Status of Women Committee on March 12th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

You wanted to ask something, Anita?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Can I just pick up on that?

I didn't know that. And do you, as an advocacy group for the disabled, make that well known to your communities?

[Carmela Hutchison]

We have not made it well known in that it was an anecdotal experience that happened in one of the 12 NGOs I'm involved with. It happened to a woman, and she brought it to my attention as a person on board. We had put so much thought into our human resource policy, and we didn't know it either. Sometimes there are those unintended consequences, so I'm glad to have this opportunity to bring it forward.

Again, one other interesting piece is that even to speak about employment, we were not funded nationally. We had three strategic plans. We had housing, violence against women, and employment, and we were not funded for the employment piece. So that also hampers our ability in drilling down into some of these issues.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you.

When you started your testimony, you mentioned that the most impacted are the newly disabled. Could you tell me why this is?

[Carmela Hutchison]

For newly disabled people, it depends on several things. And it's like the lottery. A person comes in and you have to look at their whole situation. So a person comes in, and if they're young—say they have schizophrenia and they're disabled at age 18—they haven't worked long enough to acquire CPP. They maybe haven't even worked long enough to acquire EI benefits. So therefore they're automatically on the welfare system.

Then you have other people. Our roommate, for example, has bipolar illness, and he had a job with a major pharmaceutical company. He was a rep. He was pulling down probably between $60,000 and $100,000 a year in income. When he started to have trouble, his employers wanted him to go on long-term disability. His employers were supportive of his going on long-term disability, and his psychiatrist and his doctor were not supportive of his going on long-term disability. He was subsequently fired, and he now lives on CPP disability. And it's taken years to find somebody who will be supportive to get him on AISH. So he has to pay for all his own medications out of $800 a month. He doesn't even have access to those benefits. So it's a very serious issue.

Then you have other people who had benefits and were resisting going on long-term disability. One woman in particular had access to long-term disability and she didn't want to go on it, so she tried to stick it out. She was fired. Two months later she was diagnosed with MS, and then there's no way to access her benefits, right? That's all gone. She lost her benefits.

This is one of the things that can be particularly risky if people are afraid to disclose any medical issues or if they're unaware, because when you're first getting diagnosed you're not aware of what's happening to you. So that's also a problem, and then people lose their benefits.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Why would somebody not want to go on long-term disability?

[Carmela Hutchison]

Why they would not want to? Because they are worried about stigma. We all have good work ethics, and there's a lot of guilt and shame when we suddenly can't do what we used to do. When that happens to us we're puzzled; we can't figure out why it is.

I know in my own life I couldn't figure out why all of a sudden I couldn't do my case notes—

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

So in your mind you want to work?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Mrs. Zarac, that's the end of your time.

We'll now move on to Ms. Hoeppner, please.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I want to thank you so much, Ms. Hutchison, for being here.

On a personal note, I have six sisters, and one of my sisters has a disability that prevents her from working. She is also diabetic. I can relate to a lot of the challenges you're speaking about, because of my family.

What I keep thinking about, and I think this is our challenge, is that a lot of the solutions are under provincial jurisdiction. You talked about pharmacare and health benefits. You talked a lot about the social programs. You talked about Quebec having a good program.

As a federal government, we have a constitutional obligation to not interfere in the province's delivery of some of those services. So for the purpose of this committee, we are really trying to find out how the EI program specifically affects women, and today we're talking about disabled women.

I'm hoping we can find ways to better support disabled women and men, Canadian citizens, while at the same time still be responsible to the taxpayer and to the private sector. Some of the questions I want to ask probably have more to do with how we can get disabled women back to work, as you mentioned, maybe not outside their home, but maybe in their home, in a home business or something of that nature.

I do want to make a quick comment on the waiting period. EI is an insurance program, so the waiting period acts more like a deductible. A former Liberal minister actually agreed with that. It was Jane Stewart, former Minister of Human Resources. Back in 2003 that was her comment, that the two-week waiting period is like a deductible in an insurance program; it is there for a purpose. Again, that's a bit of a struggle. Maybe there's a provincial program that could kick in during that two-week waiting period.

What we're trying to articulate here and find out is how we can implement the employment insurance program to best help and support disabled Canadians, disabled women.

DAWN was first founded, as I understand, in 1985. At that point, during the research, one of the most important issues that came to light was self-image. I'll just quote from the DisAbled Women's Network Canada: “A strong self-image is essential to gaining access to the world of work, to developing strong, egalitarian intimate relationships, to effective parenting, and to resisting the violence that pervades our society.”

That was 20 years ago. Do you still think that's an issue with disabled women in terms of getting back to work or building a business at home? You talked about guilt and shame and some of those things. Is that still an issue? How can we be more aware of that and how it affects disabled women?

[Carmela Hutchison]

The sad thing is that it's as much of an issue, if not more, than it ever was. Look at the fact that there really hasn't been much change in the rate of violence against women with disabilities. That's an automatic one-down situation where a person feels guilt and shame because the abuse is put on them.

But overall, there is a value that every one of us as human beings.... Sigmund Freud talked about the two pillars of life being love and work. Well, what gets most shot down when a person has a disability? Love and work. A lot of marriages end. The only example I can pull off the top of my head is from nursing school, that two-thirds of all marriages with MS ended in divorce. That's a pretty heavy thing, and that's just one illness.

When you look at that and you look at the loss, the trauma of all of those things, and then you add the disability on top of it, there are some things that are very hard. I have to tell you that even in my situation--because I will never work again--I have had some of the most stigmatizing experiences in the last year, which is shocking to me.

I took a class in how to give a presentation. All of you have had me here before. I'm wearing the same clothing as I wore when I appeared in front of you three times before, and I was told that it was not appropriate. I was chastised for that. I don't have money to go out and buy new clothing. I had to find a seamstress to get things made. It's been a year, just that process alone, finding somebody who will do that kind of tailoring at a price that I can afford.

These are some of the things that happen.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

We're going to have to move on to the next presenter, but Catherine will speak to you for just a second.

Okay, now we'll move on to Madame Demers for five minutes, please.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Hutchison, I can't believe someone commented on the way you were dressed. I'm completely shocked.

Earlier, Ms. Mathyssen spoke to you about the guaranteed minimum annual income. Did you know that when the Bélanger-Campeau Commission was struck in Quebec in 1990, the Fédération québécoise anti-pauvreté presented a brief entitled “Pour que disparaisse la misère au Québec: le Ragui“, which touted the GIA as the solution to ending poverty in Quebec. The brief called for a universal, indexed minimum annual income. The calculations made at the time were quite telling.

In any event, I was fascinated to read that programs like employment insurance and social welfare could be eliminated and replaced with a program that provided everyone with a guaranteed minimum annual income. The program would allow students, among others, to pursue an education without having to hold down two or three jobs to make ends meets, and would allow men and women to choose between staying at home to care for their children and going out to work.

Earlier, you mentioned that the Caledon Institute had given some thought to this feasible, innovative solution. One thing is clear, and that is that no government would dare propose this kind of policy. Yet, considering solutions like the ones you are advocating is a worthwhile exercise because the system can no longer continue to function as it has been. The government can no longer continue arguing that it is doing everything it can, while knowing full well that you are receiving only the bare minimum and not what you really need.

As an MP, I have had it with seeing people come here and tell us what they need, and with realizing the little we can do for them. I am aware of our limitations. I would like to see us, as parliamentarians, make decisions that have to do with people, not just with power. I have to say that I've had it with these kinds of decisions.

You stated that all programs are in need of funding. However, it's true that the federal government cannot interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, and that is how it should be.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

There won't be any time left for any answer soon.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

It's not a problem. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Ms. Hutchison understands.

However, the federal government could in fact allocate funds to the provinces to help them finance the different programs.

Briefly, what do you think about that, Ms. Hutchison?

[Carmela Hutchison]

I have a very short answer, and it's one I've been telling governments at every level.

The government, in many ways, has legislated away its powers. It needs to take its power back and use its power to make those positive decisions Madame Demers has spoken so eloquently about.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you. You have 20 seconds left.

[Carmela Hutchison]

In that case, I'll eat up those 20 seconds very quickly by saying that much of what you've said I absolutely agree with. Also, I think no level of government would refuse money, so I think that certainly is one other thing. And I think there is no problem in designating it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you. We'll move on.

Madam Mathyssen, please.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madame Demers asked in part a question I wanted to ask. You talked about the problem with governments and the mantra of smaller government and government not interfering in the lives of individuals. It seems to have been crammed down our collective throats quite audaciously in the last little while.

And it doesn't make sense, I quite agree with you. Government is there to fulfill the needs of the people within the country. It is not a business, it is not a corporation; it is the government of the people. So I thank you for that comment.

You also talked earlier about your fifth recommendation, that being that employers be compelled to pay employment insurance and CPP. In my riding, and I'm sure that this is universal across the country, we have more and more of these temporary agencies, and they hire older workers, women, the disabled--and they're there for three months and then they're thrown away and they have no access to employment insurance or benefits. And that's the whole point--that they can be discarded, and there's no conscience involved; there's no support system.

I want to come back to what Madame Demers said. She's quite right, the federal government absolutely has the ability to transfer money to the provinces to improve our health care system and extend universal health care. We could include home care, long-term care, and prescription drug care. If the federal government took its responsibilities seriously and moved in that direction, would it make the kind of difference we keep talking about? Would it be real for the people you are talking about?

[Carmela Hutchison]

Absolutely. Just to touch on what another speaker here said, it would go a long way towards reducing that stigma. When you can afford to live and to participate in the fabric of Canadian society in a way that doesn't make you visible as a disabled person, that goes a long way to reducing shame and stigma.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

You talked about child care. Does Canada need an affordable, regulated, accessible national child care system? We most certainly don't have one now. Do we need one? How would it help?

[Carmela Hutchison]

It would absolutely help. We talk all the time—and it alarms me, because a third of my caseload, when I was working, was child and adolescent psychiatry.... We have people quibbling about the cost of taking care of the most precious resource we have: our youth. That's the most precious thing we have: the young people of this country coming up, whom we want to raise to be good, proud Canadians and law-abiding citizens. Yes, a national child care is very important.

I'm going to speak anecdotally about the situation of a young boy, eight years old, wanting to take his life. He wanted to take his life because he was getting up in the morning.... Well, he just knew that he was sad. But this young man was getting up in the morning, and his mother was already at work; at eight years old he was a latchkey kid. He was coming home and trying to make himself lunch, but he didn't know how to cook. So he'd eat raw bacon and Kool-Aid without sugar in it, and then he was sick over the noon hour at school. How can anybody say that child support—support for his care—is not essential? These are the kinds of things that are so very important.

So also is housing for women who are disabled and who have children. Very often those women, if they stumble in their housing.... They are exposed to abuse, they're trying to keep housing any way they can get it, and when they can't keep it, their kids are in care because they can't provide a home.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

You have 10 seconds.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Oh, dear. Well, I'll use my 10 seconds to say thank you very much. I appreciate your wisdom and your insight. And perhaps we can indeed make the improvements that we so desire.