Human Resources Committee on May 22nd, 2020

[Dr. Tammy Schirle]

I think some of that is yet to be seen.

With things like the CERB benefits that have been made available, it was made clear that having to take on caregiving roles, for instance, as a reason to be away from work, made someone eligible. Things like that were very important.

The bigger concerns I have are with how those benefits will work going forward as people try to make their way back into the economy. Also, when it comes to our very standard infrastructure spending, the shovel-ready projects are not going to be what help women get back to work, who are the most affected, as I said.

I think that GBA+ analysis of any stimulus spending and any infrastructure spending and the design of benefits going forward is needed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Chabot, your microphone is muted.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I'm sorry. I will turn it on, thank you.

You said that the Canada emergency response benefit has been beneficial. It should be pointed out that the benefit has been used to cover what our employment insurance system or our social safety net does not cover. The CERB covers a number of categories of workers who did not qualify for employment insurance.

We know that the CERB will end. Do you think the employment insurance system will be revised, so that workers would be eligible for it and so that the social safety net would be wider?

[Dr. Tammy Schirle]

I do hope that is part of one of the lessons we can learn as we move into a recovery phase.

I believe about 30% of people who pay into EI or are working are not eligible for EI when they are laid off. This often has to do with their status as part-time workers, multiple job holders or being self-employed in some way. Moreover, when you have to leave work for child care responsibilities, you would not be eligible for EI. These are important things to consider.

Trying to design a system that can accommodate our gig workers, our part-time workers, the more non-standard employment is challenging. In organizing their workplaces, we know that employers and employees do respond to how we design these programs.

I don't present that as a simple thing to create, but it definitely is needed.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I will also address you, Ms. Schirle.

Ms. Chabot asked you about employment insurance. The way that system currently works is particularly problematic for a category of individuals—those employed in seasonal industries. Those workers are in a black hole every year. Some measures currently exist, but seasonal workers are experiencing insecurity because they don't know how their situation will be resolved this fall.

What actions do you propose be taken to help those workers? Among others, I am thinking of workers involved in the fisheries and tourism industries.

[Dr. Tammy Schirle]

Seasonal work has always been a huge challenge in the EI system, and here we are facing a situation where many people coming back to work for the summer season don't have jobs to return to. I believe their benefits have been extended to account for that, but eventually those benefits will run out again, and then they will not have that work history. That is the problem here.

The ideal solution is to find them something new to do. That requires some assistance in search and training, but again, in a market where everyone is searching and training for any available work, that will be very difficult.

There are probably good opportunities here for longer-term training for many of those workers, hopefully moving them into more permanent and stable positions that are not just seasonal. That would be one opportunity here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Schirle and Madam Gill.

Next we have Ms. Kwan, for six minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Guy.

On the issue around spousal maintenance and child maintenance, individuals who have lost that support are not eligible to receive the Canada emergency response benefit because that income is not deemed to be earned income.

Can you advise on whether spousal maintenance is taxable income?

[Michelle E. Guy]

Yes, child support is taxable in the hands of the payer, and spousal support is taxable in the hands of the recipient.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Then, from that perspective, taxes are paid on that spousal support or child maintenance, yet they don't qualify for the emergency benefit from the government. In your submission, you mentioned that this needs to be fixed. I believe you offered a couple of scenarios.

Could you repeat that for me, please?

[Michelle E. Guy]

The scenarios are that either we change the definition of income for the purpose of the CERB to be the receiving of child or spousal support, or we change the definition of wages and salaries to be the payment of child and spousal support.

From a family lawyer perspective, I prefer the option of the wage subsidy, to have that program available for the payment of child and spousal support, because that puts the onus on the payer to ensure the continuity of the payments and it gives me more tools at the end of the day to collect that money if they end up refusing to pay.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Regardless, though, what is needed is for the government to ensure that vulnerable families who rely on spousal maintenance or child maintenance get emergency support during this pandemic, because as it stands right now, they don't have access to that benefit.

The government argues that they are already doing so much. For example, they are giving the child tax benefit to families already, and there's the GST rebate. They feel that perhaps that is sufficient, but I don't know, because they haven't taken action to rectify this glaring problem.

Can you comment on the issue around the child tax benefit, or perhaps even the GST rebate, in terms of that amount being received by families?

[Michelle E. Guy]

Well, it ignores just the simple cost of day-to-day living. If your income has gone to zero, the bit of extra money you might get through the child tax benefit isn't going to come anywhere close to covering what it takes to feed a child, pay your rent and pay your utilities. We need to have some basic income.

Also, the child tax benefit and those programs are dependent on previous year's income, which might have been turned off now, and it's not going to apply now if there has been a current change of income. It's reliant on the previous year, which might have been a stable year. There's a lot of fluctuation in families in terms of their financial positions.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Isn't it the case that the child tax benefit and the GST rebate applies to everyone? Even the people who do qualify for CERB will get that as well. However, for families who are reliant on spousal maintenance and child maintenance, they don't have another source of income, and the government is simply arguing that the child tax benefit and the GST rebate is sufficient for them to survive on during this pandemic.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Michelle E. Guy]

It seems as though that person isn't a single mom who's relying completely on their child and spousal support to make ends meet. If that goes to zero, that bit of extra money they're getting from the child tax benefit is not going to be enough. Maybe they could live in their car and continue to feed their children, but how can they feed their children and provide a house on the child tax benefit that's being provided to them?

The child tax benefit is assuming that there's some other base form of income for that family, whether it be the CERB or the wage subsidy. It's not assuming that the family income has gone to zero.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

We've heard from other witnesses today that women primarily are impacted during the pandemic. In this instance related to child maintenance and spousal support, what are the demographics of the people who rely on that source of income to survive?

[Michelle E. Guy]

Well, primarily, in almost all cases it's women, and in almost all cases it's women who are probably in their thirties, because they have underage children. They've likely had their career disrupted very early on in their career, so their earning capacity is quite low, and they're heavily dependent on the payer to provide that stability of income. They don't have any other resource to turn to unless they happen to come from a family with money, but that's uncommon, unfortunately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Ms. Guy and Ms. Kwan, and thank you to all of the witnesses for being here with us today.

My sincere apologies for the technical challenges we've had that cut into your time, but we're doing the best we can with what we've got. Nonetheless, your testimony was extremely valuable and your appearance here is very much appreciated.

We're going to suspend for three minutes while we get the next panel ready. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I now call the meeting back to order. I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today.

We have with us, as an individual, the Honourable David Onley, senior lecturer, University of Toronto Scarborough.

We are hearing from Louise Bourgeois, president of the Fédération des mouvements personne d'abord du Québec, or FMPDAQ, Olivier Villeneuve, director of the Mouvement personne d'abord de Saint-Jérôme, Sainte-Thérèse et Saint-Eustache, and Natalie Valade, resource person at the Mouvement personne d'abord de Sainte-Thérèse.

Finally, from Spinal Cord Injury Canada, we have Bill Adair, executive director.

Your Honour, we're going to start with you. You have the floor for seven minutes.

[David Onley, Senior Lecturer, University of Toronto Scarborough, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, thank you. It is an honour to be with you today.

As we've come to grips with the impact of COVID-19 on our lives, we all wish that we could just get back to normal, but then reality sets in, and we sense with some trepidation that we'll have to grudgingly accept a new normal.

As it pertains to people with disabilities, as it relates to recovering Canada's economy and as it applies to then building even greater economic prosperity for the future, I believe we should not settle for a new normal. I believe we should instead consciously develop a new, improved and accessible normal, one that embraces the Accessible Canada Act in both its spirit and its legislative letter, not as a burden, but as one with the myriad, serendipitous benefits we hitherto haven't even been able to consider until now.

Among other things, unless we all want to wear gloves all year round, the need to create no-touch automatic doors wherever possible throughout our society should no longer be considered as just an accessibility add-on. There will be many more options to consider.

Tuesday was Personal Support Worker Day in Ontario. Yesterday was Global Accessibility Awareness Day. May 31 marks the start of National AccesAbility Week, a welcome federal government initiative.

These dates are significant, as they encompass in a general way the three types of disabled persons who, according to StatsCan, represent 22% of our people. First, there are people like me who are disabled but, with the use of assistive devices, live essentially an independent life. Second, there are those who require daily assistance from a personal support worker, PSW, to participate in society either at school or in the workforce. Third, there are seniors with mobility issues and those younger adults whose disability is severe enough that the only option is to reside in a long-term care or seniors home irrespective of age. We have a family member who fits that exact category.

It is the latter two groups who are most affected today by COVID-19. In terms of PSWs, I note that the government is looking at creating a training program for unemployed Canadians to help long-term care homes. Minister Qualtrough has said that, despite these homes being a provincial responsibility, the initiative would be available to any province seeking help in those facilities during the outbreak.

I applaud the minister for adding that the crisis is not just hitting LTCs but all collective situations, including residential care facilities for people with disabilities. She said, “Any collective living situation needs to be really, honestly dissected, and we need a better way forward in Canada on this.” I wholeheartedly agree with her 100%.

On May 5, my comrade in arms, Jeffrey Preston, disability studies professor at King's College, addressed your committee and underscored the need for a better way forward when he said the following to you:

We must secure our long-term care facilities to prevent the spread of the virus from unit to unit and from facility to facility. Supporting provincial efforts to care for the caregivers is critical, including increasing PSW staffing numbers and providing regular paid time off for recharging of batteries or fighting off sickness. Scaling up the number of people working in these roles, I believe, is critical. This also means, though, a need to re-examine past practice where we warehoused disabled people of all ages in medical facilities...because of a lack of affordable accessible housing.

This pandemic is perhaps the greatest societal challenge our nation has ever faced, without exception, so I refer you all to a May 14 article in theconversation.com on the coronavirus in Canada's long-term care for people with disabilities, a brilliant article written by professors Gillian Parekh of York and Kathryn Underwood of Ryerson.

Of the catastrophe in our long-term care facilities—and it truly is a catastrophe—they say:

When we look at who is disproportionately affected by this pandemic, we can’t help but ask how ableism shapes notions of whose lives are valued and whose are not. As governments plan for a “return to normal” while serious systemic issues remain in long-term living facilities, is normal really what we want to return to?

No, it is not. We need a better way forward. Ableism is a kind of benign neglect. As Parekh and Underwood conclude, citing disability justice activist Mia Mingus, “it undergirds notions of whose bodies are considered valuable, desirable and disposable.”

We've been told repeatedly to trust the science as we navigate forward. Certainly, that is important. But now that we are 76 days from the first Canadian COVID-19 fatality, it is time to do the math as well. Our population is 37,500,000. As of yesterday, over 6,150 Canadians have died of COVID, and we rank 11th in the world. A full 80% of those people, or 4,920, were in LTC homes or seniors homes, most with disabilities.

We all remember the Humboldt bus crash. Sixteen people died, our nation grieved. In the 76 days of COVID deaths, the death toll for our disabled seniors has been the equivalent of four Humboldt crashes per day for 76 days. Those are the numbers, and there are more.

What can we learn from them? Let's consider that with a population of 126,000,000 people, 25% of which is seniors, the COVID death toll for the nation of Japan, as of yesterday, is 771. They rank 73rd in the world. Canada's death toll for seniors alone is six times greater than Japan's total death toll as a nation. Their population is 3.3 times greater than Canada's, but their COVID death toll is 13% of Canada's. Why? There are detailed reasons, but, briefly, they do not shake hands as a society and have not for centuries. They bow instead. Since the Fukushima nuclear accident of 2011, mask and hand sanitizer use has become widespread if not completely accepted.

Closer to home, New Brunswick—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I'm going to need you to wrap it up, Your Honour.

[David Onley]

—has reported zero deaths. The question is why.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

We're over time. Please conclude.

[David Onley]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Next, from Spinal Cord Injury Canada, we have Bill Adair.

You have seven minutes, Bill.