The release of the 2024 federal budget was a highly anticipated event for Canadians with disabilities and the organisations that advocate for them. The excitement stemmed from the June 2023 passage of Bill C-22, which established the Canada Disability Benefit (CDB). This legislative milestone was heralded as a significant step towards meeting Canada’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). However, the budget’s provisions have been met with widespread disappointment and criticism, highlighting a profound dissonance between the government’s rhetoric and its resolve to address the systemic poverty experienced by people with disabilities.
The CDB was intended to address the alarming rates of poverty and unemployment among working-age Canadians with disabilities, a demographic historically marginalised within both economic and social spheres. Prior to the recent inflationary pressures exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, people with disabilities were disproportionately represented among the impoverished, with many reliant on provincial and territorial social assistance programs often described as “poverty traps.”
Poverty traps occur when individuals are locked into poverty by the very assistance programs meant to help them. These programs, while providing necessary support, often impose stringent conditions that hinder recipients from achieving economic self-sufficiency. For example, social assistance recipients are typically not allowed to earn more than $200 or receive more than $100 in donations per month without facing a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their benefits. Additionally, these programs are often burdened with complex, contradictory rules and the threat of penalties for minor infractions, further entrenching individuals in a cycle of poverty.
In light of these challenges, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) in November 2023 outlined three potential scenarios for the CDB, estimating costs ranging from $2.1 billion to $20 billion annually, depending on the number of disabled individuals the benefit would aim to lift out of poverty. These projections underscored the substantial financial commitment required to make a meaningful impact. However, the budget allocation of only $6.1 billion over six years, amounting to a maximum benefit of $2,400 annually per individual, or merely $200 per month, has sparked outrage among advocates and other stakeholders.
Critics argue that this allocation is not only insufficient but also emblematic of a broader governmental failure to prioritise the needs of people with disabilities. Rabia Khedr, national director of Disability Without Poverty, succinctly expressed this sentiment: “it’s maybe going to give them a little more money to buy food, put toward their rent. But they’re still going to be living in significant levels of poverty.” In fact, 41% of low-income Canadians live with a disability and 16.5% of the people with a disability in Canada live in poverty.
The stark reality is that with an average monthly income from disability assistance of $1,300, the additional $200 a month does little to close the gap to the poverty line, estimated at $2,300 per month. This modest increase fails to account for the additional costs associated with living with a disability, such as specialised medical care and equipment, costs which further exacerbate financial hardship.
Furthermore, the decision to use the Disability Tax Credit (DTC) as the sole criterion for the CDB eligibility has sparked significant criticism. The DTC, a long-standing component of Canada’s disability policy framework, is widely regarded as an inadequate measure of disability due to the restrictiveness and inconsistent application of its eligibility criteria. Many individuals with qualifying disabilities, such as autism or cognitive impairments, are often excluded. Moreover, the DTC application process is notoriously complex and inaccessible, with limited support from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). As a result, some applicants are forced to seek costly third-party services just to navigate the system.
This issue is particularly concerning for francophones, who are statistically less likely to access the DTC than anglophones, pointing to systemic inequities in the administration of disability benefits. In Quebec, these challenges are compounded by cultural and systemic barriers. Firstly, there is a reluctance to label oneself or one’s children as “handicapé,” the French term for disabled that carries a stronger connotation compared to the more neutral term in English. This cultural sensitivity discourages many from pursuing the DTC. Secondly, Quebec’s limited access to health professionals makes it difficult to obtain the necessary medical documentation for the DTC, with the province’s shortage of family physicians and some healthcare professionals’ reluctance to complete the required forms further complicating the process. Lastly, a widespread belief persists that the DTC offers no benefit to non-taxpayers or could reduce other social solidarity benefits, deterring eligible individuals from applying. Despite recommendations from the CRA’s Disability Advisory Committee to reform the DTC eligibility criteria, the government has opted to retain this flawed measure, further alienating those it is meant to support.
This inadequacy of the CDB, both in terms of financial support and accessibility, reflects a broader pattern of neglect and underfunding in Canada’s approach to disability policy. The CDB’s paltry $200 month fails to align with the initial aspirations set out by disability advocates, such as Inclusion Canada, who had called for a minimum monthly benefit of $2,200. This figure, they argued, “aims to provide a reasonably adequate level of assistance; and to recognize that people with disabilities have additional costs of everyday living.” The failure to meet even the most conservative estimates suggests a troubling lack of political will to address the systemic economic inequalities faced by Canadians with disabilities.
The budget’s treatment of the CDB has not only failed to address the urgent needs of Canadians with disabilities but has also highlighted a deeper issue: the persistent underestimation and undervaluation of the economic and social contributions of people with disabilities. The budget, while ostensibly a tool for economic planning, also serves as a moral document, reflecting the values and priorities of a society. In this case, the government’s reluctance to allocate adequate resources to the CDB indicates a lack of commitment to upholding the dignity and rights of people with disabilities, standing in contrast to the principles of accessibility and inclusivity that underpin the CRPD.
To rectify these shortcomings, several critical steps must be taken. Firstly, the principle of “nothing about us without us” must be rigorously applied. By actively involving people with disabilities in the design and administration of the benefit, the government can avoid creating a system that feels frustrating, exhausting, and dehumanising. Including the voices and experiences of those directly affected ensures that policies are truly responsive to their needs rather than imposing unnecessary burden. Secondly, equitable access must be a priority. By removing barriers, such as complex eligibility criteria and bureaucratic obstacles, the government can ensure that everyone entitled to benefits can access and retain them. Lastly, the benefit amount must be increased to at least $2,200 per month, as suggested by advocacy groups, to provide a meaningful lift out of poverty.
Hence, the government must prioritise meaningful engagement with disability advocates and organisations, ensuring that future iterations of the CDB are inclusive and responsive to the real-life challenges faced by people with disabilities. As the conversation around the issue evolves, it is crucial that the government does not lose sight of its core responsibility: to uphold the dignity and well-being of all citizens, particularly those who are most vulnerable. Without substantial changes, the promises of the CDB risks becoming yet another unfulfilled commitment in the pursuit of equality and justice for all.
Edited by Mia Alexander
Victoria Forte is in her third and final year at McGill University, where she is completing her B.A. in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, Feminist, and Social Justice Studies. As she navigates her final year, Victoria brings a fresh perspective as a new staff writer for Catalyst. Her academic and journalistic pursuits are driven by a deep interest in exploring the intersections of power, identity, and social justice.