Human Resources Committee on Feb. 28th, 2013

[Laurie Beachell]

Let's get a plan. Let's develop something together that lays out a course of action over the next five years that engages the disability community, federal government, provincial governments, and employers.

I think the panel report opens that door that says this is good for business, and that we should be doing this. We have a labour market shortage. We can do it. Let's design a plan.

I'm sorry, but the answers are not simple because we are a diverse community. What works in the community for people with intellectual disability may be different for people with mental health concerns, may be different for the Canadian Association of the Deaf, may be different for people who are blind. However, we do have some overarching common issues around barriers we face within the design of programs, barriers we face within the way our work environment is presently structured. We have to improve access, education, and collaborative partnerships.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

Thank you very much.

The last five minutes go to Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks very much for your very worthwhile testimony today.

I'll ask two questions and then get out of the way.

Mr. Beachell, you had referenced the disability savings plan. This is about work for persons with disabilities. I would think a disproportionate amount of the hurt will be laid at the feet of persons with disabilities with the change in the OAS and GIS from 65 to 67 years, especially in light of the hardship they have in securing work. Would you comment on that?

Also do you see the rationale in supporting a change to the disability savings plan to allow.... Right now you can't contribute until you're receiving the benefit, but some families would prefer to be putting money away earlier on for a son or daughter, especially if they have a progressive disease such as cystic fibrosis or MS.

Most times with poverty we see people with disabilities not able to secure work or whatever. As you say, it's complex, and a lot of it goes back to housing, without question.

Are CMHC's program lines flexible enough to support community initiatives? Are the initiatives out there adequate through the support of the federal government to support the community-based initiatives to develop right now? Could you respond to that?

[Laurie Beachell]

Sadly many within our community look forward to turning 65 because they will get a better income benefit than they have had all their life living on social assistance.

Canada has done a good job. There's more to be done to address the poverty of seniors. We have not done a substantive job to address the poverty of Canadians with disabilities.

In this country having a disability means living in poverty. Living in poverty actually means you're likely to become more disabled. Frankly, the change of eligibility from 65 to 67 years will extend poverty for people with disabilities for two years unless we create a plan so people are actually employed. If you live on social assistance your whole life, you'll be better off on OAS and GIS.

On the registered disability savings plan, it's a great plan if you're eligible, and that eligibility is based on the disability tax credit. That eligibility works well for people who have visual, hearing, or mobility impairments. It works less well for people who have cognitive impairments or mental health concerns. Therefore, if we're going to base programs on the eligibility for the disability tax credit, we need to go back and look at what that definition is. It was designed to offset additional costs of disability and unfair tax treatment. It's now used as the gatekeeper for a variety of other federal programs.

[Michael Bach]

CMHC's programs for non-profit housing and those kinds of investment tools have been more and more restricted over the last number of years, but its data make very clear that there is a hugely disproportionate number of people with disabilities who live in core housing need. I'm sorry I don't have the numbers, but I'm sure the clerk or researchers could get them. That has certainly come up in the research we're doing under our CURA SSHRC-funded initiative.

I think there's much to learn from the homelessness partnering strategy as an approach to tackling labour market issues. What that strategy recognizes is that local actors need to figure out the solutions together. They need to come together, put a plan together, and figure out how they're going to create a housing market that people can access in their community. I think a very similar approach can be used in this area as well. Some of the infrastructure that has been tested in that initiative could easily be adapted to the labour market piece to give the federal government more control over some delivery vehicles, because the partnership strategy is about creating some innovative solutions. Right now the federal government doesn't have a vehicle to generate the kind of innovative solutions that the “Rethinking disAbility” labour market panel report talks about. I think that's an example you might consider.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

Thank you all very, very much.

Mr. Nikias, very briefly please.

[Vangelis Nikias]

Yes, just a very brief word.

The emphasis on the private sector initiatives is very, very important and very encouraging, but I think we need to remember that our successes have been based so far on a conducive public policy environment. That means, in your case, the federal government's leadership on the basis of unanimity and consensus, which you have been able to do in the past.

It also means, and this is very important, continued support for the role of persons with disabilities in society, the organizations of persons with disabilities in our system, not only because of public policy reasons, but because of personal peer support, which I think has been in the background of some of the questions today.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Chris Charlton]

Thank you very much. I apologize if you felt that I was cutting you off prematurely on a number of occasions. I hope for all of us that it's just the beginning of a dialogue and we'll continue to have it outside of the committee.

Thank you so much for being here today. I hope you have a safe trip home.

This meeting is adjourned.