Bill C-395 (Historical)

Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities Act

An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

This enactment amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in order to ensure that persons with disabilities do not lose more through taxation and the reduction of benefits than they gain as a result of working.

Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities Act

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak today on this terrific bill put forward by my colleague from Carleton. I would like to begin my speech today with a quote:

On behalf of the Rick Hansen Foundation, I support the Opportunity for Workers and Disabilities Act. Nobody, including people with disabilities should be worse off once working. Addressing this issue is important and I am pleased that with the tabling of this Bill, rightful attention will be focused on finding an appropriate solution. We see this as a win-win for people with disabilities and Canadian society as a whole. An inclusive Canada is a stronger Canada.

That was said by our very own Paralympian, Rick Hansen, founder and CEO of the Rick Hansen Foundation, one of Canada's best men for showing what people can do with a disability, that they can still be tremendous.

The bill can be viewed in a variety of ways, whether it is what is fiscally best for Canada's economy or how we can empower Canadians to provide another way and tool for inclusion. I will focus on the latter, as I know my hon. colleague has provided the positive fiscal side to this. I come to the House wanting to do what is in the best interests of Canadians, knowing how smart, thorough legislation and policies can have a positive impact on their lives. That is the one thing this bill does.

I had the opportunity to work on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and Persons with Disabilities. We did a poverty reduction study that was tabled last year. Throughout that study we had an opportunity to speak to many people. One group was people with disabilities. Through the work of the committee, we met organizations and community leaders and recognized that work, whether paid or unpaid, is good for one's health and well-being. It contributes to overall happiness, helps build confidence and self-esteem, and rewards us financially.

The great thing about the bill is that not only is it doing something that is fiscally right for Canadians, it is also adding the human aspect, which the government and this Parliament speak about all the time. How can we make ourselves a more inclusive society? That is exactly what the bill does.

Whether we are looking at person with an intellectual or physical disability, the premise is the same: work keeps one busy. It enables socialization and provides monetary incentives that support one's interests. We know that working helps improve mental health, and helps one recover more quickly in many cases.

While reviewing information for this speech today, I found a quote from Randy Lewis, a man who has hired over 1,000 people with disabilities. Here again is another man we talked about a lot during the study by the human resources committee, because many times we referred to the incredible work he was doing. Randy was the former senior vice-president of Walgreens. He stated:

I am the father of an adult child with autism who works full-time. I am also the former Senior Vice President of Walgreens who hired over a thousand people with disabilities in its distribution centers. Eliminating disincentives through the Opportunity Act is a good first step toward increasing one’s desire to participate in the workforce. However, if we are to substantially increase the desire to work, we also need to eliminate the fear of not being able to restore benefits quickly should employment not be successful and also ensure that the financial benefits of working exceed the financial benefits of not working.

That is exactly what we are asking for in the bill. We are asking for the Minister of Finance to review this. This is really important. We have to make sure that when we were doing this, we keep in mind the impact of switching from being on disability to getting out there and working. What impact does that have on the bottom line?

We talk a lot about marginal income tax rates, and we can see their negative impact. In this bill, we are looking at and focusing on means tested social programs, including the housing program and drug benefits, and negative impacts, including clawbacks via taxes, such that at the end of the day, someone who might have gone to work ends up coming home with less income as a result.

I refer to my time working for Joe Preston. We saw many people come into the office with disabilities who just wanted to work. They wanted to have dignity. I can think of one man who came in, who is a tremendous man in our community who volunteers a lot. He wanted to run for city council. The problem was that although the stipend was very small, working as a city councillor would remove all of the benefits he had. At the end of the day, financially he was not ending up with a lot more cash in his pocket, but what he was losing was huge.

He was going to lose the assistance that paid for his medication through the drug plan available through Ontario Works. All those things the ODSP had provided for him were going to be gone. He just wanted to contribute to society and continue to make it a better place to live, but it was better for him not to participate in that election, because he would have ended up with less.

We talk about wanting inclusion. We want people to be part of our society. We know it is good for them.

Another thing we focused on throughout the poverty reduction study was opportunities for Canadians to work. We know that Canadians with disabilities are the largest population when we are talking about the poverty line. When we scrutinize the data that is available to us, we recognize that many times, people with disabilities are the most vulnerable and are living with the least.

A report from the Library of Parliament showed that low-income working Canadians with disabilities are facing tax rates of over 100%. Imagine, all they want to do is get out there and work and be contributing members of society, and they walk home with less, less to feed their families and less when it comes to so many of the things that make their lives viable.

We have to understand that this is a real struggle. I believe that many disabled Canadians want to go to work, but it is a problem when it comes to financial stability, not only for themselves but for their families. What we know is that when some of these people work more, they end up coming home with less. That is something we are asking the Minister of Finance to look at to see how they are impacted.

Reviewing these benefits and making sure that Canadians are better off working must be done so we have an inclusive society. This is what we need to look at. These are people with MS, autism, Down syndrome, ALS, and many other disabilities where someone is still able to work and make personal gains. The bill is proposing exactly that. It recognizes the worthiness of Canadians.

The HUMA committee tabled the poverty reduction study last year, and I want to refer to a couple of the recommendations we made. Recommendation 3 reads:

That Finance Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency review taxes for low-income workers to ensure that no families are forced into poverty as a result of taxes.

Recommendation 4 reads:

That Employment and Social Development Canada, Finance Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency work with provinces and territories to strengthen and coordinate income support program policies so that participants do not face marginal effective tax rates that discourage labour force participation.

Recommendations 20 and 21 are also very supportive of the bill. That is exactly what we talked about in the HUMA committee. The fact that this bill is in line with what we were talking about to make things better is a good thing. Recommendation 21 is really about social development and what we can do there.

We understand that in many cases, people are concerned about jurisdiction. Levels of government need to work together on the Canada social transfers, what we need to do, and how we can do it. Canada social transfers were established back in 2004. There were two types of transfers at that time. They are block transfers and a variety of different things. I know that our wonderful member will explain that further.

We must make sure that these fine social programs provide flexibility for the provinces. Many of us have had debates about health transfers. We provide the money in blocks, many times with no strings attached. That is what we are looking at here. We want to make sure that the money is earmarked and is being used appropriately.

We talk about the transfers and eligibility. To receive funding, provincial or territorial governments must not impose minimum residency requirements as a condition. Those are important things, but there are other things when we look at these conditions. We want to make sure that the transferred money is appropriate. That is something our member for Carleton has looked at: making sure that, at the end of the day, Canadians are better off and that we can review the impacts and how we work with our provincial and territorial partners.

I want to finish off with a quote from Dr. Ian Lee. He is an associate professor at the Sprott School of Business at Carleton University. He appeared at the committee. He indicated support for the bill. He said, “The bill proposed by the hon. member represents an important precedent in policies that integration of people into the workforce who are in receipt of some sort of disability payment from government, for it mandates the clawback incurred from working again, cannot make the citizen worse off than before”.

I recognize that this is an excellent bill and will do excellent things for Canadians. I hope everyone will support it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-395, the opportunities act. I want to take an opportunity very quickly to thank the member for Carleton for bringing this forward. I know the opportunity to present a private member's bill does not come along that often, and many members in the House will not have an opportunity to see one through to completion. When people take the time they are allotted for a cause and purpose like this, it is to be commended. The member, through his private member's bill, is really starting to highlight and draw attention to a very important issue that we need to be looking at closely. We need to be examining it and figuring out what can be done. The bill he has introduced puts us on the right path and in the direction of being able to start having this discussion.

I am going to focus my comments on the problem that exists. My staff and I had an opportunity to research this and look at some of the problems. I would like to talk about those as well as about some statistics we were able to find that highlight even further the problem that exists. I will then talk a bit about some of the recommendations out there and the Canada social transfer component and what this bill would do to change that.

The first thing we have to understand is the marginal effective tax rate that so many people who are receiving some kind of social assistance or disability payment, or whatever it might be from the government, are dealing with. In particular, as it relates to people with disabilities, what we are finding is that they are less interested in getting into the marketplace because of the clawback that would happen when they get into the workforce and start to generate income. Their disability payments would be clawed back. Therefore, their marginal effective rate of tax would actually starts to increase.

According to figures we were able to obtain from the Library of Parliament, a person with a disability working 30 hours a week in Ontario pays a marginal effective tax rate of up to 70%. If members think that is astonishing, in Alberta it can be as much as 115% for a person who has a disability and is working 40 hours a week. Another term for this is what is referred to as the “welfare wall”. That was coined by the Centre for Research on Work and Disability Policy. It refers to a cluster of factors that together act as a trap for people on social assistance, or ”welfare”, the term it uses, and makes it difficult for them to move off that program of income support. I think that is exactly the case we are seeing here for people with disabilities with the disability payments they are getting.

This problem is also well documented by the Caledon Institute of Social Policy in a 1993 study, which found that Ontario social assistance recipients who supplement their social benefits by working get to keep only a very small fraction of these earnings. Basically, there is a wall, called the “welfare wall”, put up in front of people that is preventing them from actually getting into the workforce. In particular, the more they work, the more is clawed back. Therefore, even if they do start to get into the workforce, there is a disincentive to continue to work more.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, did a study on this and found that unemployment rates of persons with disabilities in 2006 were 50% higher than for Canadians without disabilities. The OECD concluded:

Much of Canada's sickness and disability policy reform efforts so far have been piecemeal rather than co-ordinated, and had seemingly limited overall impact on a system that remains complex and fragmented.

I mentioned earlier that I would talk about some statistics. This is from Statistics Canada. According to a 2012 Canadian survey on disability, there were over 650,000 disabled individuals, aged 15 to 64, who were not in the labour force who either used to work or indicated that they were capable of working. Of these, 94,000 reported feeling that if they were employed, they would lose additional support.

That is key. These are people thinking to themselves that if they start working, they will lose support. They are not even in the participation rates, because many of them are not actually looking for jobs, because they fear these clawbacks.

The unemployment rate for persons with disabilities is 11%, compared to 6% for people without disabilities, which is almost double. It is important to mention that the unemployment rate always includes people who are actively looking for work, and that is why we have to talk about the participation rate, which is equally important. The participation rate is 55% for people with disabilities versus 84% for people without disabilities.

I have outlined why I see a big problem here. I would agree with the member that we are not doing enough to combat this problem. We are not doing enough to put additional measures in place to discourage the welfare wall that has been created.

That is why I think the part of the member's bill that talks about the minister collecting data and reporting back to Parliament on a regular basis is extremely important. By getting that information, we can have a discussion about it. Quite frankly, a lot of Canadians are not having a discussion about this, because they are not aware of the information and do not realize the impact.

My colleague on the other side talked a little bit about the HUMA recommendations. I admit that I am not a member of the committee, but I did look at the report it produced. It had four recommendations that I believe are related to this.

The first is “that the government task the Parliamentary Budget Officer with reporting annually on the marginal effective tax rates...that low-income disabled people pay in each province.”

The second recommendation is “that, at the next meeting of the federal-provincial Finance Ministers, all governments agree”, which I think is the key word here, “on a coordinated plan to cap [marginal effective tax rates] at...50% for all disabled Canadians”. It goes on to give more detail. I think it is key that we recognize that the word “agree” was used there because of the problem that is presented by the Canada social transfer.

The difference between this bill and the HUMA report is that the bill directs the federal government to do something with the Canada social transfer.

I know the member across the way mentioned that the Canada social transfer has one single condition, but there is a valid reason for that. Under section 25.1 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, provinces and territories must meet a national standard of having no minimum residency period. That is the sole criterion, and this was done intentionally to create a scenario in which the provinces are responsible to the people, as opposed to being responsible to the federal government.

That is probably what has motivated the government, through the parliamentary secretary, to explain why it might not be supporting it. This bill would have been a lot more palatable if it did not have the component regarding the Canada social transfer. If it did not, we would have been able to get that information on a regular basis.

I am very supportive of the concept and what I have heard, but to be completely honest, I am still deliberating as to how I am going to vote on this. I think this is a noble effort, and I know what people with disabilities face.

As a personal anecdote, I have a nephew with Down syndrome. He has great and amazing supports right now, but we worry about what supports he is going to have after he finishes high school.

I will leave it at that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before resuming debate, I want to advise the next speaker that unfortunately she will have to pare down her speech, as she will have only six minutes.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an extreme pleasure to rise to speak to this private member's bill from the member for Carleton. Once again he has shown himself to be very intelligent and caring in bringing forward a bill that would help disabled people work without being punished by having their wages and benefits clawed back.

I will spend some of my time addressing a concern from members opposite that this is perhaps not the jurisdiction in which action can be taken. There are many federal programs that have conditions associated with them. I will, as the health shadow minister, talk about the Canada Health Act, which contains conditions that the provinces need to comply with. Health care has to be universal, it has to be portable, and it has to be accessible. As well, there are a number of conditions about administration that go with that act.

The member opposite just read the social transfer criteria, and there are conditions that go along with that transfer. We have certainly seen that infrastructure programs the government brings forward sometimes have conditions, whether it is emissions, how much federal money goes in, and how much provincial money goes along with that. Conditions can be applied, and even in extreme cases, there are times—such as in the case of the carbon tax, for example—that the government has forced conditions on the provinces, so the federal government does have the jurisdiction to bring these changes forward.

We should keep in mind with this private member's bill that we are not telling the provinces how to implement the principle; we are just describing the principle that disabled people who want to work should not have their wages and benefits clawed back. They should not be punished for that. We need to find ways that will encourage them to work, because we know that when they work, it is good for their mental health, they have a sense of accomplishment, they feel part of the community, and overall it is a positive experience.

One of my colleagues talked about the welfare wall. The principles expressed in this bill may have even broader implications for people in that trap, because they have the same issue that disabled people are having. If they start to work, their wages and benefits are clawed back, and that is a disincentive to them. This principle is an excellent one, but I would argue that it may have even broader consequences.

The Standing Committee on Human Rights, Skills and Social Development studied this matter. This bill aligns directly with one of its recommendations, which said that we need to find ways, with the things that we can control at the federal level, to help those who have lower incomes. This private member's bill would do that. It is within the federal government's power to put these conditions in place on the transfers to the provinces, and I think provinces will embrace and support the idea that disabled people should be able to work and not be punished for doing so.

My palliative care bill, for example, was brought in at the federal level, recognizing that the execution of palliative care is under provincial jurisdiction. It was with the support of the provinces, which have come alongside and have been very happy to participate, with the federal government doing what it can do and the provinces bringing the wherewithal and the how-to of the execution. The circumstances here are very similar.

Once again I want to thank the member for Carleton for his thoughtfulness in bringing forward something that I consider to be a great balance of fiscal responsibility and social compassion. It is to the credit of everyone in this House to support this private member's bill and do what we can to ensure that disabled people can take on work that will enrich their lives without being punished.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, when Tim Hortons franchise owner Mark Wafer hired a young man with Down's syndrome named Clint, he probably did not realize that it would turn out to be one of the best business decisions of his life.

Clint did all the same tasks as his co-workers and made the same money with no government wage subsidy or workplace tokenism. He arrived early, left late, and refused to take breaks all day long. Mark has since hired over 200 employees with disabilities just like Clint, who together made his six Tim Hortons locations among the most profitable in the legendary chain.

There are a million Canadians with disabilities who work, including 328,000 with severe disabilities. However, many people with disabilities do not have jobs. What is stopping them?

In many cases, the government is. Programs like income assistance, housing, drug benefits, and others are clawed back when people on disability get jobs. With these clawbacks plus taxes, often the harder people work, the poorer they become.

For example, a minimum wage-earning worker on disability in Saskatchewan who goes from part-time to full-time work actually sees his take-home pay drop. Stats Canada reports that 84,000 Canadians with disabilities who are able to work do not, because they fear they would lose income if they did.

Mark from Tim Hortons said one of his best workers had to quit because he would lose $10,000 in medication assistance if he kept working, so Mark asked an official with the Ontario disability support plan what the best way to get off of disability was. She said, “Die”.

Policies that cancel out people's wages signal that their work has no value. That is not true and it is not right, and we can fix it. The opportunity for workers with disabilities act would require government at all levels to allow people to earn more in wages than they lose in clawbacks and taxes.

The bill knocks down the welfare wall and makes work pay, because there is dignity in labour. Ask Walgreens vice-president, Randy Lewis, the father of an autistic son. He hired over 1,000 workers with disabilities at the company's ruthlessly competitive distribution centres. These workers profited the company, and the jobs freed people from poverty. To quote Lewis' book:

Also on the team was Derrill Perry, a forty-nine-year-old-year old man with a developmental disability, who had been employed in a workshop where he was paid less than a dollar an hour.... On the day he earned his first Walgreens paycheck, he handed it to his mother, and she began to cry. He used part of that paycheck to treat his parents to a dinner out—first time to pay the bill at a restaurant.

Lewis met Derrill's parents at the company's open house. He writes:

When I reached out to shake Derrill's dad's hand, he pulled me in for a hug and whispered in my ear, “Thank you. My family is finally safe. Now I can die knowing they'll be all right.”

Within a year, Derrill's father died. Derrill was the sole support for his mother—his salary more than either of his parents had ever earned.

By passing the opportunity for workers with disabilities act, we tell the Derrills, the Clints, the Marks, and the millions of others who work or want to work that we will never count them out again, that they matter, that they have worth, that there is treasure in each and every one of them. While for the longest time we understood that they needed us, we now know that we need them too.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 29, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 6, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.