On the income piece around people with significant disabilities, the reason we've been working with CCD and others to advocate that proposal is that there is that group of people who have significant disabilities and are living in deep poverty. That's why we have been advocating.
We're pleased to see the Senate subcommittee support this proposal because they should have a basic floor.... They should have a secure income, which shouldn't deny them the opportunity to get supports at the provincial level for labour market programming to find their way into the labour market, even in a part-time way.
The difficulty that people with significant disabilities on social assistance are facing is that there's a welfare wall. You lose supports; you lose your prescription medications if you go into the labour market. We know that the labour market attachment for people with disabilities is so weak that you're likely to lose the job, or the employer will lose the subsidy, and then you've got to wait to become eligible again for social assistance.
Part of that proposal is that the federal government takes up an income role for those with significant disabilities. That would release significant dollars, at the provincial level, from savings in social assistance and welfare that could be reinvested in active labour market programming measures for people with significant disabilities.
The research is clear that the issue around labour force attachment for people with disabilities is not extent of disability; it's extent to which your needs for support are met. We've got people with significant disabilities who have their support needs met and they're in the labour force. We have people with relatively mild disabilities who do not have their support needs met and they're unemployed.
So it can happen for that young man in Nova Scotia who has a significant disability, if the supports are in place. We think he has a right to a basic income floor and we think the federal government has a role to play in that regard.