THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 20, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 11:32 a.m. [ET] to consider 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: Good morning, senators and witnesses. I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses and members of the public watching our proceedings. My name is Ratna Omidvar. I am a senator from Ontario and the chair of this committee.
I would like to begin by asking my colleagues to do a quick round of introductions, starting with the deputy chair of our committee, Senator Bovey.
Senator Bovey: I’m Patricia Bovey, a senator from Manitoba.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, a senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, an independent senator from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I am Chantal Petitclerc, and I represent the senatorial division of Grandville, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, a senator from Saskatchewan. I am not a member of the committee, but I am the sponsor of Bill C-22.
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler, a senator from Manitoba.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher from Nova Scotia.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, a senator from Ontario.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, a senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Today we continue our study of Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act.
I would like to take a moment to remind everyone 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 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 recording of the proceedings, which will be made available at a later date on SenVu via the committee’s website.
Finally, if a member of the audience requires assistance at any time, please notify one of the pages or the committee clerk.
Joining us today, we welcome, from Disability Without Poverty, Rabia Khedr, National Director; and by video conference, Elizabeth Lowe, Leadership Team Member; and from Finautonome, in person, Guillaume Parent, Manager, Finance and Handicap Expertise Centre; and Jean-Didier Dufour, Project Manager; and by video conference, Pascale Pilon, General Manager. Thank you all for joining us today.
Before we begin, I would like to ask members and witnesses in the room with us to please refrain from leaning in too closely to the microphone, or to remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact committee staff in the room.
I remind witnesses that each organization has five minutes for opening statements, to be followed by questions from senators. We will begin with Disability Without Poverty. Ms. Khedr, the floor is yours.
Rabia Khedr, National Director, Disability Without Poverty: Thank you very much. I am honoured to appear before this committee. I come to you from Mississauga, Ontario, the traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the New Credit. My colleague is joining us from Quebec City via Zoom.
I testify before you not to read off our brief or bring forward any significant new evidence supporting the CDB, the Canada disability benefit. You have heard from many credible witnesses to date, and you will continue to hear from more witnesses. My colleagues and I have met with many of you individually to discuss disability poverty. We have shared the fact that over 41% of people living in poverty are, in fact, people with disabilities, and 50% of people who are food insecure are disabled people. Things are going from bad to worse for the over 1.4 million people with disabilities who are living in poverty in Canada.
Today I am here to speak to you about Bill C-22, not only in my capacity as the National Director of Disability Without Poverty but as a person with a disability, with a lifetime of experience in self-advocacy and in advocating for siblings with complex disabilities.
I came to this country as an immigrant child. I always say, “Thank God I grew up in Canada, because Canada is the best, and I have the right to voice for more and make it even better.” That is why I’m here today, on this twenty-ninth day of Ramadan, sacrificing my fast, because this is how important this issue is to me.
I know that if I had grown up in the village I was born in, I would be forced into a lifetime of hardship and marginalization. I was only able to overcome all of this because I had access to education, allowing me to overcome some of the barriers I faced. As a fully employed member of society, I was able to earn an adequate salary and support others around me. My brother, who has a developmental disability, will not have to experience poverty simply because we’re there to support him, but not every person with a disability in this country is that lucky. Not every racialized woman with a disability has the opportunities that I have been blessed to have.
As a disabled person, it breaks my heart to find that people have to trade off important things in order to afford a meal. For example, I was in a parking lot one day going to buy my groceries, and W approached me. He was in a wheelchair. He offered me his bus ticket, his only means of getting home, for me to buy him some food that day because he was really hungry. It brought tears to my eyes. It broke my heart because this is not my Canada. This is what I am used to seeing when I travel in developing countries. No one should have to do that in this country. Look at the bleak market where people with disabilities are selling their wheelchairs and their medications in order to buy food or to do something nice for their child.
It is time to end disability poverty in this country by passing Bill C-22 swiftly. Through an Angus Reid survey, over 89% of Canadians agreed with us that it’s time to end disability poverty, encouraging us and empowering us to build a national movement from sea to sea to sea to do this very job of raising awareness on disability poverty and empowering us to expedite the benefit. Celebrities, artists, unions, corporations — everyone has come on board with this movement.
The Senate is our social conscience that upholds Canadian values and does its due diligence to ensure sober second thought in this democracy. We appreciate your hard work and welcome any technical changes that you wish to make to this bill. We implore you to avoid any substantive changes that will trigger additional debate and risk delaying this bill or having it end on the Order Paper. We are dedicated to working with the system to resolve any of the concerns that we have through regulations. We support the framework because it will help end disability poverty and bring about the systems change that we so desperately need in this country.
The Chair: I know that Ms. Lowe was going to share your time, but your time is up. Perhaps Ms. Lowe will be able to insert her point of view during the question-and-answer period.
Ms. Pilon or Mr. Dufour, please.
[Translation]
Pascale Pilon, General Manager, Finautonome: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Pascale Pilon, and I am the general manager of Finautonome. Joining me today are two of my colleagues, Guillaume Parent and Jean-Didier Dufour. I will be giving our opening remarks.
Finautonome is a charity that was founded to raise awareness and educate, as well as inform and support persons with disabilities in Quebec and French-speaking communities in Canada. The goal is to improve their financial well-being and social inclusion. We provide support to help them access government programs and tax measures more easily.
To complement that work, we engage in activities to raise awareness among financial professionals. The idea is to leverage their support in making these programs more accessible to their clients with disabilities.
Through its outreach, Finautonome works with and supports persons with disabilities, who unfortunately are not captured by the statistics. Persons with disabilities are disproportionately impacted by poverty. It is no exaggeration to say that, since the pandemic, poverty among persons with disabilities has hit a crisis level.
We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee and share our observations and recommendations regarding the design of the disability benefit.
In order to redress the inequities faced by the members of the disability community, especially those most impoverished, the benefit must be harmonized with existing programs. Better still, we believe the design of this social assistance income supplement is an opportunity to implement the Senate’s 2018 recommendations on the disability tax credit.
Currently, the Canadian government recognizes disability-related costs but doesn’t provide those most in need with support to offset those costs. The disability tax credit is non-refundable. That means Canadians with disabilities who have no taxable income cannot access that relief to offset the additional costs of living with a disability. The government urgently needs to convert the disability tax credit into a refundable tax credit in order to treat those who do not pay taxes equitably.
Also in need of attention are the numerous administrative hurdles including communications challenges that significantly hinder genuine access to programs, especially for those most in need. That includes real access to the generous Canada Disability Savings Program, made up of the Registered Disability Savings Plan, or RDSP, Canada Disability Savings Grants and Canada Disability Savings Bonds.
The inability to work for health reasons should be recognized as a disability. If the federal government automatically extended access to everyone receiving income support benefits because of a persistent severely limited capacity for employment, not only would it make the system fairer, but it would also bring Canada closer to its poverty reduction targets sooner.
All week long, we convey the same message: the financial supports exist, but they remain underutilized. We want to stress the importance of tackling eligibility head-on. In order to reduce poverty, access has to inform eligibility requirements. Our goal is to ensure that the most impoverished receive support sooner.
This is our strongest recommendation: automatic enrolment for those who depend on programs of last resort, who have significant employment limitations. There is no perfect solution that works for everyone. The government needs to deploy this social assistance very soon, to ensure quick access for all those with no income alternatives who are currently struggling to cope with inflation.
Although it’s a different type of benefit, the implementation of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit demonstrated that it is possible to get help out to the most vulnerable people quickly.
For the sake of program alignment and faster deployment of benefit payments, we urge decision makers to consider the thresholds already provided for in the Income Tax Act, when figuring out how to calculate the Disability Tax Credit.
Our recommendations regarding the Canada disability benefit are as follows: First, pass the bill without amendment to get the first payment out to those in need as soon as possible. Second, establish an automatic enrolment mechanism for those receiving benefits under provincial programs of last resort who have a very limited capacity for employment, and for individuals once they become eligible for the Disability Tax Credit or the equivalent of disability welfare benefits at the provincial and territorial level.
Lastly, ensure that the benefit is harmonized with existing supports, including the Disability Tax Credit and the RDSP, so as not to add to the inequity faced by those most in need.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Pilon, I’m sure we will dig into some of these proposals that you have made during questions and answers.
We will now move to questions. I remind senators that you each have five minutes for your question and the answer. Witnesses, please try to keep your answers succinct. If you so wish, you can submit additional answers in writing after our meeting. Colleagues, please indicate if your question is directed to all witnesses or to a particular witness and who you would like to answer first. Additionally, I ask senators to please identify yourself by name before asking your question.
The first question will come from the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Bovey.
Senator Bovey: I am Patricia Bovey, as I said earlier, from Manitoba. I want to welcome you all here and thank you very much for what you’ve said. I’m just going to put a couple of thoughts out and ask each of you, if I may.
You both talked about the need for quick passage. You both came up with some very interesting ideas. First of all, am I presuming that you feel your ideas could be met as regulations are developed, through that process?
Another question I want to put on the table is about clawbacks. Everybody knows I’ve been very worried about clawbacks. I want to ask you, as this would be a subsidy and not earned revenue, does that take away any concerns that there might be about clawbacks?
Madam Chair, those are my thoughts. Whoever would like to start, I’d love to hear your perspectives.
Ms. Khedr: I can start.
We are equally concerned about clawbacks. However, we have a strategy of engaging province by province as grassroots individuals with disabilities, advising and dialoguing with provincial counterparts of the federal government to impress upon them that they have to uphold their local and provincial responsibilities of supporting their residents and that clawbacks are absolutely unacceptable. It’s not going to be that one hand gives and the other hand takes away. People with disabilities will not put up with that.
As far as the framework bill goes wherein the issues can be resolved in regulations, we feel very strongly about co-creation and collaboration. The disability community has impressed upon government that consultation alone is no longer good enough. We have been consulted and consulted and consulted. It’s time to give us a seat at the table to build forward better in a new way that really incorporates our lived experience and the “nothing about us without us” model.
[Translation]
Guillaume Parent, Manager, Finance and Handicap Expertise Centre, Finautonome: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I’d like to give a shout-out to my hundreds of thousands of friends and clients, half of whom live below the poverty line.
Yes, we are concerned about the provincial withdrawal of program support, but it’s important to put it into perspective. Many different provinces and private insurance plans are involved, so keep that in mind. Some are more generous than others. I don’t think that should be an argument for the withdrawal of their program support. However, clawbacks shouldn’t be seen as the end goal.
I think everyone’s support level really needs to be brought up. In the case of the more generous provinces, it may be appropriate to tailor the negotiations accordingly, since some provinces might have non-income support programming in need of TLC. Clawbacks are not acceptable, but we are in favour of flexibility in the negotiations.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Bovey: May I ask one question? It may be answered with other questions, so I’ll just put it out there.
We have heard concerns that this bill is for working-age people. I wonder if, through the course of discussions or afterwards, you could send your thoughts about what’s the end of working age. Many of us are older than some of the normal ends of working age. I’d like our witness’s thoughts on that.
Ms. Khedr: Again, in relation to working age, we know that disabled adults between 18 and 64 years of age have no supplemental benefits when they live in poverty and when they are low income. They are the priority, and we fully support that.
We know that our seniors may be struggling and that people under the age of 18 may be struggling, but the Canada Child Benefit exists for children and the Guaranteed Income Supplement exists for seniors. There is work to do; however, working-age Canadians between 18 and 64 living with a disability are the most impoverished right now.
You talked about clawbacks. Elizabeth is online, so she can talk to her lived experience and personal concerns on clawbacks at some point as well.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimony today.
Senator Bovey and I are on the same wavelength because my question to both groups was about each of your groups’ specific observations or recommendations on the yet-to-be-developed regulations for Bill C-22 on the eligibility criteria, specifically the criteria to be working aged. Madam Chair, perhaps we can start with Ms. Lowe on video conference from Disability Without Poverty.
Elizabeth Lowe, Leadership Team Member, Disability Without Poverty: Hello. I was having technical difficulties with my headset. Could you please repeat the question?
Senator Osler: Could you share with us your thoughts, observations and recommendations on eligibility criteria and, to follow up on Senator Bovey’s question, about the criteria of being working age?
Ms. Lowe: First off, I live in Quebec City, so the way it works is a little bit different. Basically, we have access to what is called the Basic Income Program. That is a supplement of revenue that is given to disabled people who also receive social assistance benefits. We have that given, but even with that amount, it’s not substantial enough to rise up to the poverty line. Basically, we’re still living under the poverty line even with that benefit. I speak from my experience. Right now, my work is part time, and due to the invisible nature of one of my disabilities, I’m not able to work full time and I never will be, so the criteria of eligibility is a question I’m asking myself as well because I don’t know if there will, in fact, be clawbacks as we already have access to this Basic Income Program I just mentioned. I don’t know what will happen with regard to the federal benefit. I just hope that maybe if we are eligible for both of these supplements, that we can finally be lifted above the poverty line and have a sense of dignity and purpose and be restored as disabled people.
[Translation]
Mr. Parent: That’s an important distinction, especially in terms of future planning for a person with a disability who works. In my case, it’s physically impossible for me to work to the age of 65. What’s more, we have less experience — let’s not bury our heads in the sand, here. Therefore, we recommend harmonizing the benefit with the RDSP.
It goes back so long that this is something that’s often overlooked: the RDSP and the Guaranteed Income Supplement will in part address the needs of persons with disabilities in retirement. However, that is if — and only if — access is opened up a bit and the government recognizes the need for flexibility in the case of those who weren’t able to open an RDSP early on. Sixty isn’t the age when we tell our boss that we can’t do it anymore and we need to slow down.
Perhaps this is a long-term undertaking, but a good benefit requires the government to look at coordinating the RDSP and the Child Disability Benefit, or CDB, for different people at different stages of life.
[English]
Senator Moodie: I would like to give Ms. Lowe the opportunity in my five minutes to speak her mind on what she would have said if she’d had a chance to speak.
Ms. Lowe: Do you wish that I resume what I wanted to say?
Senator Moodie: Go ahead, but you have a short amount of time.
Ms. Lowe: Thank you.
Basically, I’m really honoured to be able to talk to you today. I didn’t mention it earlier, but I have cerebral palsy, and I have an invisible neurological handicap called dyspraxia. This is a medically recognized disability that is often overlooked due to its invisible nature. As such, because of dyspraxia, I’m not able to work full time and I never will be. However, I am able to work part time, but because of social benefit restrictions here in Quebec, I’m limited to a symbolic pay rate of $200 per month. That still leaves me dramatically below the poverty line. My hope would be that Bill C-22, in conjunction with current social assistance programs in Quebec, would enable me to work part time at a normal pay rate without cuts to social assistance benefits.
I would also like to be able to live with my boyfriend, who is also disabled but who has the capacity to work full time. I wish that our benefits here in Quebec would not be cut by between 30% and 40% because of that. I feel as though young disabled couples are punished because one of the partners happens to be able to work full time. I find that very biased for disabled couples. I wish that with Bill C-22, in conjunction with the Quebec assistance programs, that we could find a way to make it work so I could live with the person I love and have a sense of freedom and financial autonomy. Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Thank you very much.
I will ask a very quick question, and I would like to direct it to Finautonome. Your organization helps people with disabilities navigate the system to get access to benefits. Can you tell us what’s missing in the bill? What would you recommend we make sure is included in the bill that may not be here? What improvement would you see?
Mr. Parent: If I had one amendment, it would be about a gateway to disability which would onboard automatically. In our society, the inability to work is the real handicap. We are helping people navigate this nightmare. We worked with the University of Calgary and compared the disabilities census from 2017 to the population claiming it. It showed about 25%, and in some populations, Indigenous, Black and marginalized, Quebecers, French-speaking, it is about 15%. So the gateway and the eligibility criteria should recognize those differences.
[Translation]
Otherwise, I think Bill C-22 would totally miss the mark, reducing poverty. In addition, it’s those with the most means whose financial situation includes an RDSP. In 2040, because that’s the time frame, an RDSP would provide around $350,000 if the person opened it in 2008. The average RDSP would be $350,000. If we don’t ensure equal access to the RDSP, I worry that, in 2040, we will see two classes of citizens with disabilities: one with access to a good retirement fund and another that would unfortunately be out of luck because of the barriers. Those are my two big worries.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My first question is for Ms. Khedr. Good afternoon. I’m glad to have you with us today.
My question is about the consultations, but from a different standpoint. Are we ready to start making the regulations? The reason I ask is that the committee heard from Krista Carr, from Inclusion Canada, and she talked about the consultations and all the information that had been gathered as a result. Of course, we also heard from Carla Qualtrough, the minister, and she told us to trust her. In other words, the benefit would be deployed fairly quickly because a lot of the work had already been done.
This is my question for you, because I know you took part in the consultations. Is it true that they led to progress? Can we be sure that persons with disabilities will start receiving the benefit perhaps within a year, as we were told? When Bill C-22 passes, will the regulatory process be fairly expeditious because we already have a lot of information?
[English]
Ms. Khedr: Absolutely. More than enough information has been gathered. In fact, ever since the Prime Minister announced his commitment to a Canada disability benefit in September 2020, people with disabilities, Disability Without Poverty and other organizations have been mobilizing, organizing, researching, developing and designing the models that government is considering and looking at. We have articulated our principles, which are not rocket science. They are very clear and relevant to the design of the benefit and to creating these regulations and expediting them. Where there is a will, there is a way. This is a question of our values as a system. Are we ready to do right by people with disabilities? Are we ready to change the system? We were for able-bodied Canadians in the spring of 2020. We need to see the same passion and commitment today by our bureaucracy, by our government, by our elected and appointed officials, to do right by disabled people and create a better future for people with disabilities living in poverty. It can be done in less than a year.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you. I have a question for you now, Mr. Parent. You touched on this, but I’d like to get a sense of what it means for people really. I’m talking about the amount of paperwork a person with a disability has to fill out, over and over again in many cases, even when their disability is a constant. Is it important both not to add to that burden and to find a way of simplifying the eligibility paperwork for people with every type of disability?
Mr. Parent: Paperwork is just the tip of the iceberg in the work we do. First, the person has to have their disability recognized, provide all the details. It was relatively easy in my case. However, that means finding a doctor who will sign the forms. It’s not at all easy.
We are recommending a meaningful analysis of all the provincial, territorial and federal programming to find the commonalities. My sense is that there is enough commonality to achieve the necessary coordination. Instead of negotiating clawbacks, the government could harmonize the eligibility criteria to establish an automatic gateway.
As far as the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, goes, it already has the information in its database. Provinces send in their tax slips pertaining to individuals who receive provincial benefits. The negotiations shouldn’t focus solely on [Technical difficulties]. They should focus on eligibility criteria.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thanks to everyone for being here today.
Bill C-22 is entitled, “an act to reduce poverty and support the financial security of persons with disabilities.” We heard earlier from other witnesses that 40% of Canadians with disabilities live in poverty. What are your expectations with respect to this bill? Do you feel that this bill will pull out of poverty every disabled person who lives in poverty in Canada? Will it do that? What do you think will be the impact of the bill on that level of poverty? It has been mentioned by many witnesses here over the last couple of weeks. I want to get a sense of how successful you think the bill will be in doing that. If not, where do you think it will land? How many of those people do you think it will pull out of poverty? I would like to ask everyone that question.
[Translation]
Mr. Parent: This very Senate committee showed tremendous vision in its 2018 report entitled Breaking Down Barriers: A Critical Analysis of the Disability Tax Credit and the Registered Disability Savings Plan, especially recommendations 13, 14 and 15. They laid the groundwork for the Canada disability benefit, for expanding the eligibility pool. I don’t know why it was ignored or shelved. I don’t know what happened, but you don’t hear anything about it.
I would tell the Senate to reread those recommendations. If they are implemented, whether in parallel or shortly after [Technical difficulties]. I think it covers 80% of the work. When you read it, it’s obvious that they go hand in hand, recommendations 14, 15 and 16.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Because sometimes our bills go places and we don’t know exactly where, but whatever.
[Translation]
Mr. Parent: I’m on a disability committee for the CRA, and I am always making these recommendations. The problem, senator, is that issues relating to persons with disabilities fall under the authority of three organizations, the Department of Finance, the CRA and Employment and Social Development Canada. For this to work, all three have to be on the same page and, if possible, use your recommendations as the starting point.
[English]
Ms. Khedr: The only thing I would add on this benefit is that, of course, we are insisting that this benefit be adequate to lift people to the poverty line as a minimum. So, yes, if it actually does that, if a sufficient amount is budgeted to bring about true systems change and improve quality of life for people with disabilities, it will reduce our national poverty numbers by at least 41% — as long as the principles that we have articulated are incorporated into the regulations. That’s why co-creation is absolutely essential. People with lived experience, people with disabilities, must have a seat at the table in the design. We have to design the regulations differently than the way we have been used to doing things. We need to, again, build forward better, not the same old way.
The Chair: Let me ask a question. You talked about lifting people out of the poverty line. This bill suggests that a market-based measure will be used as the basis for defining the value of the benefit. Do you think that is the appropriate measure for people with disabilities?
Ms. Khedr: People with disabilities experience poverty far greater than people without disabilities. The current measures, the lines we have defined across this country currently, are 20 to 40% less than the poverty experienced by people with disabilities. We are expecting that this benefit will at least come to the minimum poverty line that has been calculated, not necessarily completely lifting people with disabilities out of poverty but getting them some of the way there.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: My question is for Ms. Khedr. I was thinking about your statement — I think it might have been a response to an earlier question — “It’s time for us to have a seat at the table, to co-create. Nothing about us without us.” Do you have any specific recommendations around how that should happen, given the complexities that we deal with in this country across provinces and territories and intersectionalities with persons with disabilities? There are so many different disabilities that we’re dealing with — visible and invisible, rural and urban communities, and so on. Are there specific recommendations that you would make to ensure that there is indeed a seat at the table that would attend to the complexities of the intersectionalities of persons with disabilities across this country?
Ms. Khedr: A lot of the information gathered through consultations has brought forward those differences in social location, experience and intersectionality, and this has been documented.
We know there is a process around posting regulations for public feedback. In the process of crafting regulations, the folks who are given those duties and responsibilities within our bureaucracy meet, discuss, debate and draft those regulations. It is important that independent people from the public, with lived experience and with adequate knowledge of the system, be a part of that process internally within government and have a seat at the table so that co-creation genuinely happens.
It is important that when we post those regulations for public input, targeted outreach is done to ensure that people with disabilities from diverse communities and from urban and rural settings, those with visible and invisible disabilities, have an opportunity to give feedback and are provided access to giving feedback. When we have people involved in the actual design, it is important that their feedback be supplemental and not force us to go back and rethink and redraft everything because, out of ignorance, we missed fundamental nuances.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Mr. Parent, did you want to add to that?
[Translation]
Mr. Parent: It won’t be perfect the first time around. It’s so complex. There are many definitions. Is the goal to provide a lot of help to a certain segment of the population, or to broaden access but provide less support?
This may be a bit naive of me, but I think it will be necessary to build some experience and look at different scenarios. I think the government would do well to leverage our expertise, to open up its books, and to show us its constraints and scenarios.
What’s more, co-creation is going to take 10 or 15 years. It’s not going to happen next year. It will be necessary to establish an appeal board and a governance committee, and to engage with members of the community — yes, before and during with regard to the scenarios, but above all, after. It’s important to be humble enough to acknowledge what works and what doesn’t.
I would also point out that, when the Canada Disability Savings Act was passed, in 2008, we were promised a review every three years. The last one was in 2011. In my eyes, that’s not co-creation.
It happens before, after and during — the entire time.
[English]
Senator McPhedran: I have just one question to all our speakers. Welcome to you all. Am I understanding correctly that all three of you feel that Bill C-22, as it is now, should proceed with no attempt at amendments?
Ms. Khedr: Yes, we do. The disability community, individuals with disabilities advocating for Bill C-22, are generally united in the view that this bill needs to go through as is. We will work with the system on regulations that address all the concerns that everyone has. As Guillaume says, we’re not going to get it right. If we wait for perfect, it will never come. We need to start somewhere and work toward the goal of perfect over time. Let’s start addressing the gap. Let’s start to end disability poverty for some in the hope of, over time, ending it for all.
The Chair: Thank you to all our witnesses. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you all very much for being here in person and online and for adding your wisdom, perspectives and experiences to our understanding of this bill.
For our second panel, we welcome Katherine Scott, Senior Researcher, National Office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and Adrian Merdzan, lawyer with the Income Security Advocacy Centre. I invite you to provide opening remarks. You have five minutes each, to be followed by questions from my colleagues.
Katherine Scott, Senior Researcher, National Office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives: Thank you all very much for this kind invitation to speak to the standing committee today.
By way of introduction, I work with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in our National Office here in Ottawa, on unceded Algonquin territories. We are an independent and nonpartisan research institute concerned with social, economic and environmental justice issues, with offices across the country.
I want to start by applauding the government for introducing this critical program to reduce the extent and depth of poverty among people with disabilities and to urge the Senate standing committee to quickly pass Bill C-22.
I would like to stress right at the onset, of course, that we are not disability experts. It is the people with lived expertise of disability and their organizations whose voices count the most in this process. On this point, I would say that we were very pleased to see the amendments to the bill that strengthen the requirement for meaningful collaboration with the disability community in the development and design of the benefit. In our view, the success of this initiative hinges upon centring the voices of those most impacted.
This committee and, indeed, the Commons committee have heard from many organizations and individuals about the scale and the impact of poverty on people’s lives, especially individuals facing multiple and overlapping sources of oppression. Every day, people with disabilities are forced to make decisions as to whether to fill prescriptions, buy nutritious food or use whatever precious energy they may have to take public transit to a local food bank. People with disabilities struggle to pay the rent and to access crucial supports such as attendant care, child care and inclusive education. Of course, all of these things are crucial to people living full and thriving lives.
These challenges have become immeasurably more difficult in the past year as the cost of living has skyrocketed. Tuesday’s CPI figures are out, and they show that the monthly rate of inflation has been easing, but the cost of essentials — l food up 9.7% over last year; shelter up 5.4% — continues to climb and remains at historically high levels.
Tomorrow, you’ll hear from Statistics Canada again with the release of the 2021 Canadian Income Survey, known as the CIS. Last year, the 2020 CIS generated headlines, reporting an historic 38% drop in the poverty rate among all Canadians between 2019 and 2020, as measured by the official poverty line. Among people with disabilities, the poverty rate fell by 5.2% over this period. This was an extraordinary achievement in the context of a national crisis. Emergency programming introduced to offset employment losses and pandemic-related costs drove down poverty rates as many more people with disabilities, and others, were able to access government support. Tomorrow’s report for 2021 — I have no crystal ball here, but it will likely reveal an equally historic rise in year-over-year poverty rates. At this point, the question is really how significant this increase will be.
Emergency benefits made a huge difference. They reached over 20 million Canadians, two thirds of all adults aged 15 and over. Of this, 7.5 million were able to access CERB, the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. Roughly 1.4 million people with disabilities received the one-time $600 payment in the fall of 2020.
It needs to be stressed again and again, of course, that a sizable group of people with disabilities received scant support during the pandemic. They struggled on desperately inadequate incomes during the pandemic and still. While the number of poor reduced in 2020, the actual depth of poverty barely budged at all.
That said, the pandemic programs offer important lessons for permanently strengthening our income security programs, including those for people with disabilities. They highlight the value of expanding coverage to better cover workers who work part-time or part-year or on a temporary basis, as so many people with disabilities do, and of creating a higher minimum-income floor, hopefully through new programs like the Canada disability benefit, or CDB.
You’ll remember back in April 2020 when it became clear that the first version of CERB was missing way too many low-income workers who were experiencing cuts to their hours of employment. The move to allow workers to make up $1,000 a month captured a whole group of precariously employed and boosted the numbers of those in receipt of CERB by almost 900,000 workers. It was an extraordinary thing. Likewise, a more expansive approach to providing income support to parents and caregivers, as well as the individual income test instead of a household income test truly made it possible for more women with disabilities to access CERB and improve their household incomes during these challenging months.
We have the opportunity and some lessons from our recent experience to now make a difference to right the wrongs of the past and to fill this critical gap in our income security infrastructure.
We know and agree there are many shortcomings of the current legislation. It does not contain many essential details regarding the design of the benefit. For example, while the amended legislation states the benefit must be “adequate” and take into account the official poverty line, it does not define “adequate” nor does it require that recipients actually move to or above the poverty line.
It doesn’t establish an accessible or transparent appeal mechanism or prohibit the clawback of benefits by other levels of government or deductions in benefits delivered through private insurance plans. It doesn’t reference Indigenous governments, who obviously must play a fundamental role in creating a program that addresses the needs of their unique communities.
At this juncture, however, we believe it’s imperative to move forward, to quickly pass the bill and embark on a design process with the full and meaningful collaboration of people with disabilities from a range of backgrounds, as set out in the act.
In our own work on the Alternative Federal Budget, we’ve made the case each year that sizable gaps in our income security system can and should be addressed. Income supports for children and seniors are well established — certainly not perfect — but those for working-age residents, such as the Canada workers benefit, known as the CWB, and various provincial social assistance programs are woefully inadequate and highly intrusive, most especially for women and gender-diverse people.
Within this, people with disabilities are typically considered as add-ons. There is a disability add-on for the Canada workers benefit. There’s also the DTC, the disability tax credit; I’m sure you’ve had testimony about that.
Canada urgently needs a national disability income-security program that serves adults aged 18 to 64. We recognize this is not an easy task. Our own proposed model for the CDB proceeds in phases where we start with recipients of federal programs and work out the details and move on to include those recognized by provincial and territorial social assistance programs.
We envision a broadly inclusive disability benefit. I think back to the 1990s when federal governments and provinces were in the process of developing the national child benefit, or NCB. We talked about taking kids off welfare. That was the language we used at the time. We should be talking about taking people with disabilities off welfare.
One of the goals of the NCB back in the 1990s was to create a platform of income-tested benefits that would be explicitly available to both social assistance recipients and working-poor families. Provinces would recoup savings from social assistance programs, but they then reinvested those savings into community supports for low-income kids. We saw a whole generation of new programs come through and were developed during that time. Such an approach can work again.
No income support alone can possibly address the disproportionate rates of poverty that people with disabilities experience, whether it be housing precarity or their unmet medical needs. We believe and hope that the Canada disability benefit will be that opportunity to both reduce poverty and expand necessary publicly funded universally accessible community support.
Thank you.
Adrian Merdzan, Lawyer, Income Security Advocacy Centre: Thank you very much, senators, for the opportunity to appear before you on your study of Bill C-22.
ISAC’s mandate is to advance the rights, interests and systemic concerns of low-income people with respect to income security and employment. Our work is carried out across the 46 treaties and other agreements that cover the territory now called Ontario. I acknowledge that today I am before you on the unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people.
Our position is that the Senate should amend Bill C-22 to protect people with disabilities living in poverty. The Senate can make amendments that respect both the “nothing about us without us” approach and the framework nature of Bill C-22. This can be done by creating framework amendments that ensure statutory protection while leaving the specific details to be further parsed out in the regulations.
Bill C-22 has been improved each step of the way during the legislative process, and we recommend that the Senate continues with that approach by implementing three important amendments: first, by inserting appeal rights that provide timely and accessible dispute resolution through a tribunal; second, by guaranteeing automatic eligibility for people on existing disability programs; and third, by expanding current identification requirements so that hard-to-reach populations can access the benefit.
Those proposed amendments have been endorsed by 48 community legal clinics in Ontario who have first-hand, on-the-ground experience on why stronger income supports are needed for people with disabilities.
First, the Senate should insert appeal rights. While Bill C-22 notes that “regulations respecting appeals” will be made, we note that appeal rights are not all equal. The risk of having the current text of Bill C-22 stand is that this could permit the creation of an inaccessible appeal mechanism by any future cabinet. Inaccessible appeal rights were recently seen in the pandemic recovery benefits legislation where recipients who were deemed ineligible had to go before a court for their appeal. This example demonstrated that despite being an appeal right, court adjudication is neither a timely nor accessible form of dispute resolution for people living in poverty. To ensure this problem is not repeated, dispute resolution in Bill C-22 should be routed through a tribunal first before courts are needed. A tribunal can better serve people with disabilities due to its more flexible evidence standards, early resolution emphasis and opportunity to appoint adjudicators with lived experience.
Second, the Senate should guarantee automatic eligibility. Proving eligibility for disability benefits is administratively, emotionally and financially difficult. Currently, Bill C-22 does not guarantee that those on existing disability programs will receive the Canada disability benefit. Instead, as is, Bill C-22 could require applicants to go through the dehumanizing task of reproving their disability to a new government administrator. The Senate should amend Bill C-22 to fix this problem. In fixing this, the Senate should also ensure that ongoing receipt of the Canada disability benefit is based on Bill C-22’s eligibility criteria, not on the existing disability program’s criteria.
Third, the Senate should expand identification requirements. Currently, Bill C-22 requires a social insurance number. As found by the Auditor General, requiring a SIN blocks hard-to-reach populations from accessing benefits. This is because to acquire a SIN, an individual has to provide two identification documents and proof of address. This will immediately exclude some of the poorest and most vulnerable people living with disabilities from accessing income support, including those who are houseless, those with language barriers, people with precarious immigration status and Indigenous peoples. The Senate can alleviate this problem by amending Bill C-22 to ensure other forms of identification can be used in place of a social insurance number.
We hope that the Senate makes those proposed amendments so that Bill C-22 can better live up to its purpose of reducing poverty for people living with disabilities. We have included specific language for the Senate to consider in our brief.
Thank you very much for including us in your study of this very important bill. I welcome the opportunity to respond to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merdzan, and thank you for being on time.
Let me kick off with the first question to you, Mr. Merdzan. You have proposed amendments and changes in language. Thank you for your written brief. Your brief is supported by roughly 48 organizations. We have heard in this committee of tension around the need to improve the bill, on the one hand, and, on the other, to pass it quickly so that people with disabilities who are living in poverty start receiving benefits with the hope that incremental improvements will come over time. What is your position?
Mr. Merdzan: Our position is that the bill, as is, will leave people behind. The requirement of ID based solely on the social insurance number that I just discussed will mean that a lot of people who do not have social insurance numbers will not be eligible for the Canada disability benefit. That, then, leaves people with disabilities behind and doesn’t include them in the benefit. We understand — and I think it’s very clear from the conversations that have been before this committee — how important it is for people with disabilities to have access to income supports. Currently, the bill doesn’t protect against clawbacks, so we don’t know whether that will actually go into the hands of people with disabilities. We think there should be stronger protections in place so that people with disabilities are supported. And again, I am supported in that position by 48 community legal clinics across Ontario.
The Chair: Ms. Scott, what is your perspective?
Ms. Scott: The recommendations that ISAC have put forward address critically important issues, and the hope would be that they would come forward in the regulatory process. For instance, issues around identification and alternative social benefit delivery mechanisms are already being discussed and piloted with the CRA and the like. I can only think or understand that the government hasn’t taken this step thus far because they have other regulations pending. Again, though, that is a leap of faith.
I think we’re in a position right now — and I think the community has articulated this very clearly — that, in terms of mobilizing support behind the quick passage of Bill C-22, they recognize that is a strategy that comes with risk. In an ideal situation, I 100% agree that the types of requirements that ISAC is putting forward and are supported by the legal clinics in Ontario are critical and essential ones. We would never argue against those. The question is the particular political moment we’re in.
These are really key issues. There is a real and present danger that many people with disabilities may well be sidelined, particularly those who have not yet qualified for and continue to struggle to access benefits, whether at the provincial level or federally. It’s a very limited number of people, for instance, who have access to the Disability Tax Credit.
This is a benefit that will evolve over time, so yes, I acknowledge that these are critically important amendments that need to be made. Ideally, they would be included in Bill C-22. At this juncture, we stand with the disability community in terms of their desire to have this bill passed quickly.
The Chair: Thank you. We will move to the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Bovey: I’d like to thank both of you for your very articulate and compelling messages that had me agreeing with each side. At some point, I’m going to have to come up with a decision as to which is right.
You may know, if you have seen earlier testimony, that one of the concerns I’ve been on about is that of clawbacks. Yesterday, I heard an interesting thought that subsidies cannot be clawed back whereas earned income can. I’m wondering if I’m being idealistic that perhaps this is a subsidy, but that is probably a discussion for another day.
I want your thoughts on what regulations can really do. How many of these issues can be resolved in regulations? Let’s say the bill is passed right away and the regulations can be worked up over the summer so money can start flowing as quickly as people want it to flow. Is there a danger with regulations? Are you afraid of regulations being changed all the time or not enough consultation? I wonder if each of you could address that and help me decide where my head is at.
Mr. Merdzan: Just quickly to the amendments we’re proposing, we’re not proposing for a full-scale revision of the bill. Our amendments even draw towards the regulations because the goal is there is a protection within the statute that won’t be left up to the regulations, that the regulations will have to follow the statute. So all three of our amendments talk about having that amendment be subject to the regulations. That’s certainly important, because the regulations are when a lot of this co‑creation experience with the disability community will take place, and we are all for that being an open door that allows everyone to have their voices heard.
Our concern is that in the current state of the bill, there are no protections in the three areas that we’ve listed. The regulations are important, for example, the amount of the benefit is usually in regulations. If you look at the Ontario Disability Support Program, Ontario Works, those amounts are laid out in the regulations because it allows for a quicker change to increase the amount. A lot of the work of this bill will be done in the regulations. The concern is that if there is no statutory protection in place currently or the statutory protection is too weak, with the example of the appeal being too broad, then you can have any sort of future cabinet ignore this consultation process that goes on with the disability community and move in with their own situation, without being subject to Parliamentary rigour and having that statutory protection in place to begin with to protect against that from happening.
Senator Bovey: Ms. Scott, on the other hand?
Ms. Scott: I don’t think there is an other hand. Actually, those arguments are very clear.
This guts of this bill will take shape in the regulation process through the co-creation process. That is true of most bills of this type. The devil is in the details. It’s also true that regulations are subject to more frequent change, by design, and that could be problematic, but legislation can be changed too.
I don’t think there are any permanent long-term guarantees. What will ensure the longevity and security of the program, of course, is as the money starts to flow and it becomes part of the fabric and the way we talk about OAS and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, it becomes very much part of the Canadian welfare state. It’s how people understand their residency in this country and their life in this country. That will be the security, we hope, that will take root for this program as it grows and expands.
I think there is necessarily a balance to strike. Again, I do support and I certainly understand the perspective of ISAC, but hopefully this will be a robust co-development process that takes place.
It’s a really difficult thing. You can think about when they were crafting the children’s benefit, for instance, and you knew you had kids. Well, there wasn’t too much of a debate about the definition of a child. Some debate, I’ll grant you, like age and so on. Defining the class of people that will be supported by this legislation, defining the interactions with different levels of government, with the complexity of the private income system with health benefits and the like, this is a truly complex area. We have to step up to that challenge. If we were starting from a clean slate, wouldn’t that be fabulous? But on the other hand, we can learn from our past mistakes and hopefully bring that forward.
Clearly, the flaws in our current system exclude the poorest people in Canada because they don’t have access to a SIN. Surely we’re exploring that right now. We can bring these lessons and insight into the design process.
I don’t think there are any guarantees, and I truly believe that, but I put my faith and trust in a regulatory design process where people are around the table, bringing their lived experience, tackling the issues at hand with the design of this benefit — they are super hard, and we can’t dress that up any other way — and moving it forward. Certainly that’s where I’m placing my hope and faith right now.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses.
I have one question for each of you, and I’ll start with Mr. Merdzan. Thank you for ISAC’s brief. I note it had three proposed amendments and two recommendations. How confident are you that your concerns could be addressed through the yet-to-be-developed regulations?
Ms. Scott, thank you for your testimony. What are your thoughts, if not an amendment, as you had said, on recommendations or observations to make Bill C-22 a better bill to achieve its purpose?
Ms. Scott: Well, I guess our primary argument is we believe it should pass in its current form as quickly as possible. I do agree that, again, in an ideal situation, where time wasn’t as pressing as it currently is at this moment, you would well look at establishing certainly the appeal mechanism, prohibition against clawbacks, and that’s certainly at the top, setting a minimum income standard and reference to establishing an advisory body like the poverty council that currently exists. There are a variety of other tools that could be established in setting out an ideal piece of framework legislation that are not currently in this bill. But again, our position is we believe this should go forward quickly to support the disability community in their efforts to design the legislation.
Mr. Merdzan: I think you probably know my answer is that we’re not confident that any of the three proposed amendments will be addressed in the regulations. That’s also part of the reason we’re proposing their being made.
If you look at appeal mechanisms through other programs, they’re almost always listed in the statute. In this case, there is none listed in the statute. The proposal we have, again, is a framework amendment. It’s not like a full detailed amendment on what tribunal you should route it through or why. It’s a tribunal generally, and then hopefully through the regulations that can be identified. There can be consultation with the disability community on what that looks like.
It is similar with the identification point. In that case, you actually are going to automatically exclude people. If it is passed as is, there is no way for you to get around the SIN requirement that’s currently in the statute. It’s about lessening that current language so that there’s an opportunity for people living with disabilities people in deep poverty that don’t have an address, that can’t get a SIN, that don’t have a place to send mail to, to allow them to then have an opportunity to participate in this consultation.
Sometimes the voices that are the most marginalized are the least likely to be able to participate in this consultation. I think a lot of our amendments are really trying to push forward those voices, and an opportunity through these amendments would go along with including those people in the conversation.
Senator Osler: This is a question for both of you. I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts on regulations. You’ve raised some issues with confidence in the regulations and how they are coming. Clause 11(2) speaks to the criteria and different levels of the criteria. I don’t have it in front of me. This committee has heard about making sure or recommending that the definition of disabilities is as inclusive as possible. We’ve heard about episodic disabilities, mental health issues and invisible disabilities. I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts on whether there are any potential danger spots in leaving people out depending on definitions of disability, inclusion criteria and eligibility criteria.
Ms. Scott: I think, honestly, one of the most challenging pieces of the bill going forward and the final design of the program is the definition of disability. I fully appreciate that they have adopted, and rightly so, the definition that was introduced in the Accessible Canada Act, which I know enjoys support in the disability community. They were actively involved in developing that standard.
If you think about how this particular program will evolve, it most likely will expand with folks who are currently on disability programs with competing — I once saw that there are 30 different definitions of disability attached to different federal, provincial and territorial disability programs right now. We’re in a position where it is likely that the evolution of this program will include people who are currently captured, adding on, and there will be conflicts. The challenge that you’re raising is who will be left out? We know that disability appeals take up the bulk of cases in human rights courts, as well as on access and people trying to access social assistance, for instance. Many folks with disabilities are screened out precisely because they don’t meet narrow definitions. It’s hard to imagine a process where that will not be a challenge. I hope that the experience of working with folks in the disability community will be essential to creating as comprehensive a definition as possible that can be embedded in the regulations.
Our understanding, I think, has shifted. I mentioned the CERB program, which was an interesting approach in a variety of ways, but it was broad coverage. It was broad enough that folks who usually don’t get access or wouldn’t have gotten access to social support were captured. It wasn’t targeting people with disabilities, but it targeted the situations in which they found themselves or often work in marginalized employment and that sort of thing. The idea of creating a broad perspective that can capture people is a really important principle to bring into the design of this benefit. I don’t think you will be able to say that we will capture any type of disability. You will not be able to parse it out for everything. I think that’s a mug’s game. You can take a comprehensive approach, build off existing programs, take the lessons and hopefully craft a better set of regulations that target more people in need.
Mr. Merdzan: I think the definition of disability that is currently in Bill C-22 — the Accessible Canada Act definition — is a great start. Part of the reason we proposed the automatic eligibility amendment is that definition is very broad and could include a lot of programs that are already in place for people with disabilities. I think that’s the thrust of the community. I think that definition was developed in conjunction with the community, and that should be the definition that goes forward that defines who should be eligible for this benefit.
If you can then tie in the fact that people shouldn’t have to go through the process again of filling out forms to prove they met this definition if they have already done that for other benefits, that’s the thrust of the second proposed amendment we had on auto eligibility. You have people who have already proven their disability to someone then being able to just get on the Canada disability benefit right away. It’s important that people don’t have to keep going over the hurdles of dealing with the government and the surveillance that happens when you’re on social assistance.
Senator McPhedran: I have two brief questions. One is for Mr. Merdzan. Thank you very much for the brief. It’s very good to know about the collaboration among many who are experts in disability law. Do you see creating a brand new tribunal as the only option for the amendment in terms of appeals, or do you see the potential efficiencies if it was possible — and recognizing this is province by province — to actually create or add to the mandate of an existing tribunal with an existing infrastructure?
Mr. Merdzan: That’s a great question. Thank you, Senator McPhedran.
I think we have framed it as a general tribunal because we don’t want to impose what the tribunal should be. That should be a conversation with people with disabilities. If they are happy with the current tribunal and want to route it through that tribunal, that should be discussed with them as an option. If they think the current tribunal doesn’t have enough people with lived experience with disabilities, doesn’t have people who understand disabilities on the tribunal making decisions about whether they are disabled, entitled to poverty reduction benefits or whether they can afford food the next day — they should be involved in the process of who should be telling them whether they are disabled. That is what is great about a tribunal process. You can create and have people appointed on that tribunal and do education for that tribunal on those various components. That was the intention behind that one as opposed to picking one specific tribunal to go through.
Senator McPhedran: If it ended up in a negotiation where an existing tribunal could have its mandate expanded and it already had the infrastructure in place, you would not be opposed to that?
Mr. Merdzan: We wouldn’t be opposed because it would at least improve the appeal mechanism that’s currently in the bill and get away from court adjudication. It is key to not have poor people have to go to court because it is expensive and takes a lot of resources to go to court. A tribunal would be better. It has more expertise in self-represented parties, as well, because a lot of people have to self-represent.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for the thoughtfulness on that. I agree completely with your observation that these kinds of mechanisms are in statutes, for the most part. They’re not created by regulation.
Ms. Scott, I noted with interest t each time you referred to “the” disability community. I wanted to ask if you might clarify whether it’s your understanding that all the organizations and advocates that make up the very diverse disability community in Canada want to see this bill go ahead with no amendments. That appears to be the message you have given us today.
Ms. Scott: Thank you for the question.
Absolutely, there is a diverse group of people in the disability community. I’ve used that as shorthand. There are clearly differences of opinion. I note that many of the leading organizations, such as Inclusion Canada and DAWN Canada, have taken positions, and we have certainly been influenced and worked with those organizations. We have been influenced by their perspective on this and their counsel about the political imperative to move forward quickly with this legislation in this current economic and political moment. Yes, it is not a uniform position across the board, and I understand that from my reading of all the briefs that have been presented. Hopefully, I have not misled anyone to suggest otherwise.
Senator McPhedran: Given that, sadly, this committee has no Indigenous members, I want to ask if either of you wish to address whether there are particular concerns about the disproportionate burden for those who are Indigenous and live with disabilities, as well as the larger question of those who are racialized or gender diverse.
Mr. Merdzan: I’m happy to talk about that.
If we look at benefits generally, Indigenous take up is low. The Auditor General found that in 2017, for the Canada Child Benefit uptake was 79% for eligible Indigenous families living on reserves, compared to 97% for the general population in Canada. If you look at identification within Indigenous communities, due to the Sixties Scoop, a lot of them have not had the identification they need to prove or receive certain pieces of identification.
If you look at people who are homeless, many times they are barely ever able to reach someone. If you have someone who does reach that community — I have an example that we’ve seen where there was a nurse who worked directly within the community, which is where you have to work, and you have to meet people where they are, and she couldn’t get her clients on to the Ontario Disability Support Program because she is a nurse and she wasn’t considered a medical professional high enough to qualify for the program.
You are erecting barriers for people and subjecting them to a situation where they aren’t able to access these benefits that are designed for them. The same goes for a lot of the other communities that you mentioned. Those are just the ones that come to mind right now.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Ms. Scott: I completely concur with Mr. Merdzan.
It really is fundamentally important to engage Indigenous communities in the design of a benefit that will serve their members. Obviously, Indigenous Canadians receive federal benefits. They receive supports through the provinces and territories. With the provincial social assistance, often Indigenous governments are engaged in the delivery of social assistance on reserve. They will play an active role. They must be part of negotiations to make sure they are not only engaged in the design — certainly, Indigenous Canadians or Indigenous peoples with disabilities — but also their governments must be represented in the delivery and be fundamentally involved in the delivery as well of the program. I completely concur, and I hope it must — I assume it must — be a priority for the design phase of the benefit.
Senator McPhedran: Let us hope.
Ms. Scott: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: Senator McPhedran asked at least two of the questions I had planned to ask, so thank you for that. I don’t have any other questions.
The Chair: Then I will step in in place of Senator Bernard. Normally the chair doesn’t get an opportunity to ask questions.
My question is likely also in the regulatory phase, but, still, I would like to get you on the record in terms of assets. How should the government — should it at all — consider the assets held by a person with disabilities, their spouse or other family members when determining eligibility for the benefit?
Ms. Scott: I hadn’t thought of that.
Mr. Merdzan: I’m happy to take a stab at that.
I interpret your question as two-pointed, whether it should be income tested versus means tested and then individual versus family income as well in that question.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Merdzan: Our position is it should be income tested; it should not be means tested. People may have inherited money, and there are a lot of thorns with that whole process. Income tested is generally, in our view, the best way to ensure that the benefit follows the person’s lived experience and where they are at a current time.
I think with respect to individual versus family, again, the benefit should follow the individual. There has been some great discussion so far before this committee on people with lived experience talking about their experience with a family benefit and the harms that can create. I can add a few more from my own experience working with clients.
I work in the Ontario sphere, so with the Ontario Disability Support Program, or ODSP, and Ontario Works. In those situations, I have had cases where clients have caregivers. The caregiver is not a member of the benefit unit, but what will happen is the government will assume that the caregiver is a spouse and that the individual is lying to the government about not being in a spousal relationship. Then they will need to prove and show that the caregiver is not their spouse. They’re asked intrusive questions about the caregiver’s means and their income and all their other supports, and sometimes, if the caregiver lives with the person who has a disability and who is receiving ODSP, then they will have boarder or rental income taken off from their ODSP amount, despite the fact that that is maybe the only way that the person can pay the caregiver, by the nature of them living in their space.
Not to mention, I think, what has been discussed, too, with the family income, you will have people that are in domestic violence relationships who then feel like they cannot flee that space because it will mean they will lose their income support, because their income support is tied to the family.
All of these are examples, I think, of why the family design of the benefit is not as effective as an individual design would be and why, in my view, the regulation should follow the individual.
Ms. Scott: I would completely concur. That was an excellent summary.
Certainly, we would have argued in our own work on this benefit that it should be an individual income test and not a family income test, precisely for the reasons that Mr. Merdzan laid out. There is a strong body of evidence. Feminists and economists have charted this issue for decades now, about the negative consequences that flow from the structure of family income benefits for women fleeing violence and any other set of considerations.
We strongly support an income test as opposed to an asset or a means test. I’m sort of scratching my head, thinking about a similar federal benefit that applies a means test, and am I wrong to say it’s not appropriate? We don’t want the federal government in the business of testing, and I would argue it’s highly problematic as well at the provincial and territorial level.
We would strongly argue that this should be an income-tested benefit, targeted to the most in need, and it should be attached to the individual as well to support people’s lives and autonomy, given the focus and the function of this benefit not only to reduce poverty but to lift and facilitate people’s fulsome participation in the community. I think it is wholly appropriate.
Senator Petitclerc: I have a short question, and I’m not sure that you have given thought to this. On the one hand, we have a minister who has worked hard and who has been saying, “This will happen, and it will be very efficient. We will make this happen quickly.” On the other hand, the bill itself is not very prescriptive in terms of timeline. It says, I think, in clause 14, that the act comes into force no later than the first anniversary of the date of Royal Assent, but then it also says — let me find it — that the table must report within six months the development of the regulations, so just the status of the development. Senator McPhedran was saying how the community is diverse, and we have had some members of the community saying, “Well, we have no proof. We don’t know. It could take forever.”
What are your thoughts on that, and with what you have seen, is that standard? Is it something that we should be concerned about or that people with disabilities should be concerned about? If there is a change of government, and it’s not more prescriptive than that, is there risk, in your view? That’s my simple question.
Ms. Scott: I think there is a risk with any piece of legislation or change of government, in honesty. I agree that there are large risks attached to this particular process. I also agree that the framework legislation is not particularly prescriptive. It’s a report back to Parliament and so forth on progress as opposed to the final reporting on outcomes that this will be delivered in this time frame.
I think it likely that it would come forward, just as we have seen, in a phased development of this benefit in order to pilot a particular benefit model with a defined group of folks who are within federal jurisdiction. I can well see that, as the negotiations would have to proceed with other orders of government, and it is hard to attach a timeline to something like that, but it will be fundamental so that people actually receive the benefit.
I agree that there is a lot of risk attached to this process, and I think realistically we might well see a phased rollout of the benefit.
Mr. Merdzan: I think Ms. Scott has really captured it. There is a component here where we’re not sure how the negotiations on clawbacks are going, right? We’re in the dark on that. We don’t know how long that is going to take. Even if the bill has certain requirements for timelines — I’m not an expert on that, so I don’t want to speak to it too much — we don’t know if the bill will come out, because the minister has said that she is not going to put forward this bill if it gets clawed back by the provinces and territories. So that’s another component as well here that we are waiting for.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses for being with us in person and for helping us find our way forward, although, I suspect many of us are between a rock and a hard place.
Colleagues, we will continue our study on Bill C-22 at our next meeting on Wednesday, April 26, at 4 p.m. for more wisdom, and thank you so much to both of you for sharing yours with us.
(The committee adjourned.)