Human Resources Committee on Oct. 31st, 2022

[Thomas Simpson]

Absolutely.

As the minister stated earlier today, there are 13 different jurisdictions with different support programs already in place. The hope of our community is that there's some form of harmonization to ensure that regardless of where you live across this country, from coast to coast to coast, a person with a disability has the appropriate financial means to get ahead.

This shouldn't just be about deciding what the line of poverty is and going a dollar above that line of poverty. It should be about ensuring people with disabilities across the country are able to be economically and financially self-sustaining. For those able to work...it's ensuring they can get the supports, then enabling them to thrive in employment situations.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks very much.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to cede the rest of my time to my friend and colleague, Mr. Coteau.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses here today. I really appreciate their being here.

I want to ask a question of Rabia Khedr.

Thank you so much for coming to Parliament Hill on the day of the vote. I know you came to meet me with a group of individuals—

By the way, it's Michael Coteau from Don Valley East.

I want to say thank you for coming to meet and talk with members about the co-development piece. When you left my office, that was one of the messages that stuck with me: co-development and making sure we stick to the general principle of “nothing without us”.

There have been members here who have suggested that going straight into a framework that allows for the regulations to outline the program details, and focusing on that through co-development, is not the right approach. They would rather see it all in the legislation.

Can you speak to the importance of co-development through regulation?

[Rabia Khedr]

Again, lived experience is what will bring the knowledge, expertise and nuances that people in positions of power, who are charged with developing regulations in their job descriptions, wouldn't necessarily know. That is information you can't get out of a focus group or a consultation or a research paper. When you're sitting around the table discussing every detail as equal partners, that's where lived experience comes in. It's key. It's like people feeling.... For example, I'm blind. Not every blind person is the same, but generally, we have some common need.

We like to know who's in the room. When people choose to overdescribe, because they assume we need to see every little detail the way they see it.... That's not necessarily the approach we need. It's important to have individuals at the table who have been on ODSP and know what's covered and not covered, and how clawbacks, in reality, happen in their lives.

Perhaps it says “no clawbacks”, but there are other elements of provincial supports and services that haven't been considered through the research and expert knowledge that come with co-creation. Again, it's the spirit in which we do the work. Doing the work with a genuine mindset of “nothing about us” means including us at the table as equal partners, not just through “engagement”. That is one way, and consultation is one way.

It's about co-creating and working together. Therefore, if there are barriers, we're able to address them, because we've lived those barriers on a daily basis.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Coteau.

Madame Chabot, you have six minutes.

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

I sincerely thank the witnesses. Thank you for sharing with us what you are going through as people living with disabilities and for speaking on behalf of the groups you are representing.

I think your message has been heard loud and clear.

I heard one group saying that we should pass the bill without amendments. I also heard the representatives for the MS Society of Canada mention that maybe the bill should be amended to include in the definitions the fact that MS is episodic in nature, as we know.

I would like you to tell us a bit more.

We agree that this should be done by and for people living with disabilities. However, as parliamentarians, it is very unusual to pass a bill when the most important aspects, like eligibility criteria, benefit terms and conditions and benefit amounts, are unknown.

During consultations, we asked for your opinion on these matters, because it seems important to us, especially when everything is to be set through regulations. We also appreciate the urgency of establishing that particular benefit, but we know that regulations can take a long time.

My question is for the representatives of the MS Society.

When you talk about amending the bill to state that some diseases and disabilities are episodic, what are you thinking about specifically?

Why is that important? In which parts of the bill could we make the required changes?

[Julie Kelndorfer]

As I mentioned in my opening statement around the definition of “disability”, we were so excited during the Accessible Canada Act consultations that we were a part of and with the act itself that the definition of “disability” included “episodic”. This committee has also studied episodic disabilities and has produced an excellent report. Unfortunately episodic disabilities are not understood and not included in many of the programs, so they are left out.

We're concerned with this act that they also will be left out. I think there's a really important opportunity for this committee to include episodic, and there is a definition that's already inclusive. That's where we'd like to see it, because we know this intermittent connection to the workplace is very difficult. The needed supports for people with disabilities are very difficult.

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

Thank you.

If you have something written down to share with us, we will take the time to look at including this in the bill.

I have only one question, and you can take turns answering it.

What does lifting people out of poverty or reducing poverty mean to you? What would be the minimum income required for that to be achieved?

Mr. Simpson, we can start with you and Ms. Hewitt can chime in afterwards.

[Thomas Simpson]

Thank you for the question, Madame Chabot.

Given that there are 13 different provinces and jurisdictions across the country, that there are different social support programs that already exist, that the cost to exist across the country depends on where a person lives—rural or remote versus urban—far be it from me to create a number and say this is what the amendment should be. I think this is where there can be consultation with the disability community and this committee to come up with a mandatory minimum that says this supplementary support program will be, at minimum, x dollars that will be indexed to inflation year over year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you.

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

Do we have time for other answers?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have one minute.

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

Ms. Hewitt, do you have anything to add?

[Michelle Hewitt]

On the question that Thomas just responded to in relation to an amount that would lift people out of poverty, in Canada we currently have something like 54 official poverty lines. To lift people out of poverty, presumably, it would be above that line; however, it costs to be disabled.

We know from research that's been done outside Canada, in comparable jurisdictions like Ireland, Australia and the U.K., that for the amount it would take for you to be eligible for something like a provincial disability program or CPPD, it's roughly 40% more. For people who are severely disabled, it can cost 65% to 75% more.

It depends, really, as Thomas mentioned before. Is it one dollar over the poverty line and we've lifted people out of poverty? For disabled people, that's not the way that we can do things. It needs to take into consideration the cost of disability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Chabot.

We'll go to Madame Zarrillo for six minutes.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm Bonita Zarrillo, the member of Parliament for Port Moody—Coquitlam, out in B.C. I'm participating virtually today as well.

I know it's a very short window, so I'm just going to get right to it around the eligibility definition.

Madam Hewitt and Madam Regimbald, I would like to know from both of you if you think the Accessible Canada Act definition would be a good base for eligibility for this benefit.

Ms. Hewitt, do you want to go first?

[Michelle Hewitt]

Are you okay if I pass it over to Rabia as well? She's probably more knowledgeable.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Absolutely.

[Michelle Hewitt]

Following on from my good friend Julie, who is somebody with MS, obviously I support everything that relates to “episodic”.

I just wanted to highlight what she was saying by saying that when people have any form of episodic disability and they jump in and out of the benefit system or a workplace system, it takes time for things to react. That's why we need special work to be done around things related to “episodic”.

Rabia, I'll pass it over to you.

[Rabia Khedr]

Thank you, Michelle.

The ACA definition is something the disability community and national organizations worked extensively and came to a general consensus on. Not everybody will necessarily fit into that definition. That's why the co-creation piece is really key.

The ACA definition is a starting point, but let's have a more comprehensive discussion around eligibility and who qualifies as “disabled”, whether they're episodic, temporary or permanent, within that definition, in those conversations and in the spirit of co-creation.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Regimbald, would you mind letting me know how you feel about that as an eligibility definition?

[Bryanna Regimbald]

Yes, I definitely think it's a comprehensive definition, in short.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Wonderful. Thank you very much.

Madam Kelndorfer, I wanted to come back to you around life planning and how income supports and lack of income security can affect life planning.

I wonder if you could just give us a bit of a vision of why it's so important to have stable income support in regard to life planning, and how an episodic illness can be affected by that.

[Julie Kelndorfer]

As I said, MS and episodic disabilities bring a life of uncertainty. It's uncertainty knowing about work, family and your path forward. In a life of uncertainty, we need predictable supports. We need predictable supports, and income in particular. Income is so fundamental to so much of life—housing, food, treatment, wellness. We hear from so many people who need rehabilitation supports to be able to continue. As a disease like MS progresses over time, sufferers need supports in order to remain as well as possible for as long as possible.

We heard from a witness in the committee study who said she doesn't fear losing her ability to walk; she fears losing her ability to work and contribute financially to her life. She fears poverty. That's a really unfortunate situation. As we've heard from everybody, it's a very complex system. The income and disability supports system is very complex. We really need to look at that from multiple perspectives over the life course.

What we heard from people was, “What if I can't work at this point in time? Perhaps if I can be supported, I can continue my attachment to the workforce.” People want to work, but they struggle to work. We need to support them for as long as possible. I think income supports like the Canada disability benefit are one solution. There are multiple solutions. There are multiple recommendations in the HUMA report on episodic disabilities that are helpful to many, including people with mental health conditions.