HUMA Committee Report

This report focuses on near-term improvements to the Canada Pension Plan Disability program that the Subcommittee believes the federal government can — and should — make. Our recommendations include a host of administrative and program modifications aimed at making the CPP(D) program more flexible and responsive to the needs of Canadians. We realize that the implementation of many of these recommendations could entail additional resources. According to our testimony, a majority of online participants and witnesses are willing to pay for these changes.¹³³

In addition, both our witnesses and participants in our online consultations raised other issues — medium and longer-term — that need to be tackled by Parliament and by the government departments responsible for setting CPP(D) policy. Some of these are mentioned throughout our report, others we have not discussed in any detail. These have not been forgotten or dismissed and we believe that they require further study. The Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities will continue its work on CPP(D) and proposes to initiate another study that looks at these questions in greater depth.

8.1       Should CPP(D) be Delinked from CPP Retirement Benefits?

Despite an apparent willingness among contributors to pay more to improve CPP(D) benefits and programs, it is important to note that CPP contributions do not distinguish between contributions earmarked for retirement benefits and those intended for disability benefits. It is important to be able to differentiate between these two objectives to facilitate future CPP(D) reforms. Many return-to-work incentives, for example, cannot be implemented without some kind of separation of disability and retirement contributions. As Michael Prince pointed out, the Canada Pension Plan Disability program has long been the “poor cousin” in the CPP system. Given the changing demographics and the ongoing evolution of the circumstances surrounding disablement, we believe that CPP(D) needs to be considered on its own. And in preparation for our continued study of longer-term CPP(D)-related issues, we suggest that the Department of Finance prepare a background document outlining the various financing options that could be considered in the context of a more inclusive and integrated CPP(D) program.

8.2       Making Disability Income Benefits Work for Canadians

The need to develop a more integrated and effective income and disability support system remained a constant theme throughout our study.

… We are looking for national leadership. Without it we will … probably continue to tinker to the point where the mobility rights of people with disabilities become further eroded … You will not move across this country to accept other jobs, to be closer to family or friends, or just to explore a different part of this great country. You will live, if you have a disability, within your environment, within a specific geographic region in which you've established eligibility and where you can get to work, get to school, meet your friends, and do those kinds of things. There is a huge big-vision challenge here, and I don't pretend that advocacy associations have all the answers on this. … Let's not inflict further harm on people as we explore that broader vision. What we see is having to fight battles where harm is inflicted upon people, people who are not presently anywhere near being assured of equal citizenship in this country. (Laurie Beachell, National Coordinator, Council of Canadians with Disabilities)¹³⁴

But we're looking right now at the income security system and its adequacy. … Do current programs enable people to pay for basic needs? … Then if we look at other needs, or the additional cost of disability, we try to deal with them in another way. So conceptually, what we're dealing with today is this income security system. … I want to say I use the word “system” advisedly; it's an undeserved compliment in the sense that it doesn't really work as a system. There are many different pieces to it that don't work together, as you know. Primarily it's because your eligibility is based mainly on the cause of your disability. So you may have the same level of functioning as somebody else, but you receive an entirely different level and set of benefits, and you're living under entirely different circumstances because of the cause of your disability. (Sherri Torjman, Vice-President, Caledon Institute of Social Policy)¹³⁵

Could we think about the possibility of designing an income security system and a services support system that never uses the word “disability”, or at the very least doesn't require categorization of human beings as either disabled or not disabled? (Michael Mendelson, Policy Analyst, Caledon Institute of Social Policy)¹³⁶

… consider looking even more boldly, farther afield and farther ahead, and to undertake considering recommending a new disability income benefit, or a refundable tax credit, and to link this with the national strategy on disability supports. I think a comprehensive approach like this is essential to your work to address the issues of categorization … and the longstanding and well recognized fragmentation in the current systems of disability income and support. And if we really mean it, a comprehensive approach is essential to advancing the vision of full citizenship that has been expressed over the last five or six years in intergovernmental agreements, both by the Quebec government on its own and by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, through the “In Unison” documents. (Michael Prince, Lansdowne Professor of Social Policy, Faculty of Human and Social Development, University of Victoria) ¹³⁷

Before suggesting ways of moving forward, we feel that it is necessary to gather more evidence from private insurers, workers’ compensation boards and provincial/territorial social assistance authorities across the country. Would a single point of entry allow the provinces and territories to integrate the delivery of CPP(D) and their income security programs, similar to the way that the disability income programs are currently delivered in Quebec? How could this be done without limiting the federal government’s ability to control costs and to maintain the principles of the CPP(D) program?¹³⁸ This would enable all levels of government to refer individuals to a single point of service where information and application assistance would be provided and only one medical evaluation would be required. We envisaged that this model would involve substantial coordination and cooperation between the federal and provincial/territorial governments, but could raise concerns about privacy due to the transfer of personal information between programs and levels of government.

It is time for government and the private sector to begin working together to develop a disability income and support system that results in single entry characteristics and improved levels of support to better serve one of this country’s most vulnerable segments of the population. As we discussed in Chapter 6 of our report, the interface between CPP(D) and other disability income and support programs is, at best, wanting and we believe that there is great deal of potential for improving how these programs interact.

Recommendation 8.1

The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance and the Department of Human Resources Development collaborate in the preparation of background documents that can be provided to the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities by 1 November 2003. Officials from the two departments will be asked to appear as witnesses to present the results of their research. The background documents should :

Recommendation 8.2

In order to monitor the implementation of the recommendations in this report, the Committee recommends that for the next five years, the Departmental Performance Report of the Department of Human Resources Development Canada contain a section setting out progress in addressing our recommendations.