Human Resources Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

[Krista Wilcox]

Thank you for the question.

Certainly, under Bill C-81, there will be federal leadership in terms of the federally regulated sector, but also, within the Government of Canada, there's a commitment to the hiring of 5,000 people with disabilities into the public service, for example. That will include people with episodic disabilities.

We will have a very inclusive definition of what “disability” means. The standards that will be set under the legislation will also provide really important protections for people with disabilities generally, and again, that includes people with episodic disabilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

MP Sangha, please.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks very much to our witnesses for this valuable input.

My questions will be for Ms. Wilcox or Mr. Johnson. Either one or both of you can answer.

Regarding the CPP, the Canada pension plan, as you have already told us, it's contributory. You pay into it and you get it. It's like insurance. In terms of a disability, you've already explained the criteria for and definition of disability: four out of six years for the term and medical conditions that are severe and prolonged. The conditions are required to be severe, such that they cannot perform any type of job, and prolonged up to their death.

I've been chairperson of the Canada pension plan review tribunal and have faced this type of problem many times. We would want to give an order that the disability benefit should be given to the person who was coming to us and making his or her statement, but the definition was so stringent that we were able not to grant it.

At this time, what I feel here is that you are looking for certain changes. You want to see the committee bring changes into the definition or the criteria, but you have already told us that is not possible because of the two-thirds majority and how the federal, provincial and territorial governments are all involved in it. What are you looking for in how to restructure this system so that the maximum benefit can be provided to persons with these types of disabilities?

[Kris Johnson]

I would clarify my earlier remarks if they were interpreted as being that we can't change the definition. Definitions certainly can be changed. They are changed in federal acts. The particular governance for the CPP is unique amongst many other programs. I just want to make the committee aware that if you are recommending changes that are considered major, they are subject to that governance protocol. Certainly the definition of disability within the CPP would be a major change. The provincial and territorial governments would have to be involved in making that decision.

To your broader question of what other changes we might look at, I did mention earlier that people with episodic disabilities can and do get approved. We want to make sure to avoid the kinds of situations you were talking about, where people have to go through multiple levels of appeals to get their benefits granted. If someone is suffering from a disability, they do get approved if their periods of wellness are not frequent enough or they don't have enough capacity to work or it's not reasonable to expect them to go on and off of work. We want to make sure that people have the best understanding of the program and the best opportunity to provide us with that information.

We have been testing some new methods. We're increasing phone communication between Service Canada personnel and applicants to make sure they understand what might be helpful when providing the evidence, so that they do meet the definition. We've updated our guidance and training. All of our decision-makers are medically trained personnel. Those are some of the administrative measures we're taking to try to make sure that the definition is applied consistently and fairly.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

When anybody's suffering from an episodic disability, they go for the treatment and part of the time they are okay whenever they are on treatment. If they now come for disability benefits under CPP, they can't qualify because it's not severe. They are okay when they're on medication. How can that stigma be overcome so that they can be provided with benefits under CPP?

[Kris Johnson]

It is very difficult when you're talking about something that's so personal and where it's hard to see into the future. You're right that someone will be denied if it's more likely than not that they will be able to go back to work. Since the CPP was built, there has been an underpinning in the philosophy that working is what's best for persons with disabilities. If they're unable to, then CPP is there to help them until they reach the normal retirement age.

For some people, the treatment improves, something else in their life improves, or they find an employer who's more understanding. For those individuals, we have a number of provisions in place to help them. There are not a lot of them. About 1% of our beneficiaries a year actually return to work sufficiently enough to get off of CPP altogether. If that situation does arise, we provide three-month work trials. We have automatic reinstatement provisions. We have fast-track reapplication provisions and vocational rehabilitation. We are trying to put in some of those provisions. We have had those provisions for quite some time for people who may, in fact, improve and may be ready to go back to work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

MP Ruimy, you'll have just under four minutes.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you, everybody, for being here today. It's interesting. From your opening remarks, it seems like we're already making some progress with some of the steps that we've implemented.

I'm a data guy. I'll be curious to see the data that comes out about episodic disabilities, which will be available in 2019.

This is the challenge. I'm an ops guy. When you want to fix something, you have to look at the whole program. You have to understand what the variables are and where you move from there. One of the big challenges, or dangers, is having knee-jerk reactions: Let's throw this in there and let's throw that in there.

Our world is changing. Episodic disabilities are becoming more the norm. The stigma is.... Because we're actually having these conversations now with Bill C-81—the accessibility legislation—that brings the norm there.

The question I have is on the current EI program. Canada pension disability is not a lot of money, so I don't know if that's a great answer to begin with. With all of these changes out there, can we work within the EI program or do you think it's time to do a major overhaul of the program?

[Andrew Brown]

I think there's an awful lot that can be done within the program, which is separate from certainly what I've heard around the committee this morning, the call for broader reform. It's important to keep that in mind, because often changes within the program could be brought about more quickly than something that is broader in scope.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

When you look at the definition, you see there are quite a few. I know a lot of folks who have challenges like bipolar, for instance. Right now, when you look at the definition of Canada pension disability, you see it's actually very narrow in its scope. You have to have all these bad things happening, and likely you're going to die in the near future. That's the definition there. That's not what's happening out there.

Each disorder has its own criteria and we need to establish what that criteria is. How would that work? How would that impact the system? How would it impact the employees, the workers and so on and so forth?

[Andrew Brown]

Maybe just to respond to that—and it may be a bit on Kris's program there—it's not that you're dying, but it's severe and prolonged in terms of the disability.

In terms of EI we're absolutely at the opposite end of the spectrum in the sense that it's very easy—provided you have the hours to qualify—to access EI sickness. It simply requires a note that indicates you're unable to work, and we don't require specific information on the nature of that inability to temporarily work. Some of the work we are undertaking right now is to understand better what is happening. That's information that we're trying to get at through evaluation, and we expect there will be results available next year.

We're trying to understand better what some of the conditions are that workers have when they're taking EI sickness benefits. We're trying to understand whether they are successfully returning to work following their time off and receiving the EI sickness benefits. Those are things we are trying to get at to understand better how it could be better tailored to workers today.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Jumping in, we're now opening that field up to so many different definitions of episodic disabilities. You had mentioned for every one-cent increase in EI, you get $170 million back.

How are we going to figure out where we sit? How much do we actually need in our EI system to be able to fund a broader spectrum of disabilities?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

We're out of time, but I'll allow a very brief response, please.

[Andrew Brown]

I guess it's very broad in terms of being able to access it right now, regardless of the condition. I think the question is, what is the duration that would be available to workers? As the duration increases, costs increase.

The other thing to remember is that EI is based on the premise of a person who is able to work, broadly speaking. The longer this duration gets, at a certain point there's a question about how far the EI program, which is about working people who are contributing to that fund, should go. There's a tension at one end versus the other.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much. I'm afraid I do have to step in. We are out of time this morning. I'd like to thank all of you for appearing before the committee on this first session.

Thank you to my colleagues, and of course, the folks to the left and right, and the folks in the booth, and everyone else who makes today possible.

Thank you very much, everybody.

We're adjourned.