House of Commons Hansard #111 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was amendment.

Topics

Statutory Instruments ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is the House ready for the question?

Statutory Instruments ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Statutory Instruments ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Statutory Instruments ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Statutory Instruments ActAdjournment Proceedings

June 4th, 2003 / 6:10 p.m.

NDP

Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity tonight to ask the government side about an important issue which I raised a couple of weeks ago in the House. This is the issue around a CPP disability case for a Regina man named Mr. Foster. I want to raise it again in hopes of coming to some sort of understanding of the government's actions in this case.

Basically, here it is. Mr. Foster is a 60 year old man from Regina who has been unable to work since having two strokes in the late nineties. After four years of denied applications, appeals, poverty and illness, Mr. Foster finally was advised that the review tribunal had accepted his appeal, yet incredibly he has been told by her department that it will overturn the appeal.

Mr. Foster worked for 32 years as a caretaker of an apartment building before suffering his strokes, and he contributed to CPP throughout that time. He first applied to CPP disability in 1999 but was rejected, saying that he could still do light work. His next appeal in March 2001 was denied, citing lack of new evidence. Mr. Foster then tried to get a neurological assessment but it would cost $1,000, which he could ill afford.

At this point, Mr. Foster already was quite discouraged. He started the process in 1999 and about two years later he was not much further ahead. His wife had severe diabetes and they were living off her disability income, which was not enough. In 2000 they were forced to declare bankruptcy. His adviser was worried because Mr. Foster's mental capacity was starting to deteriorate.

Finally, after a cognitive screening by an occupational therapist, which essentially stated he was unemployable, Mr. Foster's appeal was accepted on February 10, 2003. After almost four long years, Mr. Foster finally got what he deserved in the first place, namely his CPP disability, except that Mr. Foster was advised recently that the minister would try to overturn his successful appeal with no explanation. It is the explanation that I am hoping to garner today.

Perhaps the details of this case seem tedious but I outlined them to show the lengthy and unnecessary process which persons with disabilities are forced to go through. I wish I could say that this case is unique, an anomaly, but that is just not true. The one uniqueness of Mr. Foster's case is that he persevered in his appeals for four years, thanks to the support and persistence of his adviser and his family. Most applicants do not have the strength to go that far, but it should not be so difficult to obtain this support in the first place.

Will the minister explain to me how it is that her department has come to the conclusion that Mr. Foster does not deserve the support of the CPP program, a program into which he has paid throughout his working life in the sincere hope that he would never have to access it? Why on earth is the department denying this man what is rightfully his and to what he is entitled?

Statutory Instruments ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Shefford Québec

Liberal

Diane St-Jacques LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dartmouth will understand that, for reasons related to privacy, I cannot comment on this individual's case. However, I can confirm that, last year, less than 2% of applications for leave to appeal to the Pension Appeals Board were made on the minister's behalf.

The Canada pension plan disability benefit represents an extremely important part of Canada's social safety net, and it provides handicapped Canadians who are unable to work with income support until they are entitled to their retirement pension.

Each year, we pay benefits totalling $2.8 billion to 280,000 persons, as well as to 90,000 of their children. We know that severely handicapped Canadians face challenges. Our goal is to provide disability benefits to each eligible individual who applies. Only those applications from individuals who do not meet the eligibility requirements set out in the Canada pension plan are turned down.

The Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities has undertaken an in-depth review of the Canada Pension Plan Disability Program. I want to thank the subcommittee for this work and for its broad consultation with Canadians, because the government is looking forward to studying this report as well as the suggestions and recommendations it contains.

As the program's administrators, it is absolutely imperative that we make sure that decisions are founded in law. Only when a serious error in law has been made do we seek the authorization to appeal a decision made by a review tribunal in favour of a client.

In addition, the determination of eligibility for CPP disability benefits is a complex process requiring the careful assessment of many factors. To ensure that their decisions are fair to the client, the CPP staff often has to request additional medical information, which may further delay the processing of applications.

To encourage those eligible to apply, we must enhance the understanding the public has of the Canada Pension Plan Disability Program. In recent years, the approval rate of initial applications for disability benefits has increased. In 2001-02, we approved 38% of all initial applications, compared to 32% in 1999-2000.

We will continue to ensure that all clients who meet the program's eligibility criteria are treated equitably and receive the benefits they are entitled to.

Statutory Instruments ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS

Mr. Speaker, I understand the confidentiality of a particular case but I want to make the point again that this man, Mr. Foster, spent four years in a very vulnerable, very ill condition of disability, trying to work his way through the system. At the end of that period, he won a review tribunal appeal. At that point, it seems to me that it is up to the government to respect the decision of the tribunal and to give this person, who is in a very vulnerable state, the assistance that he needs.

If we cannot be there for people who are severely disabled, then this program is a sham. It is not working. Clearly we need to ensure that it is working for Canadians. It is not working now. I hope that message is being sent loud and clear.

Statutory Instruments ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Diane St-Jacques Liberal Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, to urge eligible people to submit an application, we have to do better to make the public understand what the CPP Disability Program is.

Allow me to explain what we are doing to help the public. We are working with private insurers and doctors, who direct their clients to the Canada pension plan, in order to give them specific information on eligibility requirements.

We are also sending, to more than 26,000 general practitioners, guides that outline the medical conditions required for disability benefits. We also phone applicants to explain our decision in their case before we send them a letter.

Again, we are going to continue to ensure that all our clients who meet eligibility criteria are treated fairly so that they may receive the benefits they are entitled to.

Statutory Instruments ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.)