Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, Mr. Chairman, members, staff and fellow guests.
I'm going to talk about disability income programs this morning. I will look at 10 programs, or 10 systems. I'll say them slowly, in no particular order: one, the RDSP, with which you're all familiar; two, the Canada workers benefit; three, the disability tax credit; four, EI sickness; five, the Canada pension plan disability; six, social assistance in all the provinces, with special programs for people with disabilities; seven, workers' compensation; eight, veterans programs, for which there are large programs in place for veterans with disabilities; nine, workplace programs that are paid for by the private sector, so programs that are not government programs; and, finally, number 10, which is auto insurance.
If we look at the income security landscape from 10,000 feet, we see that there are 10 different systems. I wouldn't even call them programs. More and more—and I think we saw it just a couple of weeks ago—disability income programs have tended to reimburse or pay for a disability, as opposed to looking at the whole person and providing income support for people with disabilities.
It's a subtle distinction. We used to talk about “the disabled”. We no longer do that. We talk about “people with disabilities”. That's when we can start to think more comprehensively about the idea of episodic disabilities and how they fit. In other words, you may be asymptomatic one day, and you might be in a wheelchair and unable to walk the next day.
Disability income programs have had trouble with that over the years and over the decades. They want to see that permanent, significant disability that's in place for a prolonged period of time, for at least a period of several years. This means that a lot of people with episodic disabilities actually don't qualify for benefits, because they can't meet that standard.
That's particularly what I want to recommend today. We really need to look at it holistically. I wouldn't just restrict my comments to federal programs. Let's look at federal, provincial, and also at the private sector. Let's look at what they do. Rather than having 10 different complicated definitions of disability, let's look at trying to have some convergence so that we can bring coherence to these programs.
It's easily said, but not easily done. However, if we had the type of review of disability programs that I'm calling for, we would be able to look at those definitions that particularly leave out people with episodic disabilities.
There are three attractions for what we call a guaranteed annual income or a basic income for people with disabilities. The first is that programs would not be work-triggered. In other words, we would look at programs as a matter of right. Second, we would not place time limits on them. One of the attractions of a basic income is that it's not time-limited, regardless of how all these experiments have gone. Third, they would be adequate.
Right now, most disability income programs are not permanent. They have time limits, like employment insurance, as Michael just said. Workers' compensation generally restricts itself to two years. Veterans programs are not necessarily permanent, and certainly workplace programs that used to observe a much longer period of time generally restrict themselves to two years.
Disabilities are not on any schedule. They don't observe time limits, but our programs do, and that's where we need to be more flexible.
Most disability income programs are triggered by work. You have to get them based on work. That's EI, CPP, veterans, workplace programs and workers' compensation. They all get paid after you've worked. If you haven't worked, you don't get them.
Not everyone has worked, so they can't get these programs, and in many cases they must go on social assistance. Social assistance over the years and even now is becoming the largest single set of programs that people with disabilities have to rely on. In many cases, that's unfair. They have to deplete their asset; they have to deplete their incomes. You might hear a bit more of that this morning.
People who get work-triggered programs often get inadequate benefits, because if you're a person with a disability, you likely have not paid the maximum into that system over the years, so you're going to get much less money. That's why people are attracted to a basic income, as it's not work-triggered.
I know we've talked a lot about Bill C-81 for the last little while, but I am going to mention in closing Bill C-87, which has now received first reading, but I'm just going to mention it in closing. It targets 20% poverty reduction by 2020, and that's going to be done. I think the government will meet its targets by changes that have been put in place for seniors, with the guaranteed income supplement, and for children through the Canada child benefit.
Over the next 10 years, we have to reduce poverty by 50%. We use a swimming pool analogy. We talk about shallow poverty, and we talk about deep poverty. That's when we're going to have to get into the deep end. It seems to me that Bill C-87, as a poverty reduction act, is cause for a comprehensive review, which I would call for in terms of people with disabilities. We need to remove them from poverty by 2030 and be able to marshal the resources into all of the programs, all of those 10 systems, to bring about the sort of change that we could get. It would be inclusive of people with episodic disabilities. There's no way we're going to get to that 50% by 2030 without having that as a big part of the process.
Thanks very much.