Human Resources Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2022

[Jeffrey Neven]

This is a daily story for us.

Literally, in any given year, we have thousands of folks calling us in desperate situations. In our case, our primary area of expertise, when it comes to supports, is with those experiencing mental illness and addictions. The impact of struggling with mental health and having inadequate financial supports means that people calling us are in desperate situations. They are homeless.

Mr. Gladstone referenced how many folks in homeless shelters are dealing with a developmental challenge. There are stats as high as 80% out there for acquired brain injury. There are other stats around mental health.

What we're finding is that nearly everyone applying for our housing because of homelessness is experiencing mental health concerns, whether those are diagnosed or undiagnosed.

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

Thanks, Jeff.

I have one last question. I think I probably have about a minute left.

The minister was here earlier this week, and she was very clear that there would be no clawbacks with this. She also talked about not substituting the benefit for existing payments the provinces and territories might currently offer.

You were very clear in your recommendations. How important is it for your community that this be a supplemental payment—an increase to what they receive today—and that it doesn't substitute for, in our case, the ODSP payments the province currently provides?

[Jeffrey Neven]

It's essential that this benefit be in addition to what folks are currently receiving as income, whether that be from the province or other subsidy programs. If there's a clawback, it goes against the very intent of helping people have more income in order to purchase the basic necessities they need.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 15 seconds.

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

I'm good, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us and for their work with people with disabilities.

My first question will be for Mr. Neven.

A few times in your speech, you stressed the need to have an income that matches the actual cost of living. Do you have any idea what that income would be?

I'm asking you this question because the bill indicates that it will be decided by regulation. It's important for us, as parliamentarians, to have a sense of what witnesses mean by a benefit that is sufficient to meet the needs.

[Jeffrey Neven]

Thank you for that clarifying question.

As I mentioned, in our geography—the area of southwestern Ontario—that gap on the housing piece alone is about $1,000 currently. The biggest factor that forces people into homelessness is that they can't pay for their housing.

I suggest that the income benefit required would need to be in the area of $1,000 per person per month, at a minimum.

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

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Gladstone.

As we understand it, you provide employment assistance for people with disabilities. As you know, the Canadian disability benefit is intended to be a supplement to employment income. However, once again, the bill doesn't provide any details on the mechanics behind this supplement.

Do you have an opinion on what this mechanism should be?

[Gary Gladstone]

Thank you very much for recognizing the work that Reena does with its employment programs, which have very good success rates for those it is able to assist.

Building on Mr. Neven's comments, it's important that this must be in addition to and not instead of. I would look to it to encourage individuals to work where it's appropriate and for the hours that are appropriate for them to be working for an income. With that, together with the Canada disability benefit, they should be in a position to get even further ahead and get out of poverty, which is severe.

With 90% of those with developmental disabilities living below the poverty line, it's real and chronic. The supports from the disability benefit and the wages that they would be earning for the hours at the jobs that they are able to work at would make a difference.

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

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it must be complementary. So we have to take into account the amount of employment income that will have to be preserved, because employment is important. The benefit will have to be an addition. Is that correct?

[Gary Gladstone]

I think it's important that an individual with disabilities—in this case, I will mention specifically developmental disabilities—has the ability to both earn and have a benefit to ensure that they are not below but are actually above the poverty line and are able to live a decent life in a decent home with a decent future. The government is in a position to assist through the Canada disability benefit as well as through the supports from the employment programs.

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

The next question is for you two, Mr. Neven and Mr. Gladstone.

As parliamentarians, we will have to do a clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. Do you already have any suggestions for amendments to the current bill? I'm thinking in particular of amendments to the timeline, the amount or the mechanism. Do you have any recommendations in this regard?

[Jeffrey Neven]

I think it is important that we clarify the minimum amount. That's going to really impact the potential benefits of this program.

I would concur with Mr. Gladstone's testimony relating to the urgency and the timelines required. If an amendment could be made to improve the timeline to implement the bill, that would be important as well.

[Gary Gladstone]

From my perspective again, it is important that the money get into the hands that of those who require it as soon as possible, with all-party support. I will stress that a million times to make sure it does, in fact, happen.

If it doesn't delay, I would like to see the minimum, as Mr. Neven indicated, as well as the safeguard against clawbacks and the index for inflation. It's not related directly to the bill itself, but we'd like to ensure that as discussions are taking place, representatives from the disabled community are present at the discussions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Committee members, before I go to Ms. Zarrillo, you will see that Mr. Calderhead is now available. If you agree, we need to do a quick sound check with him and allow him to do his statement, because he is a witness who has been asked to be here.

Could we suspend for a couple of minutes while we do the sound check and bring him in before we go to Ms. Zarrillo?

Ms. Zarrillo, are you okay with that as well?

Okay. We'll suspend for a couple of moments. Then he'll make his opening statement and we'll resume with Ms. Zarrillo.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

The committee will resume at this time.

Madam Zarrillo, you have the floor for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses and to Mr. Calderhead for coming in today.

I'm going to reiterate what I've heard today. Both of the witnesses mentioned the adequacy of this benefit to ensure that it secures the necessity of life for folks and is not clawed back. As I'm sure you know, the majority of this disability benefit is being designed by regulation rather than in the bill.

I'm going to ask you first, Mr. Neven, and then Mr. Gladstone: What do you feel the pros and cons are of putting this into regulation rather than securing it into the bill to have the adequacy and to have no clawbacks? I think you also mentioned a timeline secured in the bill. What do you think the risks or the pros and cons might be on that design choice?

[Jeffrey Neven]

We're moving into an area that's not necessarily my area of expertise, but I'll just say that from my perspective, it seems that putting it in the bill legislates these details and ensures the minimum standards and such; however, if that were to slow down the process, then it's a balancing act of finding the best way forward while ensuring the inclusion of these particular pieces that have come up here today. Those include the minimum amount, ensuring there's no clawback, ensuring that it's not impacted by inflation and ensuring that the amount provided is indexed to the cost of living. I'm somewhat pragmatic on those things. If the best way to get them is through legislation, let's do that. If the best way is through regulation, then let's do that.

[Gary Gladstone]

As well, I'm not an expert, but perhaps I know a bit more.

The first comment I would make is that if it's in regulation or if it's in legislation, another government still has the opportunity to change it however they want, when they want and how they want.

At this point, as I indicated and stressed, and to add to Mr. Neven's comments, we need to get it done. We need to get this out into the hands of the individuals that we and others support in the disability community as soon as possible. From what I understand, regulation at this point would be faster in making any changes that I've indicated would need to be made, and the bottom line is that if they can be done appropriately and quickly, that's most important.

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

Thank you, Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Neven.

Mr. Gladstone, I want to touch on gender lines, which you did approach in speaking about the impact that this has on women. We know that the pay gap in general disproportionately affects women, and there are many implications of income insecurity for women.

If you don't mind, Mr. Gladstone, just expand a little on why it is so important for women to have this financial gap fixed and how it could be transformational for women's lives and women living with a disability.

[Gary Gladstone]

Well, thank you.

Safety, security and appropriate and safe housing are essential. They are at the core of everything that we do and that the majority of disability agencies do. It is vital to have good, secure, safe housing in which you are not dependent on somebody else, you can cover your own expenses and you can live.

I'll just reiterate “a safe place” a thousand times over, because if you're not in a safe place, you can be taken advantage of in many ways. As I indicated in my initial stats that you commented on—thank you—women with developmental disabilities are 65% more likely to suffer abuse, and that's because of improper and inappropriate housing in the shelters, etc.

If people, through the benefit, are able to afford a place to live—again I'll just reiterate, as those on the committee have heard me say time and time again—through more money for housing, and thank you very much, it gives them a much better opportunity to have a full and fulfilling life without having to worry.

I thank you.

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

Thank you.

I've heard from a number of women and women living with a disability that they're concerned that it will be a household measurement or that they won't have the autonomy that they deserve in Bill C-22. Do you see any space in Bill C-22 where their autonomy would be at risk because it's not really written into the bill at this point in time?

[Gary Gladstone]

Well, I would go back to the comment I made that individuals with disabilities and representing those with disabilities should be around the table when all the regulations are being set to ensure things like that are in fact covered in the regulations and that there won't be those issues. It's important for the right individuals to be sitting around the table. Then the appropriate results that we all want will be there.

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

That's great.

This idea of co-creation has come up before in testimony here. Again, in Bill C-22, we don't see it actually written into regulation that there needs to be a co-creation piece.

Mr. Gladstone, would you support an amendment that explicitly says this needs to be jointly fashioned with the disability community?

Mr. Neven, I would ask you that same question.