Evidence of meeting #37 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cases.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
You answer directly to the minister. Do you think that SST should be accountable to Parliament?
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Chairperson, Social Security Tribunal of Canada
I hadn't thought about that.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
On a point of order, the SST is the fully independent body, separate from Parliament, right? You operate independently at arm's length.
12:40 p.m.
Chairperson, Social Security Tribunal of Canada
We operate at arm's length from the department.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
Just a second, that's not a point of order.
We're entering questions here. I believe Mr. Cuzner has realized he kind of overstepped that one.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
It wasn't fair that he asked that, and that is what resulted in your point of order.
But we need to wrap up here very quickly, sir. You have five seconds.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all three of you for being here today.
I'll ask my first question as a follow-up to a comment Mr. Armstrong made to Ms. Casipullai. Has your agency had the opportunity, when it's been brought to your attention, to bring any abuses you may have seen in the temporary foreign worker program to department officials? Have you actively reported those cases to the department officials, so that the appropriate action under the law could be taken?
12:45 p.m.
Senior Coordinator, Policy and Communications, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)
Thank you for the question.
OCASI doesn't provide direct services. We are an umbrella organization. Our member agencies do, so these are reports from our member agencies. Our understanding is that our member agencies provide the information to their clients. It seems to me that most migrant workers who are reporting this have the 1-800 number that they can call to report what's happening. However, they're tremendously fearful because what they're hearing from the employer is that if the $1,000 is not paid by the worker, then the employer is not going to be in a position to renew the assessment, so the worker would be without a job. There's a tremendous amount of pressure on the worker to go along with that, and the workers typically don't think they're in any position to complain about what's happening to them.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
But it would seem to me though that even if an employer was asking for the $1,000 to be reimbursed, the employer is putting out the $1,000 even before the individual's even in the country. They're applying for a labour market impact assessment to determine whether or not they can bring in temporary foreign workers to begin with. Even if that application is denied because there is a sufficient workforce currently within Canada that the employer should go to, that individual's not going to get recruited and come to Canada in any event. Is that not correct?
12:45 p.m.
Senior Coordinator, Policy and Communications, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)
Yes, and this is where we also mentioned the role of recruiters. In many instances the workers are recruited overseas by recruitment agents who are working with employers here. So the worker ends up paying the money either to the recruiter or directly to the employer when there's a renewal of the assessment.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Okay, we have to make sure that if those cases are known they are reported, because obviously that's a violation of the law. But I appreciate your clarification, and I know the good work that your organization does in the Toronto area working with lots of newcomers and newcomer agencies. We're greatly appreciative of that.
Mr. Birch, I want to ask you a couple of questions, or at least one about the changes at the SST. I'm assuming that most of the cases that would go to the Social Security Tribunal are for perhaps a denial of the CPP disability benefit, and obviously you're appealing that decision to the tribunal. One of the main reasons for that is a lot of these cases are very complicated, I would assume. There is medical documentation, health documentation, ensuring that the person has worked for x number of years prior to becoming disabled and wanting CPP disability benefits. Obviously they're making an application, the bureaucrats are going through it and perhaps saying that they don't believe it meets the criteria. Therefore, it's being appealed, the individual's appealing it to the Social Security Tribunal.
I'm assuming you think that's a fair process, that people should have an opportunity, under certain grounds, to appeal a decision when they've been denied benefits? I'm assuming that you would say that by increasing the number of tribunal members, that's obviously going to help a lot of the people who you are working with and advocating for?
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Neil Squire Society
Yes, thank you very much for the question.
Indeed, many of these cases are complex. The evolving nature of disability and just the evolving nature of what we take into account when we're considering a person's disability are complex. That's why it, to me, makes good sense to have more individuals working on the tribunal to help put these backlogs....
I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, but inherently I think it is important that people with disabilities who are applying for CPPD have the opportunity to appeal, of course. It is, like you indicated, I think often the case because they are quite complicated.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
Okay. Thank you for that.
Thank you, witnesses, for taking the time to be with us today and giving us the information that you have. Now we go on to the last part of the meeting. We'll just take a short recess and then we'll resume in one minute.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
Committee members, we're back in session now.
We have a limited amount of time to complete the business we'd like to complete by one o'clock. We're still in a public session.
I'll move to Mr. Armstrong.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a motion. I move:
That, the Chair send a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance stating that this Committee has achieved the objective that they set, and that this Committee has no amendments to propose to clauses 252, and 306 to 314 of Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions for the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I would like to try an amendment. I would like to amend the motion by saying that the committee did not get adequate time to study this legislation, and therefore it is very hard for us to provide informed feedback.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
Do you want to put it into a specific amendment? That didn't sound like an amendment. What is your amendment?