Status of Women Committee on March 12th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Committee, I call the meeting to order.

I'd like to welcome Carmela Hutchison. She'll be with us this morning. For those who have been on the committee before, she's a familiar face and we welcome her back.

I'm sure the new members will enjoy hearing from you as well. I'll now turn it over to you for your 10-minute presentation.

[Carmela Hutchison, President, DisAbled Women's Network of Canada]

Good morning, everyone. I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you. I also want to acknowledge the Haudenosaunee people on whose traditional lands we are welcomed here today.

As some of you do or don't know, it was short notice, so I hope to be prepared and smooth. I'm going to quote heavily from two reports, because I think they are very succinct and speak very much to many of the issues. Then I'd like to make some anecdotal comments, and also some comments with respect to EI and the NGO industry and labour in general. Then we'll conclude.

At this point, I just want to talk a little bit about the statistics. The people who are the most impacted by EI regulations are people who are newly disabled and people with episodic disabilities. People who are newly disabled, if they don't have access to short-term disability benefits, will find themselves needing to access social assistance programs within the province and EI medical as the initial step when they need income support and they don't have employer benefits.

Twenty per cent of all Canadians will experience an episode of mental illness in their lifetime, and that is basically is one in five; two million Canadians have diabetes; 63,000 Canadians are living with HIV; and four million Canadians are affected with arthritis and other rheumatic conditions—and those numbers are expected to double by 2020. As we can see, this issue affects tens of thousands of people, and so that's a very important thing to know. Basically, the whole premise of what happens is very interesting.

The first report I'm quoting from is called Navigating the Maze: Improving coordination and integration of disability income and employment policies and programs for people living with HIV/AIDS—A discussion paper. In here, they talk about some of the statistics with respect to employment insurance. Some of the things surprised me a little bit. Basically, a disability can, of course, last longer than the benefits that employment insurance provides—30% of EI sickness benefits recipients exhaust all their 15 weeks. So more than 30% of people are sick for longer than 15 weeks.

For people living with HIV/AIDS and other disabilities such as multiple sclerosis and mood disorders, the episode of inability to work can last longer than 15 weeks. And then, according to the 2004 EI monitoring and assessment report, 10% of all the people who used all 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits received CPP disability benefits afterwards. This finding suggests that 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits may not be enough.

At this point, it is unknown how many of the claimants who exhaust EI sickness benefits may not have a package through their employer that would provide the income support for the period of time there was CPP de-coverage and the extended health benefits needed, such as medication and rehabilitation services. Whether it's CPP disability, EI, or a provincial social assistance program, and even some of the best programs, which would be like DB2 in British Columbia or AISH in Alberta, which is assured income for the severely handicapped, or ODSP in Ontario—those are specific provincial plans for people with disabilities—none of those achieve LICO. So people are, right at the get-go, having a lot of expenditure and not the income to meet it. That's one of the things that are really quite important.

An excellent policy paper as well is Canadians Need a Medium-Term Sickness/Disability Income Benefit, by Michael J. Prince. It's from the Caledon Institute of Social Policy. He has an excellent analysis of all the benefit plans for people with EI and the CPP disability. On page 21 of that paper, he has several recommendations.

He has proposed an EI sickness benefit that would be extended so that the population coverage would be EI clientele, virtually all employed persons. The eligibility entry would be 600 hours of insurable work. The definition of disability would be “Continuing serious illness that results in a 60% loss in earnings capacity”. Rehabilitation and employment services are partly in place but would be expanded. The income replacement rate would be on the EI basis of 55% of weekly insurable earnings. Benefit duration would go from 20 to 35 weeks beyond the existing sickness benefits, so you would be looking at 35 weeks. This would be administered through HRSDC, through the EI program.

The second proposal is a medium-term income program that would have EI or CPP clientele covered. The eligibility entry would be 600 hours of insurable work. The definition of disability would be “Chronic illness or disability that results in a 60% loss in earnings capacity”. Rehabilitation and employment services would need to be linked with expanded services in EI regular and special benefits. The income replacement rate would be on the EI basis, 55% of weekly insurable earnings. The benefit duration would be 50 weeks maximum over a two-year period. Again, the federal department of HRSDC would be seen as the administrating body for that.

His last recommendation is for partial disability benefits within CPP itself. This would cover CPP clientele, which is virtually all employed persons and the self-employed. The eligibility would be contributions to CPP in four of the last six years. The definition of disability would be “Partial disability of a prolonged nature” and “Modified concept of severe so as to incorporate a continued partial capacity to work”. Minimal and voluntary vocational rehabilitation in place would need to be expanded and with regular assessments. The modified CPP basis is 60% of the earner's wage loss up to an average income ceiling. It's paid until the recipient returns to full-time work; until disability ends, the condition worsens, and the recipient qualifies for full CPP disability benefits; or the recipient turns age 65. Again, that would be administered through the federal department of HRSDC through the CPP program, and provinces would have the option to create a similar and autonomous plan.

Those are the three recommendations. As I sat on the plane last night, I was really thinking about this, and I want to toss out fourth and fifth possibilities.

The fourth possibility would be a guaranteed annual income for all citizens, which I know is not a new concept. It's certainly something that has been around, but maybe it's worth considering. If people had a basic stable income that allowed for a minimum standard of living and every citizen had access to that, perhaps it would not be such a major crisis when people were in a situation where they'd lose everything if they became ill.

The other is about covering some of the gaps we encounter. There's more and more focus on part-time work and contract work, and neither of those really pays benefits. So maybe there should be tax incentives to employers to pay benefits.

There also needs to be some way for people who are self-employed and people who are working on contract to make some kind of contribution. Let's say it's a $10,000 contract, and the employer who hires that person must pay 10% towards CPP or EI. That's one of the things we see a lot in the NGO industry, and I know it's in many other industries. It's particularly difficult in ours when we don't have the ability to pay benefits. We're facing a situation right now where we have one employee who will be eligible for EI medical, but another who was working on contract has nothing to resort to.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but your time is over. Do you have much left in your presentation?

[Carmela Hutchison]

No.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Okay, we can get your comments through the questions then.

[Carmela Hutchison]

Absolutely.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much.

We will go to our first round of seven minutes with Madame Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming, particularly on short notice. We appreciate your making the effort to do that.

I have lots of questions. You certainly do fall through the cracks in a whole host of ways.

You promoted two options of your own and three that came from the Caledon Institute. In your last one you talked about EI benefits for the self-employed, and we've been talking about EI benefits for the self-employed related to maternity and parental leave. But I'm hearing you say to extend it much beyond that. That certainly requires looking at.

Of the three options you presented from the Caledon Institute, in your mind and your experience, working where you do, what merits would one have over the other? Which one would be preferable, or what are the merits of each?

[Carmela Hutchison]

Of the Caledon ones, option two is probably the best quick win option for the government to implement. The reason for that is that 600 hours of insurable work is more achievable by people with disabilities than the four or five years of continuous work it would take to qualify. It would at least give a year of benefits, which is better than nothing. If these were my only three choices, I would pick option two for that reason.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Do you have any additions or modifications to option two? You say that reluctantly. Can option two be enhanced, from your perspective?

You said that for 30% of people on EI, benefits run out while they're ill. Do you have any actual hard numbers on EI exhaustees? How many go on the Canada Pension Plan and then go back to work and accumulate EI? I guess I'm looking for a cycle.

[Carmela Hutchison]

I don't think there's any on a long-term cycle. The first paper I quoted from doesn't really say who has ongoing benefits. They basically say that 30% of recipients of EI sickness benefits exhaust all 15 weeks. Then 10% of those go on to CPP disability, but they don't know who goes on to long-term benefits.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

You're saying we don't know who goes back to work and reaccumulates.

[Carmela Hutchison]

That's right.

The other modification would be in here. When they've got the benefit duration, it's 50 weeks maximum over a two-year period. If you have an episodic disability such as multiple sclerosis, you could quickly exhaust your 50 weeks over the two-year period. Then, what happens in the third year?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Madame Zarac, you have three minutes.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you.

You've mentioned that 15 weeks is not enough. I imagine you're welcoming the five weeks that the budget is presenting now, but will another five weeks be enough, in your opinion?

[Carmela Hutchison]

Five weeks probably won't be enough. I think that when most people start on a disability process, they usually end up at six months and then try again. Sometimes it doesn't work out, so I think it definitely needs to be longer than 20 weeks.

The other thing that's very important is the enhancement of medical benefits and people having access to those benefits.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Could you talk to us about the impact of not receiving EI? What is the impact? Is it that you can't afford your medication? Can you give us more details?

[Carmela Hutchison]

People can't afford medication. If treatments are not covered, they can't afford them. The first thing that happens immediately is that even on EI, income goes to 60% of what you were making. Right away you're into your rent, your car payment, or your children's activities. You're into all those things, so you're immediately at risk. A drop to 60% of the usual income for somebody in Calgary would put that person at immediate risk of homelessness.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Would it affect also your condition? Do you think it also affects your condition?

[Carmela Hutchison]

Yes, the stress definitely has a tremendous impact on the condition. For somebody with diabetes who is required to follow a diet or do regular testing, lack of access to those things would have severe health impacts.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

You talked about a quick fix, a quick way to implement that would be very easy. Could you give me more information on what could be done very quickly?

[Carmela Hutchison]

I think option two would be the quickest win from the EI standpoint. If you're looking beyond that, then definitely there was some talk about pharmaceutical plans, and I know that provinces are implementing them. If there is any ability for the federal government to assist the provinces in doing that or in providing enhanced health benefits, those would be some of the greatest things that could go forward. Disability support, home support, and that kind of support work are all essential.

Another very important thing would be for government to make it so that there's cooperation and one level of benefit doesn't negate another. That way, if someone is eligible for CPP disability and they're on AISH, instead of deducting dollar for dollar, let people at least achieve the minimum of LICO with a combination of both programs. That would be another very quick win that could be achieved like that. I know in my own--

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

I'm sorry, but I have to interrupt you there. The time is up.

We'll move on to Madame Demers, please, for seven minutes.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good day, Ms. Hutchison. Thank you for coming here. First of all, can you tell me what the acronyms AISH and LICO stand for?