Thank you, sir.
Good morning, everyone. It's nice to be back, although I say that somewhat ambivalently, coming from Victoria. The weather is a bit of a waker-upper.
I'm going to focus in my opening remarks specifically on the employment insurance sickness benefit program. I'm happy to talk about other programs and other issues later on.
I want to make five basic points around EI sickness benefit, not only in terms of people with so-called episodic disabilities, but also for other Canadians with whatever kinds of disabilities we may wish to call them, who are working.
The first point is to extend income protection. As members know, there's a 15-week maximum duration period for EI sickness benefit. That's been unchanged since the benefit was first introduced in 1971. Unlike almost every other feature of EI, including all the other special benefits, which have had their periods extended or durations expanded, this one has been left unchanged since 1971.
Canada also has one of the shortest periods of sickness protection among industrialized countries. In fact, there are only a few countries with such a modest coverage of protection. As members know, approximately 35% of EI sickness benefit clients each year exhaust or use up all 15 weeks of their benefit. That represented about 135,000 people in 2016-17, which is the most recent figure available.
The first point is to improve program coverage by extending coverage to the equivalent of 26 weeks, as with other special benefits.
The second point is to enhance accessibility and program flexibility in the take-up. This is to again recognize the episodic or recurring, cyclical nature of disabilities to allow eligible claimants to access their entitled benefits over a longer time period than one year, and to access them in chunks of time, over say, a two-year period.
The third point is to give greater emphasis on individuals. This means more of a client-centred approach to the delivery of services—what we sometimes call a case management approach—providing continuity of service to clients. This would include a greater emphasis by the EI program on early assessment, identification of health conditions, and the consideration of supports and interventions earlier rather than later.
Where appropriate within the EI and ESDC mandates, it may also more likely involve referral on health issues earlier on to other, more appropriate authorities—federally or provincially—to alleviate longer-term problems or prevent them from getting more serious. This could also involve advice to employers on job accommodation and workplace adjustments. The focus there would be on both the capacity of the individual—not just on their inability—and on the trajectory of their likely episodic or other disability conditions.
The fourth point is to encourage work capacity or potential: keeping people employed when appropriate and where possible, with on-the-job supports. This would also involve perhaps reviewing the 50% marginal tax rate on earnings that people experience while they're on EI sickness benefit. Above the so-called “earnings threshold”, any money earned right now is deducted dollar for dollar. That's a 100% marginal tax rate.
Clearly, we can send a different signal of work incentives and encouraging employment where possible. It's shifting the emphasis of the program from looking at the inability and incapacity to work, to recognizing the intermittency of their conditions and the periodic capacity to work.
The fifth and final point would be to review the medical certificate used in the EI sickness benefit program and the policy and procedures around it. This would include, to be very specific, paragraph 18(1)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act and section 42 of the EI regulations.
This would also include looking at the content of specific forms. I'm sure my colleague Lembi will be talking about the forms around the DTC later on.
The concept of probable duration, where a physician or other medical practitioner has to give their best professional opinion as to what the probable duration is of the incapacity to work due to illness or injury, needs a review if we're truly going to incorporate the concept of episodic disabilities into the medical assessment and certification. The medical certificate also gives emphasis to the language around inability to work, as opposed to partial capacity to work and intermittent capacity to work.
I think if we shift the culture, we shift the attitudes and we signal stronger work incentives.
Clearly, that kind of review of the medical certificate would involve consultations with health professional bodies in this country, disability organizations, and EI program staff of course. It would also draw on the research and analysis branch of the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada.
That's it for EISB. I'm happy to talk about other policy tools within the federal government's tool kit around how to advance better equity and opportunity for Canadians with episodic disabilities.
I'll leave it there. Thank you.