Honourable senators, happy Valentine’s Day.

I rise today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people to speak at second reading to Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing what is promised to be a generational game changer, the Canada disability benefit.

Honourable colleagues, I would like to start my remarks today with the story of kin — a story about my kin.

When I was 10, my mother, Betty, was pregnant. There were six of us, and were we ever excited. We three girls all wanted a little sister, and my three brothers were rooting for a little brother. On Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in 1965, our little brother John Patterson was born, and in the end what mattered was that our family had an adorable new baby. I felt like mom had the baby just for me. I was over the moon. Johnny was so sweet and so much fun. I played with him and “took care” of him all the time. I just loved him to bits, and I still do.

My brother Johnny was a very likeable and active child. He was smart, funny, athletic and outgoing. Johnny completed high school and went on to study in a number of fields — broadcasting, recreation and later computers. He worked in the hospitality industry, including stints in Banff; worked in child care; got involved in radio, theatre and improv.

Along the way, when I had already moved out of the house and started my own family, my dear youngest brother developed chronic and serious health difficulties, mental health conditions, commencing at the age of 14. These took years to diagnose and treat, and of course, those were very turbulent and often painful times for Johnny as he tried to finish school, work, pay the bills, have good relationships and make a life in the ways that we all want to do. It was all just so much harder and at times impossible for Johnny because of his health.

Like many Canadians, Johnny has bipolar disorder and severe anxiety. In his case, these conditions are very debilitating. Today, Johnny’s full-time job, quite frankly, is being healthy, and I can tell you he works very diligently at that. He volunteers in the community, visits our almost 96-year-old mom, swims to stay physically well and works to keep up relationships with a close circle of friends and family. Johnny is a kind and good person who was dealt a hand that included a really tough disability.

Increasingly unable to work at paid employment — it sure is hard to keep a job when you can’t sleep at night and are experiencing other severe symptoms of anxiety and depression — Johnny was initially refused eligibility for the Ontario Disability Support Program, or ODSP, but was eventually approved after being hospitalized in 2001. ODSP pays $1,230 per month for a single person like Johnny. In my province of Nova Scotia, he would be expected to live on $950. While it is good that he receives some modest income support, Johnny says that the financial stress of being on disability is hard on his mental health.

Colleagues, it’s stressful not having enough money for even the basic necessities of life. Ending the financial insecurity of people like my brother Johnny — my kin and yours — and reducing poverty, which is disproportionately high among disabled Canadians, is what Bill C-22 and the Canada disability benefit are all about.

It is also about restoring people’s dignity. My brother would tell you that the stigma around mental health is hard to shake. Johnny still feels shame and guilt thinking that somehow his situation is his fault.

Honourable senators, the Canada disability benefit will provide much-needed material support to people like Johnny, and it could also send an important signal to them that our society understands, respects and values people living with disabilities.

Senator Cotter, the sponsor of Bill C-22, eloquently and comprehensively introduced us to the essential content of this important bill in his speech at second reading last Thursday.

Bill C-22 is a framework legislation that establishes the Canada disability benefit. It’s aimed at low-income, working-age persons with all types of disabilities. It’s the cornerstone of Canada’s Disability Inclusion Action Plan and its highest priority.

According to the legislation, most of the benefit’s design elements will be established through regulations, and those will be developed in collaboration with people living with disabilities. As the slogan rightly states, “nihil de nobis, sine nobis” — nothing about us without us. Nothing about disabled Canadians without disabled Canadians at the table.

Colleagues, when studying this legislation, I was interested in how this new benefit was connected to related policies and initiatives such as guaranteed livable basic income, medical assistance in dying and the new national health care deal. During my first year in this chamber, I joined the All-Party Anti-Poverty Caucus led by our former colleague senator Art Eggleton. We studied a number of poverty-reduction measures, including the now-cancelled Ontario Basic Income Pilot.

Asked at one of our meetings whether the government would consider playing a role in establishing a guaranteed livable basic income for Canadians, Minister Duclos, then Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, was very clear that the government intended to focus its poverty-reduction efforts on targeted groups of the population — children, through the Canada Child Benefit, and vulnerable seniors through the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

We know that the Canada disability benefit is modelled on the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors. The maximum GIS payment for single pensioners at the moment is $1,026. We don’t yet know what the CDB amount will be.

Honourable senators, when I spoke on Bill C-7, the medical assistance in dying legislation, I cited a letter from disability advocates that stated:

. . . there is a real risk that those without adequate support networks of friends and family, in older age, living in poverty or who might be further marginalized by their racialized, indigenous, gender identity or other status, will be more vulnerable to being induced to access MAiD.

Those fears were widely held.

Colleagues, a number of disability advocates have indicated that the Canada disability benefit, if well designed and appropriately resourced, could be an important response to those fears about MAID.

The third related matter is the new health care deal currently being negotiated between the federal government and the territories and provinces. Sister Elizabeth Davis, co-chair of the Newfoundland team that produced that province’s Health Accord plan, told the CBC that new funding proposed by the federal government would allow the implementation of half of that province’s Health Accord plan. But without finding ways to address the other half, the plan won’t succeed.

The other half, which addresses the social determinants of health, is perhaps more important and needs even more attention. One of the findings of the Newfoundland Health Accord is that social, economic and environmental factors play a role in 60% of health outcomes, while the actual health care system accounts for 25%, and a person’s genetic makeup, the final 15%. Sister Davis says poverty reduction is crucial — again, an obvious link to the Canada disability benefit.

Colleagues, the case for a disability benefit for Canadians in need is both clear and compelling. We know that 22% of our population consists of persons with disabilities; in my province of Nova Scotia, it’s 30%. Forty percent of us have family members with disabilities. You’ve heard about my brother Johnny. We know that 41% of people living in poverty in Canada are disabled, with 10% of seniors with disabilities living in poverty, and that disabled people make up over 50% of people facing food insecurity in Canada.

Vancouver’s The Province headline on February 9 last week declared that a disability diagnosis is “a prescription for poverty.” Colleagues, that is a shared national shame.

The Disability Without Poverty organization’s submission on Bill C-22 provides even more detail on poverty experienced by persons living with disabilities. They point out how poverty among their members has deepened during the COVID pandemic and how the impacts of inflation and the housing crisis have disproportionately impacted disabled Canadians.

Colleagues, the preamble of the Poverty Reduction Act states that “Canada aspires to be a world leader in the eradication of poverty,” and the act establishes the ambitious poverty reduction target of 50% below the level of poverty in 2015 by 2030.

Colleagues, with this national aspiration clearly spelled out and the obvious case for creating a much-needed financial benefit for disabled Canadians, we have been asked by people in the disabilities community to now do our part to ensure that Bill C-22 moves to Royal Assent with haste. People living with disabilities need financial relief, and they need it now.

Bill C-22 was passed unanimously in the House after a detailed study and with amendments. Our job is not to unduly hold up the bill, while at the same time, we need to work efficiently to fulfill our responsibility to ensure that we have legislation that enables the creation of a robust Canada disability benefit which will have the intended outcomes of significantly reducing poverty and supporting the financial security of persons with disabilities — one which clearly responds to what people living with disabilities are asking for.

They’re asking the federal government to prevent clawbacks of benefits by provinces and territories, prevent clawbacks by private disability insurance companies and ensure that the coming into force and the money actually flowing to beneficiaries happen within the year — we need strict deadlines for every step of the development and implementation process.

They are also asking the federal government to ensure benefit amounts are adequate to actually take people above the official poverty line; have eligibility criteria which are clear, fair and developed in consultation with persons with disabilities; develop a two-track process for determining eligibility so that people eligible for provincial and territorial benefits do not have to prove again that they have a disability and live in poverty; ensure the working-age target group doesn’t leave out disabled seniors — I’m a senior, and I’m still working — ensure there is proactive outreach to all persons who could be eligible. The most vulnerable don’t always file taxes, as we heard Senator Forest mention, and some may not even have social insurance numbers; they need to be reached out to.

Further, the government is asked to ensure the right to appeal refusal exists — and that there’s a tribunal for that — and that mechanisms for complaints are in place; and to include the most critical details in the bill itself, rather than leaving so many details to the regulations.

This is what many are asking us. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance calls Bill C-22 a well‑intentioned but weak bill. They say we still don’t know how much the benefit will be, who will be eligible for it or when the government will start paying it. Some others are expressing greater trust in the government and the promised co-development process.

Honourable senators, my brother Johnny was 55 when the promise to create the Canada disability benefit was made in the September 2020 Speech from the Throne. In four months, he will turn 58, already almost three years since that promise. Honourable senators, let’s move this transformational bill to committee so our colleagues can investigate whether and how it can best deliver in a timely manner on its important promises of financial security, poverty reduction and dignity — promises to my brother Johnny and to other Canadians living with disabilities. Honourable senators, let’s ensure this promised generational change starts now.

Thank you, wela’lioq.

Will you take a question, honourable senator?

I’d be delighted to.

Thank you. I heard you touch on the importance of and how we access those folks who may be marginalized and really hard to access. I just want to say that’s a priority. When we look at the review, so when this bill is passed, and we have two or three years down the road, what would you be looking for in terms of how well this is working? What might you be thinking about in the review part of the process?

I think this could have been also asked of my colleague Senator Forest, who spoke about the access issue to the benefit, that there are Canadians who we know are not filing taxes. If we solely rely on that system to be able to provide this benefit to those who need it, we will be missing a lot of vulnerable people and, as I mentioned, also those who may not even have a social insurance number, who need this benefit more than anyone.

Time has expired.

Honourable senators, I rise today as opposition critic to speak to 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 recognize and thank my colleague Senator Cotter, the sponsor of this bill, for his important work. I look forward to our ongoing collaboration to ensure this is an efficient and effective process.

The disability community is mostly united on the importance of this legislation, and I fully understand the urgency with which we must proceed.

The history of supports for people with disabilities in Canada, especially at the federal level, is relatively short. In an essay entitled “Disability in Canada: An Historical Perspective,” Dr. Aldred Neufeldt, Emeritus Professor of Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies at the University of Calgary, notes that in the first decades of the 1900s, Quebec, and then Ontario, established workmen’s compensation laws, but it was war, he writes, that prompted government to develop rehabilitation services. After the Second World War, returning war veterans insisted “ . . . on their rights to be treated as citizens with continuing contributions to make . . . .” Thus, workers’ compensation and veterans’ allowances emerged as two of the earliest forms of compensation for Canadians with certain kinds of disablement.

In his book, Struggling for Social Citizenship: Disabled Canadians, Income Security, and Prime Ministerial Eras, Dr. Michael Prince, the Lansdowne Professor of Social Policy at the University of Victoria, observes that, although workers’ compensation and veterans’ allowances were established as distinct programs, most subsequent disability programs, including original benefits for blind persons, the Canada Pension Plan disability benefit, social assistance and employment insurance, are parts of broader policy frameworks. As Dr. Prince argues, “These diverse access points and separate program designs result in a mottled social citizenship for disabled people.”

Indeed, our Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, in its 2018 study of the Disability Tax Credit and the Registered Disability Savings Plan, heard from many witnesses regarding the complexity of applying for disability support programs. Witnesses urged us to simplify and clarify processes for federal supports. In our report, we recommended:

That the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development work closely with other orders of government to harmonize the application processes for disability supports programs.

Our report also recommended that both ministers “. . . develop a basic income or guaranteed income for people with severe disabilities. . . .”

An earlier report entitled In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness, released in 2009, again by the Social Affairs Committee and their Subcommittee on Cities, describes how the source or level of income of someone with a disability depends on when and how one becomes disabled and whether private or public insurance payments were available to an individual upon disablement.

The report warns:

The complexity of current programs and their interactions can leave too many people . . . without adequate incomes, and even without any income, as they are bounced from one “system” to another.

This lack of continuity in eligibility for disability income supports only piles on even more uncertainty in the lives of Canadians.

The 2009 report also recommends the development and implementation of a basic income for people with severe disabilities, though the basic income considered at the Subcommittee on Cities was meant to replace provincial social assistance income, which would have resulted in substantial savings to the provinces. In his testimony to that committee, Dr. Prince noted that this model would have taken half a million Canadians off provincial social assistance, which would have then allowed the provinces to reallocate funds into personal supports, education, inclusive schools, inclusive parks and recreation, family supports and public transit.

That is not what is being proposed in Bill C-22. As Minister Qualtrough noted in her second reading speech in the other place, this new benefit will be an income supplement, not an income replacement, and it is not intended to replace existing provincial or territorial supports. When it becomes available, the Canada disability benefit should provide additional monthly income for people with disabilities. It is worth noting, however, that this type of program will not lessen the financial demands on the provinces. A different approach could have otherwise allowed for more investment in services for people with disabilities.

Historically, Canada’s supports for people with disabilities have differed from those in the United States and most European countries because, in our federation, the provinces bear the prime responsibility for health, education and social services. According to the OECD, Canada lags behind on public spending on incapacity — that is, spending due to sickness, disability and occupational injury.

Of the G7 countries, we come in seventh on public spending on incapacity as a percentage of total gross domestic product. We spend, in Canada, just three quarters of 1% of our GDP. The U.S. spends 1%, and Japan about the same. Our European peers spend much more. France spends 1.7% of GDP; Italy, 1.8%; the United Kingdom, 1.9%; and Germany, 2.25%.

We have a moral obligation to do more. The preamble of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that:

. . . the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people . . . .

For too long, people with disabilities in this country have not enjoyed freedom from want, and the effects have been devastating.

According to the Canadian Survey on Disability, 2017, which is the most recent survey data we have, one in five Canadians over the age of 15 had one or more disability. The likelihood of having a disability increases with age: 13% of those aged 15 to 24 years had a disability compared to 47% of those 75 years and older. Disability’s correlation with poverty is strong, as we’ve heard from all our speakers: Of Canadians aged 25 to 64 years, 28% of those with more severe disabilities live in poverty compared to 10% of their counterparts without disabilities.

Dr. Deborah Stienstra, the Jarislowsky Chair in Families and Work at the University of Guelph, notes that people with disabilities face barriers to education; barriers to employment; high costs, including those associated with necessary disability-related supports and barriers to systems of transportation, telecommunication and health care. She says:

Each of these sets of barriers, in addition to stigmatizing attitudes about disability, limit the opportunities for full citizenship and participation for people with disabilities, and can result in a life with poverty and exclusion.

Bill C-22 comes to us as amended by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities — HUMA — in the other place. Bill C-22 is meagre on details — what is often referred to as “framework” legislation. It sets out general provisions for the administration of the benefit and authorizes the Governor-in-Council to implement most of the benefit’s design elements through regulations. As MPs noted at second reading, Bill C-22, as it was first introduced, was more of a promise to act than a real proposal. Thanks to the nine amendments made at HUMA, the bill is somewhat improved.

The first amendment adds a definition of “disability” to the bill, the same as found in the Accessible Canada Act.

The second amendment requires the federal government to make public all federal and provincial-territorial agreements with respect to the Canada disability benefit.

The third amendment requires that the benefit be indexed to inflation.

The fourth amendment requires that the application for the benefit be barrier-free.

The fifth amendment requires that the Governor-in-Council, when setting the amount of the benefit, take into consideration the official poverty line.

The sixth amendment requires the minister to table a report in the House of Commons on the engagement and collaboration with the disability community in the development of regulations within six months of coming into force, and to table another report on the progress made in the regulatory process within one year.

The seventh amendment requires the minister to provide persons with disabilities the opportunity to collaborate on the development and design of the regulations.

The eighth amendment tightens the timelines for parliamentary reviews of the legislation from three years after coming into force and every five years thereafter to one and three years after coming into force and then every five years after. The ninth amendment set the coming-into-force date to no later than one year after Royal Assent.

The House of Commons human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities committee has done excellent work. As our Senate committee studies the bill, it will be our job to review that work and to hear testimony from experts and stakeholders to ensure that no flaws have been inadvertently introduced and that there are no important omissions in the bill.

This might be just the right time to remind my honourable colleagues of a similar situation we found ourselves in just three-and-a-half years ago with another piece of legislation vitally important to the disability community — Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act. Everyone was fully united behind that legislation, and there was similar pressure for us to get that bill passed without amendments.

While virtually all of the testimony we heard at the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology called on us to pass the bill with a degree of urgency, there was concern expressed from some members of the disability community about certain omissions. Our committee believed that we could focus on a few clear amendments that would add value to C-81 without endangering its passage. While the reflected desire for this legislation was strong, the desire to improve it was even stronger. The Senate — all of you, senators — agreed, and we passed the amended bill at third reading, and the House concurred with all our amendments. It is important to remember the essence of these amendments because it highlights the value of true sober second thought.

One, timelines. Bill C-81 had no definitive timeline for Canada to become a fully accessible country. Without timelines, there would be no accountability, progress could not be measured and standards might never be developed and enacted by law. Therefore, we added the recommended deadline of 2040 to be the definable date in place for full implementation of accessibility requirements. Related to this, we made an amendment to ensure that accessibility measures would not be delayed or postponed as an unintended consequence, but enacted as soon as possible.

Two, the next amendment we made was recognition of particular sign languages to be named in the bill as the languages of people who are deaf. This would ensure that deaf persons would not be forgotten and have equal access to information, communication, employment, government services, transportation and other federally regulated sectors. Honourable senators, these are not insignificant additions to a good bill.

Returning to the here and now — Bill C-22 — there are several issues that will be helpful to review at committee. First, the ninth amendment to the bill, which changed the coming-into-force date, merits sober second thought. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance published a response to the amendments on their website in which they argue:

As amended by HUMA, Section 14 specifies no specific date for the bill to come into effect. Section 5(2) of the federal Interpretation Act fills the void by making the bill come into force immediately upon Royal Assent.

I am not a legislative legal expert, but I did consult with one who agreed that this change may indeed be problematic. We should give due attention to this clause and amend it if it is in the interest of Canadians to do so.

Second, the committee should examine the existing disability support programs in this country and how they might interact with this new benefit. Jennifer Robson, associate professor and director of the political management program at Carleton University, told The Hill Times in September 2022 that existing support programs at the provincial and federal level each have a different definition of disability, different benefit levels and different rules regarding other income. She described the existing programs as “a Swiss cheese space” for the new benefit to fit into.

We must ensure that application for provincial and federal benefits isn’t prohibitively bureaucratic so that people with disabilities will not fall through the cracks. There should be a well-defined monitoring and complaint process for appeals of refusals, reductions in benefits and clawbacks, perhaps a tribunal or an advocate. One of the complaints we heard at the Senate social affairs committee about the disability tax credit process was that the Canada Revenue Agency was tasked with the complaint and investigation process, and it was unsatisfactory and exceedingly slow.

Third, the committee should consider the value that the benefit be determined on the basis of the net income of the applicant, not the income of the person’s household. Louise Bourgeois, president of the Mouvement personne d’abord de Sainte-Thérèse, told the House committee:

People living with intellectual disabilities are among the poorest in our society. They are also at greater risk of experiencing economic violence. It will be important that the amount given to individuals does not depend on their spouse’s income. It should be calculated and given to the person individually. After all, the bill is about strengthening people’s financial security.

StatCan data also show that people with disabilities are more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence than people without disabilities. In an analysis of 2018 data, Laura Savage from the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics at Statistics Canada noted:

Having a disability may increase some women’s vulnerability to intimate partner violence. For example, women with disabilities may experience an increased risk of isolation or an increased reliance on an intimate partner.

This reliance is often economic.

When Green Party MP Mike Morrice moved an amendment at the House committee to address this concern, a department official pointed out that most federal benefits are built on family income. Can the Canadian disability benefit, in particular, enhance the financial security of the individual in order to make financial independence more possible? An amendment could help address that vulnerability.

Related to this is another important issue around the adequacy of the disability benefit and whether there should be clear definition that the benefit itself must be above the poverty level. The amount of the benefit is not specified in the bill as it stands and is left to Governor-in-Council and the regulations. The challenge was addressed in Senator Pate’s question to Senator Cotter last week. Discussed in the other place, it was ruled out of order. Our committee hearings should explore the adequacy issue. There are many detailed international comparisons available. Most European countries have a disability benefit. Switzerland, Norway and Denmark provide the most substantial monthly disability allowances, and Norway offers disability allowances as a universal right in contrast to many other countries that only offer benefits to those in the labour market.

Although the House of Commons committee passed many helpful amendments and really put some meat on the bones of this framework legislation, this bill, nonetheless, leaves so much to the regulations. The Governor-in-Council — that is, the Governor General acting on the advice of cabinet — is tasked to create the regulations for the very essence of the substance: eligibility criteria; the amount of the benefit; the payment periods; the application process; reviews or reconsiderations of decisions; appeals; retroactive payments; applications made on behalf of persons incapable of managing their own affairs; the application of the act when an applicant or beneficiary dies; and the identification of debts.

Colleagues, we must all reflect on the deference shown to cabinet that is so profuse in this bill. It restricts our debate in Parliament, and also opens the door to future changes — not by legislation, but by orders of the Governor-in-Council. And, while it is critically important that the government intends to fully consult the disability community with regard to the substance and implementation of this legislation, it remains a concern how few of the specifics of this process, along with the timelines, are actually delineated in this piece of legislation.

In closing, I support the principles of Bill C-22, but I lament that what we have is only a very bare framework. The government could have — and should have — done better. Now, honourable senators, let’s do our work and get this bill to committee. Thank you.

Would Senator Seidman agree to take a question?

Yes, of course.

As part of its study of the bill, as you suggested, don’t you think the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs should also consider the aspect of human rights in relation to persons with disabilities?

In other words, people say they think it’s too bad and that we have a moral obligation to lift people out of poverty; however, there is also a body of legislation that says that we don’t have the right to discriminate on the grounds of a disability.

In that sense, don’t you think that the committee should also look at the issue from the point of view of the discrimination persons with disabilities suffer in the workforce, in order to see how this new benefit might help address this discrimination? It isn’t just a moral obligation. There is a clear legal obligation in our system that seeks to ensure that people who want to have a job can do so, including if they have a disability.

Thank you, senator, for your question. It is a complex question; it is not subtle, and it demands a lot of thought.

The bill itself, as I said, is extremely meagre. It is a framework piece of legislation. It purports to do a lot, and promises to do a lot, but it doesn’t offer much substance, and leaves most of the details, as I said, to the Governor-in-Council — to regulations.

I think it’s up to the committee to have the kind of witness testimony that would address the issue you’re putting forward — how that is connected to a piece of legislation that wants to provide a monthly disability benefit so that people can receive the financial support they need in order to proceed with their daily living. I think that’s what the bill is trying to do. Exactly how that would speak to the point you’re making is, I think, something for the committee to explore.

Would Senator Seidman take another question?

Yes.

I listened to you carefully, and I read the bill and the amendments that were made.

Upon reading the bill, it seems possible that a benefit for persons with disabilities that seeks to reduce poverty could be subject to an agreement with the provinces. Would you approve of the possibility of providing a type of assistance that is different from one province to the next, and do you believe that it could be a possibility under this bill?

Thank you, senator. This reminds me of the conversation we had about dental benefits — where we talked about the fact that it is a complex picture because every province has different benefits and qualifications in order to receive those benefits.

The federal government has promised that they will engage with the provinces on an individual level. We don’t know yet what exactly that engagement will consist of.

When Senator Cotter spoke last week — as the sponsor — he spoke about this very clearly. He, with his experience, has offered to help the federal government in their engagement with the provinces. One has some hope that this is going to happen.

Thank you very much for your well‑thought-out speech, as per usual.

I want your impression on something that I hope we will study in committee: This bill calls for a benefit that will be for working-age persons with disabilities. I have read that about 30% of persons with disabilities are over that working-age group.

Do you think this is something we should spend some time on in order to ensure that they, too, are lifted out of poverty?

Thank you, Senator Petitclerc. Indeed, we have some experience studying this issue at the Social Affairs Committee.

I am well aware that, in fact, there are voices within the disability community who would like us to say that working age might go to age 70, as opposed to age 65. There is discussion about this. As I said, this is something the committee should look at.

There are examples. As I mentioned in my speech, Norway does have a universal benefit, unlike most countries. Most countries have a benefit for working-age people. Again, this is something for the committee to look at.

Would Senator Seidman take a question?

Yes.

One of my biggest worries about the bill is that the provinces will claw back certain aspects of this benefit.

As you know, provinces run their own programs. I would argue that, throughout history, there has been a sense of meanness in their applications, especially to people with disabilities because they are the most vulnerable. Now layering a federal benefit on top of that, without any certainty that the province will not claw it back, is a real worry. Is this something the committee should examine? Many of the activists who have been lobbying spoke about this.

We need to assure ourselves that one hand will not take from the other hand just because they can do so under their own jurisdiction. I think this would be a terrible tragedy, and it is not what the bill is intended to do.

More importantly, trying to lift people out of poverty — people who have disabilities — in this country should be a laudable expectation for everyone. The provinces and the federal government should work this out in a way that will give us assurances that whatever money is allocated will not be clawed back by provincial governments across the country.

Thank you, senator. Indeed, this issue has come up very often. We heard clearly that the federal government intends to negotiate with the provinces.

There are many different types of insurance plans, and, as I mentioned in my speech, there is a real concern that it’s a kind of a mosaic, and how we’re going to be sure that people don’t have clawbacks is going to be a challenge. Again, that’s why I did mention in my speech that we might consider some kind of a tribunal or advocate where people can bring their complaints, their appeals, whatever it may be, that it isn’t just a government bureaucrat who is receiving these complaints, that there is some way that people will be heard and heard quickly, so that it’s not one, two or three years, as we heard with the Disability Tax Credit. There was a huge problem for people to be heard and receive what they were entitled to.