Human Resources Committee on Dec. 4th, 2018

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Let me first make up for something I forgot, and thank each one of you for contributing to our committee’s work.

Mr. Stapleton, Mr. Prince, I agree with you that, if there were a guaranteed minimum income, we would be asking all these questions very differently.

I would like to go back to the longer sickness benefit payments that could result if the calculation were by day of episodic disability, not by week. Along the same lines, we talked earlier about employment insurance. Those figures are based on the fact that 60% of those who contribute to the employment insurance fund are not eligible for benefits. Another obstacle to the eligibility, which also applies to people with episodic disabilities, is that prerequisite of a 40% reduction in income. If we do an analysis by gender, we see that, right off the bat, 34% of women and 52% of men are ineligible for benefits. So, in my opinion, we first have to solve the eligibility problem. What is your opinion?

[John Stapleton]

I'll start.

EI is a program that has a threshold of eligibility, and if you don't meet the threshold of eligibility, then you're not going to be able to get the benefits.

The reason I started out by mentioning 10 different disability systems, 10 different bureaucracies and 10 different definitions of disability—even multiple definitions within the programs—is that each of these various silos is very interested in what the others pay out.

As Deborah pointed out, she was going to receive benefits from the one, but they're not only interested in the definition, but also the pedigree of the disability. Did it take place in the auto accident, or did it take place on the job, or did it take place somewhere else? There are all these questions that get involved in the essential bureaucracy.

Again, in mentioning the idea of some sort of basic income, if we could somehow combine or disentangle these 10 different bureaucracies that came in at various times with different definitions and different concepts of what a disability is, there has to be, as part of that, at least some sort of reckoning, maybe some massive saving within the system, if we were able to disentangle ourselves from these definitions of pedigree, and each one that overlaps with and deducts from the other.

Going back to Deborah's testimony and the idea of getting CPP, if she finally does get benefits from the Ontario disability support program, then her CPP will be deducted at 100% from those payments.

There's often the idea that the programs, in the end—especially for people who are living in poverty with disabilities and with episodic disabilities—become destitution-based. When they're destitution-based, they're very, very complicated. I think the eligibility requirements, at a minimum, are overly complex.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

[Prof. Michael Prince]

Before we look at something like a national guaranteed annual income or basic income in our own lifetimes—and in your own terms as MPs—I think we need to look at things like the disability tax credit.

The idea that we do not have right now a clause under the legislation that exempts people from re-examination for permanent disabilities should be low-hanging fruit. CRA should work with medical practitioners and health associations to develop specific criteria for people who have lifelong conditions, and then figure out a way to embed that in the administrative decision processes of the CRA so people are not put through a humiliating and frustrating experience.

That should be at Veterans Affairs, at the CRA, and it should be elsewhere as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you, sir.

MP Diotte, go ahead, please.

We're starting six-minute rounds again.

[Kerry Diotte]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Patrycia, it's interesting when you talk about your struggles to join.... I believe it was the RCMP or the EPS. Are there any emergency forces right now where somebody with episodic disabilities would qualify, or are you a persona non grata?

[Patrycia Rzechowka]

The interesting thing is that.... I did apply to the RCMP. If I had followed through with it, I believe it would have been potentially easier to get on with them, but I also would've had to make the decision about moving away from my family, which is my support system in case I have a relapse that is more serious. I would need to be near them, so I made the decision to pull back from the RCMP.

In the Edmonton Police Service, from what I've heard anyway, a certain group of people in human resources and in recruiting had the view that it was just a liability and that, according to the provincial standards, either I was completely disqualified or I wouldn't.... I think it was the doctor's decision that I wouldn't be able to handle the job for 25 years. That was what it was based on.

It was fascinating to me, because can you guarantee that anyone can handle or be...? What happens if you get hit by a bus? You're going to need certain supports. What if someone gets cancer? No one thinks twice about that. It's that idea that potentially I might need a little extra support at a certain time. I don't think they could comprehend it that way. It was seen as nothing but a liability.

I've heard since then that there are different people in recruiting and HR. It might be possible for me to get hired now, but at the same time I feel as if I would be looked at as if someone did me a favour, that I only got on because I was complaining. It would be a difficult place to work with people who don't want you to be there, whereas my current employer has tried their hardest to keep me where I am. I have moved on from the service. I work in policy around policing. I manage to still live out my dream in a different way.

I think it really depends on what understanding those who make the decisions have of episodic disability. One person might be more open, and another person might be totally closed to it.

[Kerry Diotte]

This is a broad question for everybody. Feel free to chime in.

I guess there are certain levels of frustration, obviously, with programs, with being accepted in society in general. What things can we as a committee do today that would make life better tomorrow?

Lembi, go ahead.

[Lembi Buchanan]

You can be hugely helpful right now. All you have to do is ask CRA to follow the legislation, the Income Tax Act, in how they administer the disability tax credit. The 90% threshold that's in all the forms now, which was introduced in 2012, is not legal. It is illegal, and it's not supported by the courts.

[Kerry Diotte]

Does your organization have any legal action on that?

[Lembi Buchanan]

No, we don't. I founded the Disability Tax Fairness Alliance—Michael Prince was one of the first people to step in and support the alliance, and he is a member—just to reinstate the disability advisory committee that had been disbanded in 2006, so we can not only advise the minister, but be a bit of a watchdog in how the policies are changing.

What has happened? It was great in 2005. Things were rolling along very nicely, but ever since the RDSP was created, there has been a cutback in eligibility for DTC. It has been more difficult. I am absolutely appalled that Deborah had to reapply after three years, and has been denied.

[Kerry Diotte]

Does anyone else want to comment?

[Deanna Groetzinger]

I think you have heard some really good, practical solutions. What I hope might come out of this committee is to look at the lack of continuum among the programs—well, maybe systems, not programs.

When someone finishes EI, they're basically back to work or there's nothing for them if they don't have private insurance. What is needed is to really look at that continuum from the point of view of a person living with an episodic disability, not from the point of view of the system or the program, and just carry it through on an individual basis. I think that would be an interesting exercise. It would really point out the gaps faced by people living with episodic disabilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You have no time left, Mr. Diotte. I'm sorry.

Mr. Ruimy, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you very much.

I have to point out that this is not a partisan issue. I know that my colleagues on the other side have tried to suggest that it's a partisan issue. It's not. We haven't even talked about what happened in previous governments. I haven't brought that up.

Where I do agree with Mr. Barlow is that we have to look at the money, because the money is what suggests whether we can sustain the programs. The 90% you were referring to, the doctors' notes—the system is what it is. Last year, all benefits paid out to Canadians totalled $117 billion. That's a lot of money. That's not something where you could turn around and say, let's flip a switch and do this, or let's flip a switch and do that. We need to be able to look at this entire program and start to ask questions.

This is not to say that because you have some challenges we don't want to think about the money. As a country, we need to be able to take care of our people. But this is where we're at today. The outcome of this study would likely bring in.... Mr. Prince mentioned the low-hanging fruit, and I talked about the low-hanging fruit, some things that we can fix today. But how do we look at the entire program?

With the new accessibility legislation, part of their mandate includes episodic disabilities. People on the board who have lived experiences will make up the majority, so I suspect we'll start to see a change in some of the cultural mindsets, which needs to happen, and some of the suggestions that will come forward.

Clearly, the struggles you go through, Deborah.... I mean, we heard about it for the parents who've lost a child: “Sorry your child is dead. You owe us money.” That's where the system is today. What do we have to do to move forward? I think we need an entire overhaul of the EI program. Yes, when you're spending $117 billion, that's a lot of money. We heard that, for every cent EI goes up, the equivalent comes out to about $170 million.

Is there an opportunity to do that? Absolutely there is. But if we're just taking potshots at this, people are going to fall through the cracks all day long. We can't do that. We need to do a proper consultation. We need to ask the right questions. We need to bring in people with lived experiences. We need to go back to CRA and ask some of these questions about the doctors' notes. We need to be able to do all of this. But that's part of a much larger program.

I do want to talk about the registered disability savings plan, because I'm kind of confused about this. I understand you can put money in, but at some point, if you're no longer disabled, you can't access the program. Can anybody help me out here?

[Deborah Lovagi]

Yes.

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

Go ahead, Deborah.

[Deborah Lovagi]

I've just been denied, sadly, so I know all about it.

Because I have been denied this disability tax credit, I am no longer legally allowed to own a registered disability savings plan. I must close it. Any monies that have been given to that registered disability savings plan by the government will have to be repaid.

Thankfully, as my government didn't give me any money—I was over 49, so I didn't qualify for their grant—I don't have to pay any money back. However, I am now forced to close that account. I can no longer legally own it.

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

Thank you, Ms. Lovagi.

Ms. Buchanan, go ahead.

[Lembi Buchanan]

I want to add that the government makes contributions in the form of grants and bonds. I represented an individual with autism in a Tax Court case. He had $58,000 in a registered disability savings program. He had been getting the DTC since 1990, and then he was denied in 2015. How crazy is that? Anyway, the government does not only claw back contributions. During all that time he was disabled, any interest income he made in that plan will be taxed the year the plan is closed. This is double jeopardy. Fortunately, the tax court recognized that this was crazy.

This is happening. Ever since the RDSP, if you look at the statistics, it's more and more difficult to get the DTC.

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

Absolutely, we need to know the numbers. If all of a sudden the 90% dropped down to 50%, what would that do? We have to be able to prepare for that.

[Lembi Buchanan]

I made a submission, but I will also send the numbers when I get back home.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you all for coming. You were great.

Madam Sansoucy is next, to finish this off.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier, we were talking about best practises elsewhere in the world that could help us. Would it be appropriate for the Library of Parliament to prepare a briefing note telling us what the Canadians working at the International Labour Organization in Geneva could teach us? One witness talked about the experience in the Netherlands, which could be instructive. I think that could be useful for our committee.

My question goes to you, Ms. Rzechowska.

We could make recommendations to help companies better accommodate and retain employees with chronic illness. The government itself could be a model employer. If I understand correctly, you said that you have helped to prepare guidelines to that effect. I would like to know more about that.

As a result of your experience, could you tell us how the federal government could be a model employer and how we could make companies more aware about hiring and retaining those with episodic disabilities?