Senator Rose-May Poirier

Senator Poirier: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

My question is for Professor Frankel. In your remarks, you recommended that the act should require an appeal mechanism and guarantee that appellants be provided with resources to support filing and arguing their appeals.

Applying for disability supports and appealing decisions is often heavy. Given your experience, I’m wondering if there is a Canadian or international example of jurisdictions that are doing a good job of supporting people with disabilities through that process. What should we be looking to? Do you think this benefit should be based on individual or family income?

Mr. Frankel: A few questions there. I’m not aware of the effectiveness of various approaches to appeals. However, I do know — and my colleagues can also speak to it — that the support that is available for the appellant is important. For example, when it comes to Employment Insurance appeals, there is some support available. I think that’s worth looking into and it’s given me a good idea to look at where there are effective appeal mechanisms.

The general approach in Canada for almost all benefits is to focus on household income. There are two issues. One is what income is taken into account in providing the benefit, and the other is who receives the benefit. It has been our tradition that household income is taken into account. It is based on the assumption that all household members have access to the benefits. But I think the person with the disability should be the recipient of that income, not a household head if they are not the person with the disability.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you. If during your research in the next little while you come up with an idea, could you please send that to the clerk? That will help inform our work.

Senator Poirier: If you were to make an amendment to Bill C-22, what would it be?

Mr. Frankel: I think the most important thing is to have a more enduring and comprehensive way for people with disabilities to be involved. I would require something much more than being consulted on the regulations, although that is important. I would argue for a committee to be established that is appointed by an all-party committee and that has the mandate to monitor implementation, to make recommendations to the minister — recommendations that should be made to the entire House — and to be consulted on recommendations made by others.

Senator Poirier: Thank you.

------

Senator Poirier: I appreciate both of your organizations for taking the time to join us today.

Your groups along with three other organizations jointly submitted a briefing to HUMA in the house in which you jointly wrote:

Women with disabilities are more likely to experience violence and financial abuse than the rest of the population. Therefore, it is essential to fully individualize the future Benefit to limit financial dependency and abuse.

In this sense, we believe that the benefit design should not consider the spouse’s income, assets and liquid assets. This would allow more women to have access to the Benefit and thus strengthen their financial security, giving them more independence.

To confirm, I would like to hear from Mr. Lupien to confirm that this is still the wish of the federation. Mr. Ragot, since you authored the document, I would like you to elaborate how crucial it is that the Canada disability benefit be individualized.

[Translation]

Mr. Lupien: Yes, it’s true that people with disabilities are much more likely to experience violence when they are financially dependent on their spouse. I receive only $900 a month, and my wife sometimes comments that she supports me. That kind of situation needs to stop. A man or woman can experience violence. Yes, women are subjected to violence, but in the disability community, so are men.

It’s important, I think, to address that. Furthermore, as was mentioned earlier, benefits need to continue after the age of 65. I’m sorry, but when I hit 65, I will still be a person with a disability. My cost of living will still be much higher than that of a person without a disability. The expenses related to my disability won’t go away.

Mr. Ragot: Thank you for your question. Yes, the issue is still very pertinent and crucially needs to be addressed. It’s a fact that people with disabilities, mainly women, experience higher rates of domestic violence and financial dependence. It’s a fact that people with intersectional identities are more likely to experience such violence. We know that one way to help people with multiple intersecting identities, arising from the convergence of a number of systems of oppression, is to give them financial security.

Ensuring financial security is one way to help prevent certain types of violence against a person with a disability, a woman with a disability or a woman of colour with a disability. Obviously, it won’t fix the whole problem of violence, but it’s at least one measure that can make a difference in efforts to address gender-based violence.

It’s important, it’s documented, and it’s the right thing to do. It also goes to the fundamental principle of dignity, and the Senate has a unique opportunity to do the right thing.