself, I fully welcome this bill, and I see many potential benefits for autistics and other disabled Canadians that this benefit could bring.
However, at this time, I do not have faith in the bill as it is currently written. I wish to outline three recommendations surrounding Bill C-22 that I sincerely hope you will consider for appropriate amendments.
To begin, I wish to direct the committee to the title of this bill which states, “An Act to reduce poverty and support the financial security of persons with disabilities . . . .”
The preamble of this bill further states the following:
Whereas persons with disabilities often face barriers . . . .
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to the economic and social inclusion of persons with disabilities . . . .
In fact, the phrase “persons with disabilities” is mentioned a total of eight times within the preamble of this bill.
On March 22, 2023, Minister Qualtrough stated to this committee:
When I stood in the House of Commons to debate this bill at second reading, I said that no person with a disability in Canada should live in poverty.
Yet despite these blanket statements claiming to protect and aid persons with disabilities, the bill goes on to state under section 3:
The purposes of this Act are to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities.
As no age range has been clearly defined in this bill to date, I am making the assumption that “working age” refers to persons between the ages of 18 to 64. I am both disillusioned and disgusted to see a deliberate decision by the Government of Canada to ignore disabled seniors.
Time and time again, Canadian seniors are ignored by our government, despite everything that they have done for Canada. Canadian seniors have worked, paid taxes, voted and raised families. Yet despite everything that they have done, it took a COVID-19 pandemic and seniors dying at alarming rates of 43% in our long-term care homes for the government to finally notice them. In 2010, 14.1% of Canada’s population was 65 or older. This number has increased to 19% as of 2022. As a result, the number of working-age Canadians for each senior is falling. Currently, disabled seniors aged 75 and over are the highest population of disabled Canadians at 47%. To ignore the statistics is to ignore the reality.
The use of the phrase “working age persons” and/or any use of age parameters within this bill violates sections 15.1 and 15.2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by discriminating based on age. Denying the service of providing a monthly monetary benefit that would lift thousands of disabled Canadians out of poverty due to a person’s age is a clear violation of the Charter.
When individuals turn 65 years of age, many benefits end, and in turn, disabled seniors are left with little income to make ends meet. While other federal programs such as the GIS, CPP and OAS exist, even when combined, these programs leave thousands of disabled Canadians in poverty. If a person has never worked and has thus not contributed to CPP, they would not be entitled to receive this pension. In 2023, a single 65‑year‑old person with an annual income of less than $20,952 receiving both OAS and GIS at their respective maximum amounts would earn only $1,723.10 per month. I did this calculation in November 2022, when first writing my brief for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, also known as HUMA. At that time, I calculated the amount as $1,709.28 per month. This means a year-over-year increase of only $13.72 per month. Please also note that while the GIS is not taxable income, the OAS is taxable, thus the previous noted amount for 2023 would be less after taxes are deducted.
On a final note, as an autistic person, I am astutely aware of the discrimination and the shortcomings of services faced by the autism community in Canada and worldwide. I genuinely thank the Senate of Canada for both introducing and passing Bill S-203, which mandates the federal government to develop a national autism strategy because the facts are alarming. Over 85% of autistic people in Canada over the age of 15 years are currently unemployed, which means that if they continue to remain unemployed, once they reach age 65, they will only qualify for OAS and GIS. Autism is a lifelong condition that is present from birth, thus regardless of age, a person will always be impacted. Our struggles will not magically disappear when we turn 65 years old, and the additional expenses that we incur for services like occupational therapy, speech therapy, psychologists and a variety of other services that support our unique needs that are not covered by our health care system, will continue to follow us long past age 65.
Disability in and of itself can occur to any person at any point in their lifetime. Disability does not discriminate based on age. Thus, my first recommendation is to remove the term “working age persons” and any reference to age parameters from Bill C-22.
My second recommendation surrounds the issue of claw backs. I will not delve too much into this as many witnesses and briefs already highlight this critical issue. The fact of the matter is that right now, there is no legislated guarantee that disabled Canadians will not face claw backs. This is absolutely unacceptable in a Canada where government changes are possible every few years due to elections. I recommend that the committee determine the appropriate income classification for the Canada disability benefit both federally and within each individual province and territory — is it supplementary income, benefit income, et cetera. Once determined, these should all be written into this bill. Classifying this benefit will prevent misinterpretation and in turn claw backs by federal, provincial and territorial programs.
In addition, I agree and stand by the recommendations made by Share Lawyers and Hart Schwartz. Their brief identified clear and concise methods of ensuring claw backs cannot occur by private insurance companies.
My final recommendation for consideration surrounds engagement and collaboration with the disability community. Based on the commitment in the preamble along with the requirement under the Accessible Canada Act, it is essential that disabled Canadians meaningfully contribute to the development of the regulations for the Canada disability benefit.
I do not feel that my voice has been heard to date, aside from this meeting and my briefs that I have submitted. This is despite the minister’s assurances made to the HUMA committee and to this committee, that disability communities across Canada have been and continue to be consulted. I am a member of a number of Canadian autism organizations, and at no time have I ever received any notice nor heard of any consultation regarding Bill C-22 for which I could provide input.
I fear that while collaboration may be occurring as claimed that the collaborations are not diverse enough nor are all members of the disability community aware of how or when to provide input. I have many questions surrounding the minister’s collaboration with the disability community. For example, has the minister consulted with reserves and other isolated communities? Has the minister considered the lack of internet access that exists for many Canadians? Has the minister considered accessibility in communication, especially for non-verbal autistics? Has the minister consulted with groups or foundations that aide disabled Canadians who are homeless and who are perhaps unaware of the opportunity to have their voices heard?
This benefit will provide support to a diverse population of individuals. As such, the government has a legal responsibility according to the Accessible Canada Act to ensure that data is being received from a diverse population of disabled persons from across the country. To date, I do not believe that this has occurred to the extent described above, and as a result I recommend that the committee amend clause 11.2, titled “Engagement and collaboration,” to include a legislated mandate that the minister provide clear and concise statistical data showing where the collaborative input is coming from. Data should include information such as the disability or disabilities, age, gender, race, location, organization if applicable, etc. Furthermore, I ask that the committee include a legislated time frame of three-to-six-month updates provided both to the House of Commons and to the public regarding data sources, as well as progress on the regulation development. I have provided some suggested wording in my brief that was submitted to the clerk of this committee last week.
At this time, it is difficult for me to trust the minister’s statements regarding the commitment to meaningfully consulting with the disability community due to circumstances that I faced as a federal public servant. For six-and-a-half years, I was employed with Employment and Social Development Canada, also known as ESDC. I faced severe discrimination toward my disability. I provided numerous functional abilities forms at the request of my management team and I was open with them about my disability needs and struggles; this did not change their actions toward me. Despite efforts to work with my employer, I was eventually forced to resign from my employment in May 2022 on the advice of a medical professional due to the mental health distress caused by years of discrimination and Phoenix pay issues.
These actions against me occurred partially under the current minister’s leadership of ESDC. Thus, I fully disagree with the minister’s claims of trust being built with the disability community. Instead, I feel insulted by this comment. My trust was and continues to be broken time and time again. How can I, as a disabled person, be expected to trust the minister’s claims of caring about the disability community’s input when this same minister cannot ensure that discrimination against employees with disabilities isn’t occurring in her own department?
The disability community is tired of hearing fancy speeches, promises, commitments and assurances. The disability community demands actions. The disability community demands that the government be held accountable every step of the way through legislated requirements that ensure that our voices are heard and our rights are upheld.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Pilatzke.
Lorin MacDonald, Founder and Principal, Hearvue Inc., as an individual: Good afternoon, Madam Chair honourable senators, committee support and fellow witnesses. As a visitor to Ottawa, I honour the people and land of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and the valuable past and present contributions to this land by all First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
I am privileged to share my perspective based on my lived experience. Before I begin, I commend your efforts to enhance accessibility today, such as the captioning before me. I also affirm my belief that representation matters. To the senators around the table living with visible, invisible and episodic disabilities, your presence in the Red Chamber and on this committee is impactful. Our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald — no relation — decreed the Senate to be a place of sober second thought; we all benefit from a wealth of perspectives reflecting the diversity of our nation.
Before I share my comments, it may be helpful to understand what informs them.
First, I embrace a human rights model of disability, which acknowledges the impact of impairment in the lives of people with disabilities, their right to live independently and be included in the community, and the responsibility of all levels of government to support these goals. It is through this lens that I make my comments today.
Second, I was born with profound hearing loss in both ears, with speech as my primary mode of communication. I was mainstreamed in public schools, relying on hearing aids and lipreading to supplement my hearing loss. I added amplification devices and captioning to my post-secondary education.
And finally, I also bring my experience as a human rights lawyer supporting Canadians living with disabilities and as a disability and accessibility subject matter expert.
These are my observations over the past years. The last Canadian Survey on Disability was published in 2018. In my view, the 2022 report, to be released by the end of this year, will show a marked increase in disability based on four developments: one, the lessening of stigma around mental health issues; two, the impact of the pandemic on our collective mental wellness; three, a better understanding of invisible and episodic disabilities; and, four, the larger number of Baby Boomers, given that disability increases with age — all of which is to say our disability population is growing. I anticipate this survey will reiterate how income disparity, food insecurity and persistent poverty have left our most vulnerable Canadians in crisis.
I mentioned COVID. While it continues at a lesser rate, we have had the opportunity to reflect on its lessons. The temporary Canada Emergency Relief Benefit, or CERB, determined the amount of a basic income, but it also provided a glaring contrast to what many Canadians with disabilities are forced to accept in financial support — nearly half the amount determined — thus creating a livable-income double standard. This lesson reinforced the need for the Canada disability benefit.
COVID also highlighted the cost of disability, which the government recognized, compensating individuals with a one-time payment to offset extraordinary expenses based on eligibility for the Disability Tax Credit, also referred to as the DTC. Unfortunately, many were deemed ineligible. This committee released its study of the DTC in 2018, so you appreciate the challenges that remain.
I am encouraged by the progressive disability rights advances that have occurred. Since 2015, we have had a minister responsible for the disability file. Under Minister Qualtrough’s leadership, we have seen the following:
Canada signed on to the Marrakesh Treaty in 2016, and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2018.
We saw the passage of the first federal disability legislation, the Accessible Canada Act, in 2019. Of note is how this legislation incorporated several amendments, showing how collaboration in the political realm can work effectively through study and cooperation.
I am also heartened by Senate action, as evidenced in the January 2022 letter to the Prime Minister and others, from members of the Senate, several of whom are here today. This letter indicated support for the urgent adoption of the Canada disability benefit — which I shall refer to as the CDB — noting this action as a “next logical step in your legacy.” I could not agree more.
I have three key messages for your consideration. The first is, “Let’s get this done.” The bill has nearly unanimous support among parliamentarians. However, the disability community is at odds about the path forward, advocating for either its quick passage or further amendments to beef up this framework bill. In my view, the latter is a gamble with a minority government. In this political climate, anything can happen.
The disability community has been clamouring for such action, and we’re almost there. Upon looking at the parliamentary calendar between now and the House rising on June 23, my anxiety also rises. There are only 9 weeks to accomplish much business before a 12-week break. I suggest those 12 weeks would be best utilized by starting to work on the creation of the CDB regulations.
Criticism of a framework bill may be unfounded. For example, the Accessible Canada Act is a comparable framework piece of legislation. The broad principles and intent of the act were articulated, with the details developed through regulations. I subscribe to the maxim of “progress over perfection,” which means, “just get started; don’t wait until everything is perfect. It is impossible to satisfy everyone.”
HUMA studied the bill with consultation, reviewing 28 amendments and passing 9, as several suggested amendments were either duplications or technical and complex.
My second message: “Let’s remember who is leading the charge.” Minister Qualtrough is an accomplished human rights lawyer and a Paralympian, which requires dedication and perseverance. Over the past eight years, she has earned the respect of the disability community through her collaborative approach and her “can do” attitude. Most importantly, she is a member of the disability community and a passionate advocate for inclusion and accessibility. Without equivocation, I am confident in Minister Qualtrough’s ability to create regulations that address the concerns you have heard throughout your study. Her track record speaks for itself.
Some may dismiss my views as partisan; I assure you they are not. I give credit where credit is due. For example, the registered disability savings plan, launched in 2008, was championed by the late Honourable Jim Flaherty, of the Harper government. Most recently, the Liberal and NDP parties have collaboratively created the Canada Dental Benefit, often referred to as the CDB, to lower child dental costs. As a human rights lawyer, I applaud initiatives that identify the holes in our social safety net and work diligently to repair them.
And, last, “Let’s do right by Canadians living with disabilities.” The first mention of the CDB was in the Speech from the Throne in the fall of 2020. COVID undoubtedly wreaked havoc with best-laid plans. The CDB is life-changing legislation that will lift many out of poverty, restore dignity and enhance participation. No one should experience life in constant crisis mode. Canadians with disabilities have been waiting too long during difficult times to experience further hardship caused by delay.
Madam Chair, my conclusion will take just a few seconds if you can indulge me. Thank you. I’m trying to speak slowly and drink water and deal with nerves and everything.
In conclusion, a quote from the late South African Bishop Desmond Tutu resonates with me:
There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in.
You have the data and the anecdotal evidence explaining why Canadians with disabilities are not only falling into the river but are drowning. The CDB effectively mobilizes our collective responsibility to ensure all Canadians live with dignity. Let poverty not be a legacy for our children with disabilities. Canada is already respected worldwide for its groundbreaking disability legislation. Let us build on that by implementing the CDB quickly and restoring dignity to Canadians living with disabilities.
To paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi, may we demonstrate the true measure of our society through our actions toward our most vulnerable.
It has been a privilege to appear before you. I value your service to our country and the consideration of the oral and written testimonies before you. And I welcome your questions. Thank you, meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. MacDonald. Mr. Papatsie, the floor is yours.
Noah Papatsie, Nunavummi Disabilities Makinnasuaqtiit Society and Director, Nunavut, Board of Directors, Inclusion Canada, as an individual: Thank you for the invitation. Again thank you chair, and thank you to the committee as well as senators for providing me an opportunity to speak on this Bill C-22.
My name is Noah Papatsie. I live in Iqaluit, Nunavut and am on the board of Inclusion Canada and also involved in the Nunavummi Disabilities Makinnasuaqtiit Society, also known as NDMS. NDMS is the only cross-disability organization in Nunavut. We provide support to people across the lifespan from infants to elders.
I am very happy to be a part of this important discussion and the advancement of the foundational legislation to create the Canada Disability Benefit.
The Canada Disability Benefit is an important opportunity to finally help address the income insecurity of people with disabilities in Canada. It is especially important to get this right for our Indigenous and northern communities, where unique circumstances exist and create additional and difficult barriers for people with disabilities. The ongoing impacts of colonialism continue to play a big role in the disproportionately high rates of poverty among Indigenous communities in Canada and especially in the North where the cost of everything is high.
We know that poverty puts people at a much higher risk of getting a disability. The Indigenous population in this country experiences a disability rate much higher than that of the non‑Indigenous population, at approximately 30% to 35%.
Many Indigenous and northern communities are affected by the unique challenges of financial insecurity including high levels of unemployment, remoteness, lack of roads, limited transportation, high food costs, not proper housing, and an overall housing crisis at this moment, and overall higher cost of living. It takes more just get by. Adding a disability to this only makes the situation worse.
I am honoured to use my time today to advocate for the equality of the northern perspective on the Canada Disability Benefit. We must make sure that the perspectives of our Indigenous and northern communities are heard equally with the rest of Canada’s perspectives on the Canada Disability Benefit.
But most importantly, we disabled people in the North need this benefit now. I urge all senators to quickly debate this and pass bill C-22 without amendments and without much more delay. We risk losing this potential new benefit which is greatly needed. We have come so far and we don’t want to risk another election being called to have this disappear again and not finally come about. It will disappear, or again, not finally come about. The Canada Disability Benefit is an opportunity to build equity for Indigenous people with disabilities.
We also need to ensure that the federal government soon starts talking with Indigenous people, First Nations, Metis and Inuit leaders on how this benefit will work together with existing benefits. We don’t want to be worse off. It must only lead to positive improvement and an increase in assistance. The different levels of government must make sure the benefits work together. And that can’t start until this bill is passed. The Canada Disability Benefit will be an important step in lowering the poverty of people with disabilities in Indigenous and northern communities.
We support Bill C-22 as a foundation to work with and urge senators to prioritize and pass it into law as soon as possible, with the commitment that the disability community, including Indigenous peoples, will be at the table in the drafting of the regulations.
The sooner Bill C-22 becomes law, the sooner we can get to work on the details of the design of what this benefit should look like, and the sooner negotiations with provinces and territories, Indigenous communities, First Nations, Metis and Inuit leaders can begin.
Any further amendments contemplated by the Senate would greatly delay the passing of the bill. Why risk this? Passing the bill now will allow the regulatory process to begin and for the disability community to be part of shaping the benefit. This is a historic opportunity to work to end disability poverty in Canada. In the North, we need this now, and I appeal to all of you to do what is right and pass Bill C-22 without further delay.
Thank you very much again for inviting me to your house and giving me the opportunity via my spouse to be here to meet the rest of the people and disability people. Thank you so much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Papatsie.
Angela Browne, Managing Partner, Invictus Legal LLP, as an individual: I’m Zooming in from Niagara Region, which is in southwestern Ontario. I would like to acknowledge the land on which I gather as the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe peoples, many of whom continue to live and work here today. This territory is covered by the Upper Canada treaties, and within the land protected by the Dish With One Spoon wampum agreement. Today, this gathering place is home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit people. Acknowledging and reminding us that our great standard of living is directly related to the resources and the friendship of the Indigenous peoples.
First, I would like to welcome the opportunity to be able to speak to the honourable members of the Senate this afternoon about a very important bill, Bill C-22, which could become a legacy — very much so — and finally put an end to the poverty of people with disabilities, or it could mean nothing at all.
I think that we want to achieve something, and we want to achieve it now. One of the things that I hear people in the disability community saying is that they want the bill to pass as it is and do this in a hurry. I don’t think that it is necessary to do that in order to start payments for people with disabilities. The government has had precedents, and they have shown an ability to dish out billions of dollars in a heartbeat without actual legislation to do so. They then later pass things to produce more of an ongoing legislation to determine its eligibility criteria and so forth. We saw that during the pandemic, when just about everybody except people with disabilities got $2000 a month, while people with disabilities had to continue to survive on less than half of that. In the interim, there could be an issuance of emergency payments being made to people. There was an emergency payment made to some people with disabilities during the pandemic where they received $600. I didn’t get it because I don’t qualify for the disability tax credit. Most people that I know with disabilities don’t qualify for the disability tax credit, although there are some who do.
This is one of the things I wanted to address. When we’re looking at eligibility for the payments, the amount of the payments and also how the payment is delivered such as whether it should be individual or whether it should be based on household.
There are many different debates that have taken place. Your committee has heard arguments on all sides of them. I just want to give my input, which is based on my own input to the HUMA committee. I hope you have a copy of the brief that I sent to them. If you don’t, I believe that I should get a call or an email from one of your representatives to make sure that I send a copy to you so that each of you can have a chance to review it.
In the brief, I talk about my own history. I have multiple disabilities, all episodic, and I’m also hard of hearing. These are all limitations that produce limitations, none of which are actually addressed under the disability tax credit, which is why I can’t get it. Also, because the disabilities that might possibly do this are not ongoing; they are episodic.
When people look at this, the disability tax credit should not be a gatekeeper to getting on to this, although it can be a gate keeper. People who are low income and receive the disability tax credit may be able to get on, but it should also be available to people who are also on provincial disability benefits or CPP disability benefits or even an insurance benefit that covers people for being disabled. For these sorts of things, there should be different ways or different gateways to get on to the Canada disability benefit.
One of the problems that I have found with the disability tax credit is that it is currently the gateway to get into something called the registered disability savings plan, where people can save up and put some money into their retirement. When my husband got on to Ontario Disability Support Program, also known as ODSP, I had to drain all of my RRSPs down to nothing. I had a considerable amount in, and I was probably going to get in more. But unfortunately, I had to drain all of it because we’re not allowed to have any savings. We’re not allowed to have any assets as people with disabilities. As I said, we do not have the same rights as other people to live a secure economic lifestyle. We had to drain all of our assets, for heaven’s sake. God help us if we get a penny from the government for support of legitimate disabilities.
My husband is unable to work, so as a result of draining those savings, I had to work. I have often had to work two or three jobs at once because I was not able to make enough to be equal to having two incomes in the household. Why? Because with him being on a disability pension, the income that I make gets taken out of his income. It gets to a point where he can’t contribute anything to the household. I’m still making a low income, yet I have to support two people instead of one. What that has done to me is it has caused a lot of issues. I have known many people who are in that position who have actually since divorced or split up. If you look at the statistics in Ontario for Ontario disability, about 10% or 11% at any given time are involved in common law or married relationships. The rest of them are not. They are either single parents or they are single persons living on their own with no children. This tells you something when approximately 70% to 73% of the general population that is not on ODSP is living in a common law or marriage-like situation.
The cause of that is simple: Because you can’t get to people, you do not have the same rights. You don’t have marriage equality as a person with a disability. This is felt by both the person with the disability as well as the person who they are married to, who is working. I work all the time, and it’s very hard on me. I can’t get every single job that I can apply for because one of my disability limitations is the inability to drive or operate a motor vehicle, which is not listed as a restriction under the disability tax credit, which is strange because about half the people with disabilities have that restriction. Not recognizing that there is a disability cost that is attached to that, I have to pay for Uber and taxis to get around. I don’t exactly have Toronto transit here in my dinky little town of St. Catharines. It’s unfortunate, because I have to get to places fast, and so forth. In order for me to have parity with drivers, I would have to pay five or six times as much as the driver does to cover the same mileage, and I’m usually getting less money in my pocket.
I think these things have to be considered when we’re talking about designing a benefit and looking across what would be considered a diversity of people with disabilities. People with disabilities have a range of issues — a range of limitations. I know somebody who has a disability where he cannot be around somebody who is chewing gum or who is making certain types of noises. Other people can’t be in a crowded room — even a room such as the one you are in right now. They cannot be in that room. I know other people who cannot even leave their house for very long. These are all disabilities that have complicated limitations to them, and many of these limitations are not taken into account when considering what a person needs and what costs they must endure carry when carrying out normal living activities such as working, getting a job, going out, finding friends, socializing and so forth.
In summary, I would say that the disability tax credit should not be a gateway, although some work should be done on changing its definition over time so that more people can benefit from the registered disability savings plan, and some of the other benefits that would entail from it.
The second thing is that I would say there should be no age limit. You talk about working-age Canadians. In my mind pops up 16 to 64. That’s against the Charter, I would think, and I would be one of the first to throw a Charter challenge or take a trip to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and write that in, because that is not something that is working. Some people work well into their 80s. I will probably have to because I’m not entitled to any kind of work pension. I can’t live on the Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement combination because that doesn’t give me nearly enough to live on, particularly with the costs of housing, getting around and food nowadays — everything keeps rising except people’s incomes.
Everybody who doesn’t have a disability is all concerned about inflation and the cost of living. People who have a disability are heavily impacted by this, probably twice to three times more, and being forced onto a limited income has created the kinds of stresses we haven’t seen before in our society. One of them is this: During the time of the pandemic, everybody was collecting $2000 a month for CERB, and if they were in a partnership relationship, then the family would collect $4,000 a month in CERB. In the meantime, if they were a couple on the Ontario Disability Support Program, they would get maybe $1700 a month to live on and nothing more. Yet, they had to pay the extra costs. They had to pay for the PPE, transportation, deliveries and all the extra costs they had to endure — and then afterward with the cost of inflation going up.
Our province has done 5%. I mean, 5% is better than zero percent, but it’s not good enough. It doesn’t go far enough, and it doesn’t help take care of the housing costs, which are ridiculous. An average two bedroom in my area is $2200 to $2500 a month. That takes up more than 50% of an average person’s income let alone a person or a couple with a disability. It would take up all of their income.
Basically, one of the problems is that age limit. When people turn 65, their disability doesn’t magically disappear. In fact, people over 65 who only qualify for Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement are living in poverty. There should be a companion bill passed with the Canada disability benefit act for Old Age Security for people in order to get the elderly out of poverty, because I think there is a lot more.
There was an article in the Toronto Star about women in particular. This is gendered, which is also a Charter issue. As women get older, they are more likely to live in very deep destitution as they get into older age, and that affects their life chances. They’re ending up in old age homes. It decreases their independence and puts more pressure on the health care system. In the meantime, if these women were able to have a decent income, they would be able to stay in their own homes and not cost the state anything to keep them in an old age home and not cost the state anything for all the specific health care that people tend to need as a result of income depreciation.
I think we need to look at this. We need to look at the future of our country and where that is going.
The third thing is that we need to look at how the benefits are delivered. I tend to favour the benefit delivery as individual. If a person has a disability, they should be able to get the benefit without worrying about what the spouse has in the bank and what the spouse is earning — that sort of thing. I have witnessed situations where a disabled woman — it’s usually a woman, although sometimes it’s a man. It’s a situation where the disabled person has no income of their own and they have to beg their working spouse for bus fare, coffee, and in a couple of cases, feminine products because they are having that time of the month and they don’t have the money for it. Sometimes the working spouse doesn’t have the money for it either because they are not making enough. Using the family model assumes that household income is shared and that the person who is disabled is enjoying the same standard of living as the person who is working. They are also assuming that the person who is working is earning enough money to cover anybody, including the disability-related costs. Maybe if they are on my province’s sunshine list they might be able to, but nine times out of ten, they are not. Nine times out of ten, they are only making $30,000 to $40,000 a year, and they are not able to pay for all of this. As a result, the whole family is dragged into poverty.
The Chair: Ms. Browne, may I ask you to bring your comments to a close, please?
Ms. Browne: Okay. In summary, I think people should be able to work and earn enough money to keep them going. They should not be cut off at the knees and not have enough there. What we should be doing is looking at the human rights of people with disabilities — the human rights that are enshrined under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or CRPD, and the Optional Protocol. We need to look at this to ensure that all persons with disability are not living in poverty.
I would welcome any of your questions. Thank you for listening to me today.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Browne. Thank you to all our witnesses for your statements.
We are now going to go to senators who wish to ask questions. We are trying something new: more time, more depth. Every senator will have eight minutes each. You don’t have to take your eight minutes, but you can if you need that time.
We will start with questions from the vice-chair of the committee, Senator Bovey. I would request every senator who is asking a question to please identify themselves again to the speaker.
Senator Bovey: I am Patricia Bovey from Manitoba. I want to thank all of you for your very compelling, sincere perspectives. You’ve presented us with several viewpoints. If I may, I’d like to ask a specific question of several of you.
Mr. Papatsie, if I may start with you, I’d be very grateful. I do so as one who has frequently gone up to the Arctic. When I was first up in Kuujjuaq, I had absolutely no comprehension how anyone with a disability could get around that community. Every building had stairs. The roads had potholes. It had been raining, and the snow was coming. I honestly don’t know how one moves from one part of the community to another.
I heard what you said about the need for the money, and I understand that. I appreciate that the benefit should flow now. You made a very strong case, with which I agree, that Indigenous peoples and peoples from the North need to be at the table to develop those regulations.
My question for you is very simple: Do you feel that people with disabilities in our North have a much greater tendency or are forced to live a much more isolated life than those people you know in the South?
I wonder if you could answer that, and then I would like to move on to a question for Ms. Pilatzke and Ms. MacDonald, if I may.
Mr. Papatsie: Thank you very much for the question. I appreciate it. Again, thank you all for inviting me to the Senate. I’m happy to be here.
I’ll be honest. I was born and raised in Nunavut. I had to learn everything all over again to have independence. What really matters is who is within the community without thinking of the costs. The costs always tend to direct us to a different direction, when in reality, we need to help one another to achieve the task that was supposed to be done in the first place, to make sure we’re guiding the individual, make sure the person is also getting assistance. The most important thing is mental health. Every time a person gets into an accident, the heaviest burden is on the person or person who’s helping him or her.
More importantly, it’s never about the fund. It really about who cares within outside. For me, my spouse has been my everything since my accident. For that, I’m assisting as much as I can. As my father said, do what you think is right, and I’m trying to do the same thing.
Senator Bovey: I thank you very much.
Ms. MacDonald, you made it very clear that you would like this bill to be passed as soon as possible. You said, I think, let’s get this done and progress over perfection. My question for you is: Are you worried about losing some of the elements of perfection if we move quickly?
For Ms. Pilatzke, you made it very clear that you’re concerned that we do have amendments to this bill. My question to you is the reverse of what I’ve asked Ms. MacDonald: Are you concerned that with the time it may take for amendments in both houses that we may lose the bill itself?
My question to both of you is really, what about throwing the baby out with the bath water? Are we in danger either way? Ms. MacDonald, if you can look at it from your perspective first and then Ms. Pilatzke. Then if we have time, Ms. Browne can weigh in too.
Ms. MacDonald: You pointed out one of the key things I’ve seen throughout, which is the discord among the Canadian disability community as to the way forward. I gently move people back to seeing the Accessible Canada Act. That was passed four years ago and just as critical because it was the first, but this bill being financially based is more emotional for a lot of folks and I can understand that.
However, times are different than they were four years ago. We had a global pandemic — we still have — and we’ve seen a lot of challenges within the political climate. That concerns me in regard to timing and feeling the sense of urgency more than I ever did before and not wanting to lose that 12-week opportunity to really start getting those consultations set up so that by the fall things can start moving with the voices around the table, as Noah mentioned, and the consultations that reflect a diverse range of people with disabilities.
In terms of progress over perfection, you are never going to get perfection. In any bill, in any government, there is never going to be 100% agreement that this bill tick all the boxes for every person. It’s just not possible. You really have to work toward collaboration and consensus. This bill has already been through HUMA. You’ve already had nine amendments added. In my view, it is unfair to Canadians with disabilities to have many of those same amendment suggestions from HUMA coming back here for a second kick at the can to see if they can be added, when some of them are technical and complicated and will only serve to further delay. That is one agreement among all Canadians with disabilities — we’ve been waiting too long. As I said in my quote, people are not just falling in the river, they’re actually drowning. I hope that addresses both sides of your questions.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimony. I’m Gigi Osler, a senator from Manitoba. I have one question for Mr. Papatsie, and if I have time, I may take Senator Bovey’s question and ask Ms. Pilatzke.
Mr. Papatsie, you spoke about ensuring that the voices and perspectives of Indigenous and northern communities are heard. Clause 11.1 of Bill C-22 speaks to collaboration, where the minister must provide meaningful and barrier opportunities to collaborate. The bill does not speak to an antiracist or non-colonial approach, and it does not speak to a culturally appropriate consultation or collaboration process. Can you please provide this committee with your observations and/or recommendations on how the opportunities to consult and collaborate could also be culturally appropriate for Inuit people with disabilities?
Mr. Papatsie: Thank you very much for the question. I appreciate it. In our community back home, before everything came about, or television or phones for that matter, there was always a leader within our community, group or camp who was either a professor, a teacher, a doctor or a scientist for that matter. That person would then either, as you mentioned, disability services — everything was organized, meaning that people with disabilities, intellectual disabilities, vision impairment or physical impairment, were completely taken care of by society of Inuit using their technology. There are ways of using equipment. As for today, we have tons of equipment. There is so much of it, and we can communicate so much. Communication is a major tool for making sure the correct message is going in the right direction.
If we are going to the right direction, as we’re talking about with Bill C-22, what’s important and who is in Canada? Canada is a sovereignty of different nations and it needs to hold its might and strength, especially with the rest of Canada. We’re in the background of Canada. Nunavut has tremendously supported Canada, as well as with growth in the economic sector.
In regard to those, we can now open a book where we can communicate to give properly and understand disability services, the abled world, what is important and what is not important. Everything is important when we talk about things. We cannot shove it off, but we can pick it up again. Most important is making sure we are safe and communicating properly with no race intended, no anything, because disability has no racial intention. Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you very much.
Ms. Pilatzke, I think you recall Senator Bovey’s question, please.
Ms. Pilatzke: Thank you for the dual question. In response to that, I have heard the other side of this in terms of the “get it passed now, hurry up, let’s do this, let’s do this.” I’m sorry, but this is what I think of when I hear it — CERB. I worked at ESDC and watched CERB get thrown out, and even as a public servant, I had no idea was happening from day-to-day. My co‑workers had no idea. We would learn at the same time that Prime Minister Trudeau gave a statement about what to tell people on the phones when they were calling and panicking about their income. I very much resonated with what Ms. Browne was saying about all of those concerns. We have to balance between amendments that are really important. Are they technical, as they’ve been talked about? There are some technicality things where we can maybe put those aside. But the issue of age, I can’t put that aside. For me, that’s important: regardless of age, someone is assured they’re not in poverty and that clawbacks are not going to happen and that we’re not going to go through that.
I am concerned about collaboration with the disability community, and I’ll give you an example. Right now, we have public servants outside picketing. One of the key reasons they’re picketing is the concern about remote work that was taken away from them. Part of the Accessible Canada Act states you’re to be consulting with disabled people when you change a policy, when you do anything legal like that. Well, there was no consultation with any disabled public servant about this change or about why working from home might have been better for me. It was assumed that it was a preference and that it was about a lifestyle, but it is more than that. Working from home is everything for me. I need to work from home. In fact, working with lights like this all day, I would never be able to do it. I would burn out consistently and, in fact, I did before my diagnosis in 2021.
The fact that the government, that the Treasury Board, deliberately decided, let’s take this away and now we have public servants outside arguing for this, now tells me that this can happen anywhere in the government, regardless of the Accessible Canada Act, that we can say, well, it’s there and it’s just a suggestion. That’s scary to me and I think we do need something legislated, maybe not to the same technicalities I’ve put in my brief but we need something to ensure that we are getting those diverse voices.
While I am concerned about the time frames of going back and forth, I am also concerned about the latter, as well. I can’t really say, you know, what’s the best way, but rather just that I do have genuine concerns. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Ms. Pilatzke, you’re concerned about benefits for seniors, as it is being said that people must be of working age to qualify. However, if you take the example of a person who is 62 or 63 years old and was in the workforce, what happens now — when the bill is not yet passed — if that person turns 66? What happens to their tax credit benefits while they were in the workforce?
[English]
Ms. Pilatzke: Thank you for your question. I’m not 100% knowledgeable on that, but I will say that I do know speaking for my home province of Ontario, for example, being on ODSP if you qualify for OAS, you do not qualify receive ODSP anymore. I’m not sure of the specifications with that specifically.
What I can say is that if we just are looking at OAS and we’re looking at the GIS, on their own, you know, that’s only $1,700 a month. I can say for myself, my unique needs that I have, I pay right now out of pocket, I might add, almost $1,000 a month just to access a psychologist and an occupational therapist and that is not going to go away. In those circumstances, I only have $700, less than that, given taxes taken off some of that, to somehow afford to live and somehow afford to do everything else.
Again, going back to what Ms. Browne said, I agree, it’s scary, these things, trying to figure out how to juggle it all. Again, I don’t know what specifically happens to those. I don’t know how that works. I personally am not eligible for the disability tax credit. I resonated very much with what was said. I do not qualify because I just don’t meet the specifications of it. I have a disability, but it just doesn’t work for me, I guess. I don’t qualify for that, so I haven’t been able to access it and thus learn more about it for that reason.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I understand your concerns now. In order to avail yourself of these benefits, you have to complete a form, so that may affect a number of our witnesses. In that form, are particularities, for example, of autism spectrum disorder or physical disabilities — visual, motor and so on — taken into account?
[English]
Ms. Pilatzke: No, they do not. At this time right now, again, I don’t have the form in front of me, but I know the last time I filled the form out it talked about functioning, things I could do in day-to-day life. What’s difficult is when it is something like me, where in my home I’m okay. I can set up my environment according to my sensory needs, so whether it’s sound, whether it’s light, et cetera, but there is no way to talk about what it’s like going out into the public, what my needs are when I go to a grocery store, for example.
Right now, my spouse does that for me because a lot of times it’s overwhelming to me with that. There is no way to indicate on that form that I can’t do — well, I can, but I have to go at specific times of the day. Walmart in my area is open until 10 p.m. When I lived on my own, I was going at eight o’clock at night to avoid sounds and people, et cetera. There is no differentiation to allow for that distinction.
I’m hopeful that having an autism strategy in place would fill in some of the gaps for those of us that are autistic, as well as those who have ADHD or other types of disabilities that are simply just not covered in that form. That would be a whole study in and of itself to go through it and analyze it and figure out what’s missing and the gaps.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My next question is for all the witnesses. I note that filling out the form is a barrier. Is that a barrier for all of you, either because of literacy, because the person can’t understand, or because of visual impairment? What kind of barriers does that represent?
I know it has to be filled out every year, and some people have chronic problems. In the past, I was a family physician and my patients would bring their forms to me to help them fill them out, and they would mention that their disability was the same and wonder why they had to fill out a form a second time.
What does this mean to you in terms of barriers? If you don’t fill out the form correctly, you lose your benefit. How do you feel about that? If Bill C-22 is passed, what recommendations could be made without amending the bill? Who could answer that question?
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Browne, I see your hand is up. You want desperately to answer that question.
Ms. Browne: Yes.
One of the problems that I’ve encountered, if you talk about the disability tax credit, it’s less about the form than about its eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria are under-inclusive and it prejudices against invisible disabilities and episodic disabilities and neuro-atypical disabilities, such as the one of my previous friend who had spoken for autism and many types of mental health or cognitive issues that are not clearly defined where people are neuro-atypical. I think it has to change the definition upside down because that could be a human rights complaint too, that would probably be successful. What you’re going to do is find 75% of people on ODSP still living in poverty and not being eligible for the Canada disability credit if you use the disability tax credit as its sole gateway. So I would suggest that we move away from that.
In terms of filling out forms, there needs to be people in the community that are available to help people fill them out and support given to them if necessary. My office does that all the time.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I was just going to ask you that question, whether you had thought of a solution, but that is one of the options that could be considered, as a suggestion, in the recommendations. Thank you very much.
Senator Petitclerc: My name is Chantal Petitclerc; I am a senator from Quebec. I am a person living with a disability. I use a wheelchair.
My first question will be for Ms. Browne. Ms. Browne, I think that, based on everything you have told us and what all the witnesses have been telling us all along, the importance of autonomy and self-determination is what this is about.
How important is it that this benefit be attached to the individual and not to the family unit, for example? How do you see it? It’s going to be done in the regulations, but how do you view it? For example, if one person has a very adequate income, do you take the benefit away from the person with a disability or do you allow them to keep it, for the sake of autonomy and self-determination? Is the benefit adjusted?
I would like to hear from you on this, please.
[English]
Ms. Browne: I remember I once talked to the deputy minister of Children, Community and Social Services in Ontario about that issue. She asked me, “What about millionaires who want to marry people on ODSP?” That is the Ontario Disability Support Program. I just replied to them, “It isn’t going to happen. People on ODSP don’t hang around with millionaires.” You usually marry people who are within your own group, who you’re with. If you’re a professional person, you hang out with other professionals — maybe not within your profession but with other professionals who make around the same amount you do. You have dual-career couples out there, and they are making a dual income. But people on ODSP, because they don’t have any money to go out, they don’t have transportation, they don’t have money for socializing, how will they meet these very wealthy people, very comfortably-off people on different incomes?
We need to consider this. Many times, people end up falling to ODSP when they’re already married. When they’re already married, we have to give them the benefit of having their own income. It’s not going to happen a huge number of times. Some people just won’t even apply for it, but many people will. Some people will apply for CPP who are eligible. Some people won’t, even though they may well be eligible for it. I’ve been recommending to a number of people that they apply for CPP because they don’t turn you away if your spouse is a millionaire. So they can do that. But the thing is, not all people on ODSP are eligible for CPP. You have to have some working history in order to get on it.
What happens here, when you have this, is it enhances a person’s individuality. It’s like a demogrant. You give everyone who’s older than 65 their OAS and GIS. You give every child under 18 the child benefit. They used to call them demogrants. I don’t know what they call them now, but when I was taking policy in school, that’s what they called them. You just met a certain demographic criterion. These grants, these programs, would help people get out of poverty and help people who have children, for example, to be able to raise them.
These things were put out there for a reason. Now, we’re looking at people who are also part of a population with disabilities. These people with disabilities, as we know, are more likely to be poor, are more likely to be in poor health, and that’s usually because they’re poor. Usually when people are not so poor, they’re in better health. If you notice the ones who may be disabled and working and making good money, you find out that they’re in a lot better health than they would be if they were living on ODSP. There are plenty of studies on that.
One study indicates that if your income is low, you’re likely to be poor. You’re also likely not to live as long. If you’re alone and you’re isolated — and many who are poor or disabled are — it’s like smoking 15 cigarettes a day. It could shorten your life.
These two items would be helped with a Canada disability benefit. It will help a person to have a life, to enjoy some substance of life, to enjoy some choices and to enjoy the same kind of marriage rights as everybody else. Other communities, such as the LGBTQ community, fought very hard for the right to get married, and they recently got it.
Although people with disabilities can legally get married, they are penalized if they do so. That has to stop because if they didn’t have disabilities and they got married, they would be able to keep two solid incomes, as opposed to having one see-saw income.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much.
I will put my next question to Ms. MacDonald.
You have been very clear about your position: The situation is urgent. Perfection is hard to achieve. No matter what we do with this aspect, I wanted to hear your thoughts on age. We have heard from many witnesses who have told us that a person with a disability continues to be vulnerable and possibly living in poverty even after the age of 64, and is often even more vulnerable. I don’t think you’ve talked about that much.
I would have liked to hear your perspective on that.
[English]
Ms. MacDonald: Thank you for the question. My understanding of the intent of the CDB was to fill the gap, previously existing or now existing, between one end at the lower age and the other of the upper age, and that other government financial programs would offer support either before that age or after that age.
To be quite honest, I haven’t examined the issue fully to be able to make an argument one way or the other, but my understanding is that the gap was identified. This was a way to address it. In deference to my fellow witnesses, they can speak much more eloquently to the topic. I don’t want to step outside of my lane if it’s not something that I’m well versed in, but thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much.
Very quickly — you can nod — were all of your groups consulted prior to the bill?
The Chair: Colleagues and witnesses, we can’t record body language. You have to say yes or no.
Senator Petitclerc: Ms. MacDonald, was your organization consulted?
Ms. MacDonald: My organization is not a grassroots disability organization, but I do know that the community of those living with hearing loss was consulted.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Petitclerc, maybe another senator will ask that question because we really are running out of time.
Senator Bernard: I would start by following up on the response to the last question asked by my colleague. If anyone who didn’t get a chance to respond, you may, please.
Ms. Pilatzke: As far as I am aware — I speak with the Autism Alliance of Canada, as well as Autism Canada — I have not received any sort of notice, myself, nor do I know where to go online to even provide individual input outside of an organization. That’s where my concern lies. I don’t know how people are supposed to know where to go to do that. There is no national campaign to say, on TV, for example, “Please go here,” as a message from the Government of Canada, or anything. That’s where I’m concerned.
Ms. Browne: I was trying to catch up and read up on Bill C-22. As it went into the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, or HUMA, I decided to put my own brief in. Prior to that, I don’t think there were any participation opportunities given other than knowing that Bill C-22 was being put in. I think there should have been a very broad-based consultation prior to putting Bill C-22 together.
My concern here is that some of the people want the bill passed quickly. I can very much understand why they are looking at that. But my concern about passing the skeletal bill is that if another government gets in power after another election, they are going to make the changes to regulations with the stroke of a pen without the oversight of Parliament. They may say that now people with disabilities will get a dollar a month extra and narrow it down so only 5% of people who were previously eligible would get it. It’s just too risky to leave open to regulation. There has to be something standard so that there is some standard, regulatory passageway where it has to go through people with disabilities before they even make a regulation or pass it through the cabinet.
I don’t know how that can be done, but there are regulations, and as I said earlier, the monies can often be dished out earlier through emergency payments. They do have information about who is on provincial or territorial assistance, and also people on federal programs say it is readily available as well. They can at least start there and then try to work and see who else could be eligible, what proceeds to apply for, how to appeal it and so forth.
These sorts of things, I think, are subject. I didn’t hear anything about this, but when I saw the skeletal parts of the bill, I said, “Oh, my God, this could be anything.” I listened to David Lepofsky with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance. He made similar comments to this about how a bill, when you rely upon regulations, doesn’t even get the oversight of Parliament. I think we need to be very mindful of that too.
The Chair: Thank you. I believe Mr. Papatsie had his hand up.
Mr. Papatsie: Thank you. Yes, I’ll be honest. We’re 50 or 60 years behind in Nunavut. Canada is way ahead of us. Usually, everything is in the hands of a doctor and, as I mentioned earlier, the caregiver or my spouse for that matter. Ever since my accident, I’ve been advocating for disability services and the right to be heard. I’m in the right place right now. I want people in the ability and disability worlds to be heard together properly and to create a meaningful manner to have equality services on both sides.
That’s what started it all — the question of who deals with disability services. Usually, it comes from a doctor. The doctor is responsible for making sure the individual is properly assessed and taken care of. When it goes to the public, they start pointing fingers when they should not be pointing any fingers. The fingers should be pointing at each other to create a meaningful strategy and making sure equality services are heard. As well, individuals — we’re talking about elders here. Why are we giving them a hard time when they gave us the road to generate and to be more meaningful?
We need to create a lot of positiveness — not negative — where we can work on this issue and where a child, if he or she has a disability, can have a successful journey without getting into any barriers at all, especially going through school.
Everything we have up there is taken care of by others, but they are not listening to us about what services we need. If we don’t have those services up there, we’re usually sent down here. What does that mean? Do I leave my home and my generation to live down here to have equality service? Equality service can be moved anywhere.
Disability has no barriers. I think we need to bring racism up at the same time. We always bring this up. I think we need to get rid of this racism information, especially working toward an equality service where tomorrow is a better day and where I might answer her or him or especially my granddaughter. She has got a disability. I’m trying to get her to have a successful day when she grows up. Thank you.
Senator Bernard: Let me say thank you to all of you for being here today and sharing with us. Someone used the term “emotional,” and it certainly is very emotional. These are emotionally laden issues we are dealing with.
If I just have a minute, I would ask this question of Ms. Browne. I think you have alluded to the possibility of a Charter challenge or human rights complaint if the age discrimination remains and if the disability tax credit is the only gateway to accessing eligibility with this tax credit.
I would like you to say a bit more about that if you don’t mind, please. What kind of risk do you think we are under if the issues you have raised are not addressed?
The Chair: Ms. Browne I’m going to ask you to keep your answer very brief. If we have time, we’ll go back to that question.
Ms. Browne: Okay. If the disability tax credit is the only avenue, you will not be reducing poverty among most people with disabilities because the primary people who are getting the disability tax credit are people who have taxable income and are usually working people who are not poor.
Among those that are poor, only a minority of people — maybe about 20 or 25% — are getting the Ontario Disability Support Program, or ODSP, because they fit within the restrictions or maybe thought of applying for it when they could. The difficulty here is that you have to have something that will take all people on ODSP out of poverty because everybody on ODSP is in poverty whether or not they qualify for the disability tax credit.
We had a similar human rights challenge for special diet, which was based on different kinds of illnesses people had. We took that to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, and they agreed with us. They started doing a test about what types of disabilities and illnesses required a special diet, and people can go in and put their own illnesses in and get a special diet for it under the ODSP program. This is instead of just listing 40 conditions, and if you don’t have any of the 40 conditions but still need a special diet, you wouldn’t be left out.
This puts that at risk. This is called the Ball v. Ontario (Community and Social Services) case of 2010.
In terms of gender, there is a very gendered thing with respect to the use of the family home. It’s usually the women who are very dependent and the ones who end up the poorest in their old age. That needs to be looked at too.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Browne.
Ms. Pilatzke: If we do come back to that question, I have a response as well.
The Chair: We can also ask you, if you’re able to, to provide us with written responses to any questions. We may not have the time to hear you. We have precisely 10 minutes left.
Senator Greenwood: I will simply ask my question and then invite written responses.
The Chair: Let’s wait for Senator Dasko, who has been waiting patiently.
Senator Dasko: Madam Chair, if the witness would like to complete Senator Bernard’s line of questioning, that’s fine.
Ms. Pilatzke: Thank you. All I was going to say is that in response to your question, I do actually have in my brief a little part about that, because I actually agree, as well, with Ms. Browne.
I wrote just briefly that I believe that passing the bill as it is would be grounds for a Charter challenge, and that would involve us enacting section 33, known as the notwithstanding clause. I had stated that Prime Minister Trudeau has been very vocal against the use of it. He has made statements against the Ontario government in 2022. I provided some quotes for that.
He also made statements against the Quebec government for using this clause in Bill 21, forbidding some public servants from wearing religious symbols on the job. He stated that provinces should not be pre-emptively using the notwithstanding clause, because it means, “. . . suspending fundamental rights and freedoms.”
I had asked in here whether this government, this prime minister, is prepared to contradict their own statements and enact section 33 to prevent disabled seniors from accessing a benefit that they desperately need to survive in a country that, as of February 2023, faced a 10.6% year-over-year increase in grocery prices.
Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to all of you for your statements today. It has been very interesting.
I have a question for Ms. Pilatzke. I had to step out for a few minutes, and I’m not sure if this topic came up, but you, in particular, expressed concern about the clawbacks and how that is going to be handled. I want to ask you how you think the clawbacks should be handled.
Some people say, for example, that the benefit should be withheld from recipients in a province until the province signs a deal saying they are not going to do clawbacks. That’s one approach. The minister, however, has said no way will she permit that to happen, because she doesn’t want to deprive any recipients of any benefit, period. She has made that quite clear. There are two different sides of how to deal with the clawbacks.
I wonder if you or any of the other witnesses have any thoughts about how that should be handled and the best way to deal with that vexing issue, because, of course, no one wants to see clawbacks, but they could happen.
Ms. Pilatzke: As I said, my suggestion was that we should look federally at a classification of this benefit. When I was working with Employment Insurance, the biggest thing when I would have someone call me — I worked in the call centre — they would tell me they got whatever amount of money. The biggest thing that held up paying out Employment Insurance benefits was figuring out what type of money a person received. Was it a pension? Was it severance, et cetera?
I know that provincially there is legislation that prevents the use of language such as “clawbacks” and things like that, so my suggestion is to look at it federally instead and ask what it is going to be called — Is it supplementary income? Is it benefit income? — and ensure that language matches what is on file. I apologize. I don’t know the legislation that this is under, but make sure it matches that so when we do start distributing this money, we don’t have any question as to what the money is, and it won’t be termed like with CERB, where it was an employment income replacement, so immediately it was deducted.
I think we should, then, individually in each province and territory, do the same. We go into their legislation and see what it is, and we do the exact same thing. If that means we add a section that says federally this benefit is classified as supplementary income, let’s say, and then individually in each province and territory — in B.C., it’s this, and so on and so forth, all the way through. This way, we’re not holding it back right away.
I agree with the minister that we can’t be doing that, but we’re also doing our due diligence to ensure that, later on, these people aren’t going to end up with a bill in the mail, overpayment recovery offices trying to collect money back. Those are not nice letters to get.
That is my suggestion to get around that.
Senator Dasko: Does anyone have any suggestions about how to deal with the clawbacks, be they provincial or other clawbacks?
Ms. MacDonald: This is one of those technical and complex issues surrounding this bill. It takes experts far more learned than I to work it out with the provinces, the territories, the health legislation. There are different pieces of legislation involved, the Income Tax Act, et cetera. It is complicated, and it’s very technical. It’s not something that if the requirement is for inclusion in the bill that it’s going to get resolved quickly. That very much concerns me.
I don’t want to see this bill being held up due to very complex and technical information. If you put it in the bill, it’s there. It’s very difficult to repeal sections of a bill. But with regulations, they can be adjusted and modified as time permits or is required.
Ms. Browne: As the lady from Sudbury has indicated, yes, we have to call the benefit something that is not going to be clawed back. There are several different categories of income under the ODSP that are considered exempt income that comes from mostly income tax benefits, rebates, Canada’s climate action plan, various types of income that come in, and there are other types of benefits that come in, often pain and suffering or lawsuit relief, different things like that.
As long as it’s not connected to earned income or earnings replacement, I think something could be done within that. It could be worked out. There would have to be a terminology put in place, and it would have to be written by someone legal knowledge who can put the bill in place to match what would be going to the provinces so the provinces understand that they can’t touch that money.
It’s pretty sad that a lot of the federal COVID relief money came to Ontario and then was absorbed up through deficit reduction and tax cuts, which didn’t get to a lot of the intended recipients. A lot of that could be prevented if it was more or less spelled out. This is why rushing to get the bill passed may not be a good idea, since we might run into problems.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Browne.
Senator Greenwood, you were going to table a question, as was I. Let’s get the question put on the floor, because our time is quickly running out. And Senator Cardozo will put a question on the floor.
Witnesses, not only have we encroached on your time and your wisdom, we are going to do it a bit more.
Senator Greenwood: I’m Margo Greenwood from the province of British Columbia. I am filling in for Senator Moodie today, so I haven’t been in parts of all these discussions, but listening to you and having looked over the bill, I wonder how you would respond if you held the pen on what a disability is and what the eligibility criteria for that is. I heard lots of challenges with the existing situation, but if you could hold the pen, what would that eligibility criteria be so that we don’t fall into these clawbacks and other things that exclude people with disabilities? It would be helpful to know that. Thank you for your words today.
The Chair: Senator Cardozo, your question?
Witnesses, the clerk will send you all of these questions via email and then you can respond back directly.
Senator Cardozo: My name is Andrew Cardozo. I’m a senator from Ontario. Just for your information, I’m not actually a member of this committee. I’m here because I wanted to hear what you, in particular, had to say. At the end of the day, all of us have to vote on this legislation, so this is really a great opportunity to get your input first hand.
My question is quite simple. We’ve touched on this throughout the discussion, and it’s about how the process worked for you to be part of this discussion. Do you feel you had enough chance to get the information and have input? Physically, how was this building in terms of getting in here? How is this room? Any of those kinds of issues. Or online — how is that ability and what worked, what didn’t work and how can we improve accessibility to have people with disabilities participate in our hearings?
The Chair: Senator Cardozo, that will be excellent feedback to the clerk and the chair of this committee, so I thank you for that question.
My question relates not to the bill per se, but what happens after the bill. Even though that is outside the purview of the framework legislation, I know that every benefit will create its own bureaucracy and that bureaucracy can be very difficult to navigate. I wonder if you could send us some guiding principles on the application form that will ensue. The guiding principles, not what you think the application will look like. Hopefully, that will help us to include it in the report.
Ms. Pilatzke: Can you just clarify, do you mean applying with the form or do you mean how the benefit is applied? I just don’t fully understand your question, sorry.
The Chair: The guiding principle of the creation of the application form, as opposed to the framework itself. So if you have any thoughts on it. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I think I will be, so I will refrain because it is really your question to answer.
Ms. Pilatzke, Ms. MacDonald, Mr. Papatsie and Ms. Browne, you have been very generous with your time, your wisdom and your insights. We appreciate this enormously. It has contributed to our understanding of the bill. First voices are always appreciated in the study of such a bill.
Colleagues, thank you so much for your time.
(The committee adjourned.)