Does your government value persons with disabilities? That is the question I posed recently in a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney and Minister of Jobs and Families Patty Hadju.
On May 13, Prime Minister Carney announced his new cabinet of 28 cabinet ministers and 10 secretaries of states, yet incredibly left Canadians with disabilities without any overt representation. He included women and gender equality in a ministerial position, seniors in a secretary of state position, yet the word “disability” is glaringly absent.
I urged the Prime Minister to consider amending one of the cabinet minister’s portfolios to raise the status of persons with disabilities and amend the ministerial title accordingly. Persons with disabilities need greater inclusion and visibility, not less. Has the schism against diversity, equity and inclusion in the U.S.A. spread north of the border? Or is the Prime Minister trying to appease Donald Trump’s horrible bias?
On June 6, the Prime Minister’s office seemed to declare representation by adding “(persons with disabilities)”, yes, in parentheses after the “Minister of Jobs and Families” in describing the role of the newly named Parliamentary Secretary. It’s embarrassing. Would it have been so difficult to change the “Minister of Jobs and Families” to the “Minister of Jobs, Families and Persons with Disabilities”?
Consider that 27 per cent of Canadians (8 million people, 15 years and older) have disabilities that limit daily activities, including one quarter of working-age adults. The previous Liberal government seemingly made transformational changes in the status of persons with disabilities with the first ministerial representation (2015), and more recently with the creation of the Canada Disability Benefit. The benefit arose from the realization that poverty is entrenched among a significant proportion of Canadians with complex disabilities. Provincial and territorial disability support programs remain grossly inadequate, leaving most in deep poverty. As a nation, we have accepted this condition for our most vulnerable for far too long.
As a nation, we have accepted this condition for our most vulnerable for far too long.
The Canada Disability Benefit was intended to lift Canadians with disabilities out of poverty. The maximum benefit of $200/month was a great disappointment to those who were expecting enough to pay for rent and groceries each month. However, it is a start and for that I was grateful.
The proposed formulae for calculating a benefit were disclosed on the Service Canada website. Applicants require the Disability Tax Credit, which has been extremely difficult to obtain by persons with mental health disabilities. Thereafter, it considers working income and total net income between an individual and his/her spouse if applicable.
What it does not consider is medical expenses. In this oncologist’s viewpoint, this is a glaring oversight. Some anticancer biologic drugs cost thousands of dollars out of pocket each month. For example, someone who is paraplegic or quadriplegic may have very high out of pocket expenses: Take George, a 40-year-old Toronto man who is paraplegic and unable to work, and receives Canadian Pension Plan disability benefits of $12,000 per year. His spouse is employed and earns $50,000 per year. George has annual medical expenses of $25,000.
Under the formula, the net family working income is $50,000. Net family income is $62,000. Net income after medical expenses is just $37,000. After tax income may be below $35,000 – below the accepted poverty level considering the Market Basket Measure. Yet, given the family income, George is not eligible for the benefit.
Surely high medical expenses among those with complex disabilities are not that rare. I am ambulatory with a spinal cord injury and have group health insurance – and I still have more than $12,000 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses. Shouldn’t we take care to ensure those in greatest need are eligible to receive the benefit?
The Canada Disability Benefit is set to launch in July. Let’s hope this government sees fit to improve upon the benefit eligibility. Canadians with disabilities shouldn’t be an afterthought by this government.
When [27%]!! of the population is defined as having a disability… we have a problem with how we define/identify with disability. How can society function if more than 1/4 of the population (plus the youth and the retired) are limited/not materially productive in society and require additional benefits?
@MT it seems you chose not to read the link within the sentence you reference, and have simply focused on the number.
The statistic includes youth and retired/elderly.
It clearly defines disability as something that limits daily activities in this context. An intelligent person understands that disabilities occur on a spectrum of severity and are not all equal.
The fact you chose to view the disabled as “not materially productive” as an entire group and somehow prevent society from functioning proves the problem with definition lies in YOUR interpretation.
I cannot properly convey my disgust at someone choosing to attack the weakest members of society as a problem and not the tiny greedy minority 1% that have been exponentially stealing a massive majority of resources from society since the early 1970’s.
The privilege and ignorance shown by your comment is a testament to the general poor quality of education in Canada and the need to understand basic federal economics like how a sovereign currency works.
Your taxes do not fund federal expenditures. If the disabled recieve “additional benefits” they cost you nothing and have zero negative effect on your life.
Do better.
Hi KD,
Apologies for inspiring the disgust and righteous indignation. I thought this was a place for constructive conversation not ad hominem attacks ;)
1. I’d encourage you to re-examine the link with the 27% statistic- it does not include youth and elderly that are out of the work force (and do not have a disability)
2. I understand that disability is on a spectrum (which was why I including that one may be merely limited in material productivity). And I agree, we should not view it as a binary, instead we should examine what the UK is doing where disability is assessed through dedicated clinics where they “grade” the level of disability and provide work supports and regular reviews to increase purpose and productivity.
3. Personal taxes fund >60% of federal revenues. Please see: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/services/publications/annual-financial-report/2020/report.html
Cheers