Human Resources Committee on Dec. 6th, 2018

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

This has been going on, I would imagine, for a long time. It's not a partisan issue, in the sense that all governments.... It's been around for a long time.

The question I keep coming back to is whether we need to do that, or is there a better way to do it? I don't want to say people are going to cheat or anything like that, but a system has to be able to justify itself. If you took those 90% off, again the impact on whatever programs are there would be incredible, massive, so what is the answer, then? If it's not getting your doctor to sign off, if it's not getting all these forms, what is the answer here?

[Maureen Haan]

I can't really talk to the disability tax credit, but as far as the system is concerned specifically around CPPD, for example, I know it's trapping people. Even the application form traps people. It tries to fool people. It's not transparent. The application form is not transparent by nature. It asks questions about work, but they're subjective questions and they're subjective answers.

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

I have a very short question.

Here's the problem that I'm seeing, and you all mentioned it.

Tammy, one of your recommendations was interjurisdictional. If the federal government does something, there's an expectation that it flows through. This becomes part of the problem, because we're a patchwork of mental health care or health care across this country, and some will recognize and some will not recognize. I see this as being one of our challenges in how we move forward, not taking a knee-jerk reaction to anything that we see and saying “Okay, here's $50 million; you're done. Thank you very much Go away.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Make it literally a 10-second answer, please.

[Dr. Monique Gignac]

It is complex. It takes more than three meetings.

You raised the health care system. That's a big issue here. Doctors aren't prepared and trained to do this well. They struggle with this, and not all people can get to them, and not all episodic disabilities are an illness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

MP Morrissey is next, please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

In the testimony that's been given before this committee on this particular motion this morning, all five of you have identified three issues the committee must grapple with in responding to the motion. One is the definition of “episodic disability”. That is not coming out clearly. People are speaking around it, but there's not been a lot on defining episodic disability.

What is the best support program? We focused on CPP, which doesn't appear to fit, because CPP was designed for long-term disability. That's its mandate, its core responsibility, and the most you deviate from that is for several years of the disability and then you rehabilitate into the workplace.

Workplace education has come out a lot. We need a better understanding from the employer of episodic disability.

We've identified three critical issues confronting people with episodic disabilities, but I would like to hear clear instructions or clear testimony to the committee on the definition.

Ms. Furrie, I like the term you used, that we currently “operationalize” the word “disability”. It sounds bureaucratic.

[Adele Furrie]

Well, I was a bureaucrat.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Oh....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That would be critical, and then finding the best support.

Also, I believe it was Ms. Yates who said an interprovincial working group was developed to study support programs besides EI. Everybody's been focusing on EI, and to a lesser extent on CPP, because that is outside the hands of government. That is a program that's only partially, or very little, controlled by the Government of Canada. It's administered by the provinces, the private sector, employers. This whole focus is on a long-term retirement pension and disability pension. Then it comes to EI, and the only thing besides EI is the income support administered by provinces.

I would like to get your comments on what you recommend to the committee on how we more clearly define an episodic disability so it may fit more into the operationalized theme of the word. I deal with a lot of them on the tax credits, and there's so much of a grey area. Even when you're on EI, there's a grey area. Some doctor may interpret it right and you're okay, and another doctor might not, so that's where I'd like to begin.

My colleague here questioned extensively on EI. If we're going to put more demands on the employment insurance system of this country, then it's incumbent on us to identify how we're going to pay for it. Some of them are okay. Some very good and constructive testimony was given in giving flexibility on the 15 weeks into more of a day.

I would like your comments on that. I know it wasn't a question, but I've been listening to a lot of the testimony. It's very compelling, but I'm not clear on what I could recommend.

[Adele Furrie]

I can start with the operationalization of the definition of “disability”. That is taking the definition that is currently in the proposed accessible act, parsing it and looking at each of the words. I'll use the CPPD as the example.

CPPD has a very clear definition of what a disability is. They define what “prolonged” is. They define “severe”. If we all agree that the definition in the proposed act encompasses “episodic”, then as a community of academics, researchers and parliamentarians, we need to look at the words “permanent”, “temporary”, and “episodic”. These are the three words that are currently proposed in the definition. We need to come up with a clear definition of what those words mean and then give that to the statisticians and the people who work with questions on a regular basis and get them to operationalize that definition.

I did this. I came before a committee when they were looking at the definition that was embedded in the DTC, the disability tax credit. I took them through that process, saying that this is what you need to do in order to have a clear definition of what “episodic” means.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

[Adele Furrie]

Right now we're using “limitation in activity”. We're looking at both “frequency” and “intensity” as part of the definition for “episodic”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you so much.

MP Barlow is next.

[John Barlow, Foothills, CPC]

I appreciate the testimony today. It's really great that all of you have brought some good solutions and recommendations, which is certainly much appreciated.

Over the last couple of days, we have heard quite a bit of pretty heartfelt testimony, in terms of being able to navigate the EI system, whether that's CPP.... Even in Bill C-81, as we were going through that process, we had lots of people....

There are four different windows to go through. We were really trying to push for one door in. The response we had from the officials was that people can go to any of them, and we'll figure it out and make sure they get to the right place.

My feeling in regard to people with disabilities is that we shouldn't make it harder. Let's try to find a way to make it easier, so that they can access those programs.

I have only a couple of minutes, so I'll try to be quick. What is your vision in terms of making it easier to access the programs we have in place already? Tammy, you look as if you're ready. What is your suggestion to make that easier?

[Tammy Yates]

I think it is recommendation two, of the three long-term recommendations that I made. Well, maybe it could be recommendation three.

Anyway, the individualized funding model, in terms of that one-door approach.... I think Newfoundland has transitioned to an individualized funding model. It's not a program policy funding model whereby you go to this particular program for this and you go to that particular program for that; it's the individual. The money is assigned to the individual. That is what I would recommend. Newfoundland has a template.

[Dr. Emile Tompa]

As a more immediate solution, something like the Service Canada model would be really helpful. There would be one place for entry with somebody who could direct you to the program you qualify for. It wouldn't require changes in the program, just somebody to help navigate the system.

[John Barlow]

That's great. Thank you.

My colleague Pierre Poilievre brought forward the opportunity act earlier this year, which I thought was an outstanding opportunity for us to make a very tangible difference very quickly.

That would ask the Department of Finance to put some results out there. Many of you have said today that the harder people with disabilities work, the less they're taking home, because their social programs are being clawed back.

Is this a program that we should look at again? Unfortunately, it wasn't passed through the House. I think there's an opportunity there for us to make a real difference. Would it address some of these problems if there was legislation in place that ensured that if somebody with disabilities made more money, they were not going to get a clawback on their social programs?

[Tammy Yates]

I think it definitely would, but I also want to emphasize that apart from the clawback in terms of income, many people are also concerned about the loss of drug benefits.

[John Barlow]

Medication would be included in there, for sure.

[Tammy Yates]

Yes.

[Maureen Haan]

In the conference that we were hosting over the last few days, we did talk about the portability of income supports throughout provinces. I know there are jurisdictional issues that are not easy to solve, but workforce development agreements are useful for that, and I think it's important to prioritize what happens within those workforce development agreements to be able to make sure that programs are at least similar across the country, with the same outputs and the same outcomes.

[Dr. Emile Tompa]

I just want to emphasize the point about decoupling the income and other types of support. A lot of people are very afraid to leave the program because they really need the pharmaceutical and other types of supports, so they don't want to go beyond that maximum income level because of fear of losing the supports.

[John Barlow]

There's no question that we want to reward you if you want to work, and certainly my experience is that people have much more self-confidence and feel better about themselves if they are working and being rewarded. The harder you work, the more you should get paid.

The other question I had has to do with the flexibility of the EI system. We've talked about increasing the number of weeks. There has been some discrepancy in that, but I think one of the things that most people can agree on is not having to take the 15 weeks but being able to break it up into different portions. What would be the ideal system for that?

I think, Tammy, did you mention hours? Is that a certain number of hours a year? How would you envision that?