Social Security Reform

"We need to build a social security system that works for people. It should create opportunity, not dependence. It should invest in people, not programs. It should encourage mutual responsibility, not over-reliance on the system. It should put people’s needs first."
-- The Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Human Resources Development Canada

It is widely accepted that the social security system in Canada is in need of comprehensive reform. Two factors have contributed to the urgency of the need for reform of the income support and social services systems: First, the systems do not meet the needs of the people whom they serve, nor do they contribute to the realization of our social goals as a society; and second, governments are yielding under pressure to address short-term fiscal issues by cutting back the social security system and reducing the role of government to accommodate the market.

The social security programs and policies that have been established over the past 40 years have evolved to be uncoordinated and fragmented. By attempting to solve problems as they arose and developing programs to address particular issues, a system with no overall coordination or coherence has emerged. Set in the context of a changing labour market and economic restructuring, the need for reform is urgent. Economic growth has slowed significantly since the 1950s and 1960s. More and more people are falling into the welfare system as a result of the structural changes to the Canadian and world economies. Their skills no longer meet the needs of the labour market.

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
People with disabilities are poor. One survey found that 63 per cent of people who have a disability have an annual income of less than $10,000. Only five per cent have an annual income of more than $30,000. These numbers demand that we ask why people with disabilities are living under these conditions. One obvious answer is that they do not have jobs. Many are not even in the labour market. If people with disabilities were participating at the same rate as everyone else, more than half a million people with disabilities would move into the labour market.

At least 25 per cent of the federal government’s $7-billion annual welfare budget is spent on programs for people with disabilities. Provincial governments are spending at least as much. This represents a significant portion of the social security budget which is implicated in the proposed reform.

A comprehensive reform of the social security system will directly influence where people live, whether they work, what they do in their leisure time, their income and whether they have access to training and education. People with disabilities receive support in a variety of ways: attendant services; group homes; vocational services; social assistance; unemployment insurance; technical devices; and other services which differ from one region of the country to another. Many individuals and their families believe there are better ways to provide support and that existing systems and services do not meet needs.

The current programs which are cost-shared by the federal and provincial governments often require that people with a disability be on welfare in order to have access to supports related to their disability such as modified housing, supports in managing personal affairs such as household chores and budgeting, and medical costs such as prescription drugs. Current rules keep people with disabilities dependent because they cannot have any savings or plan for their future without losing their benefits.
CONTENT
"Improving Social Security in Canada," Axworthy’s discussion paper, is divided into three priority areas: working, learning and security. Each of these areas of proposed reform has implications for the lives of people with disabilities.

1) SECURITY
The section of the paper on security lays out potential long-term and short-term reforms. In the short term, it highlights the need for reform of the Canada Assistance Program (CAP). CAP was established as a comprehensive plan for federal cost-sharing of provincial welfare programs and to promote the development of social services. The pressures for reform include the fact that CAP does not provide the flexibility which provincial governments find that they require in meeting people’s needs, and the fiscal restraints which both levels of government face.

The short-term option for reform of CAP proposes changes to the provisions of CAP which create more flexibility for provinces. For people with disabilities, the implications of reforming CAP relate to the adequacy of the supports which they need, the appropriateness of those supports and the fairness of the distribution of those supports.

Separating access to disability-related supports and services from eligibility for income assistance is proposed as a longer-term approach for the reform of the way in which people with disabilities receive the supports they require. The discussion paper cites this proposal as "a starting point for public debate and discussions among governments." The "portability of supports" from one environment to another and the "removal of disincentives to employment in existing programs" are also identified as areas for potential reform.

2) EMPLOYMENT
"Improving Social Security in Canada" identifies employment development services, which are intended to help people find jobs by providing training, counselling, career planning and Unemployment Insurance, as targets for reform. Reform of the generic unemployment system and employment development services could significantly impact on the supports that people with disabilities receive. The discussion paper also highlights the need to ensure access to these programs for people with disabilities, and points to the "Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act" as an area for potential reform. This act is a federal program that provides funds to provincial governments for programs that are intended to integrate people with disabilities into training and employment programs.

3) LEARNING
Related to the federal government’s role in the promotion of post-secondary education and job training, the discussion paper outlines several issues regarding the effectiveness of existing programs and the accessibility of those programs for a wide range of people. The federal cost-shared program which block funds post-secondary education is targeted for reform.

For people with disabilities, access to post-secondary education and training is an especially critical issue. The options for reform proposed in the paper relate to methods of financing and fair access. The paper raises questions about how the federal and provincial governments respectively can improve the school-to-work transition, make learning more portable and promote learning, new technology and international educational opportunities.

DEBATE AND DISCUSSION

"Mainstream ’92" established a consensus in the disability community on the policy areas which need to be reformed (covering the additional costs of disability; addressing the poverty of people with disabilities; ensuring the availability of social services and other supports consistent with the equality and citizenship rights principles; and helping to remove the barriers that prevent the realization of equality and citizenship rights principles). The social security review is an opportunity to move the issues forward and to affect real change. The Axworthy discussion paper highlights some particular questions for people with disabilities.

The comments that follow are the individuals’ opinions and do not necessarily reflect the positions of their organizations.

REACTION

1) What is your reaction to Minister Axworthy’s agenda for reform and how it frames the issues of disability?

The Canadian Association for Community Living (CACL) is optimistic about Lloyd Axworthy’s attempts to reform Canada’s social programs. We are encouraged that many of the issues which we have raised are reflected.

People who have a disability have known for a long time that the income support and social service systems must be reorganized to encourage participation. Welfare systems as they presently exist do not provide adequate or appropriate supports. Yet reform of the systems which provide for disability-related supports alone is not sufficient. The adequacy and structure of the income security system must be addressed to encourage participation rather than perpetuate exclusion. The added disadvantage in the labour market which people with disabilities face must be compensated through an income support system which is guaranteed, adequate and flexible.

There are several proposed reforms which are of concern to CACL. As a result of the added disadvantage that people with disabilities -- and people with intellectual disabilities in particular --face, the proposal to create a two-tiered unemployment system would create serious barriers for people who have a disability. Many people who have a disability have tenuous attachment to the labour force and would be made increasingly vulnerable by the proposed reforms which are intended to target frequent users of the system.

The discussion paper also highlights the need to ensure access to employment development programs for people who have a disability and points to the "Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act" (VRDP) as an area for potential reform. CACL’s position on VRDP has been that if the generic systems are accessible and inclusive of people who have an intellectual disability and others who have been marginalized, then programs such as VRDP are redundant. A system that is designed to accommodate all people will be more effective in achieving self-determination, democratization and equality, and it will also be more efficient. Other systems such as health care, the labour force and housing must be made accessible to people who have a disability, and reforms of these systems should regard issues affecting people who have a disability as central.
-- Paulette Berthiaume, President, Canadian Association for Community Living:

While the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy’s recent discussion paper appears to recognize the economic repercussions of disability and shows sensitivity to some of the issues concerning persons with disabilities, we question the degree of commitment involved in the proposed agenda. Programs for "Employment Development Services" for persons with disabilities, for example, are linked with the government’s success in drawing funds from the Unemployment Insurance program. In essence, the reform agenda can be seen as pitting one disadvantaged group against another.
-- Gail Fawcett, Research Associate, Canadian Council on Social Development

My reaction is one of concern. When I look at the reorganization within the department of Human Resources Development, some of the discussions with provinces on labour force development agreements, and the inter-provincial trade agreements, I see people with disabilities moving further and further from the mainstream. While a certain amount of time and energy focusing on government will be necessary, advocates and lobbyists need to align themselves with representatives in the private sector. Business, labour, educators at the community level can be part of effective coalitions to address issues in a practical, responsive way.
-- Joan Westland, Board Member, Canadian Labour Force Development

Basically, it is very long overdue. For many years, everybody was talking about full integration and participation, but since the entire social security system was not enabling in itself, there was no way this ever could have been reached. Mr. Axworthy is wise enough to realize this. The system was oppressive and patronizing, and it ensured that people with disabilities remained the poorest of the poor -- and yet billions of dollars were going into the medical and rehabilitation industry. If this government is truly committed to integration, which I believe it is, then it has absolutely no choice but to reform this system. Mr. Axworthy’s a very brave and rare politician, one who will take a risk like this. It is a big risk, but I think it’s going to pay off.
-- Traci Walters, National Director, Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres

With the enactment of Section 15 of the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," the principle of equality is constitutionally recognized as a fundamental value to which all levels of government are bound to consider in the process of governing.

Our key recommendation is that the federal government must consider its legal obligations under the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" before reshaping the current social security system. Specifically, the guarantees of equality in Section 15 of the charter must be fully addressed before new legislation is implemented. It is disappointing and surprising to note that the federal government’s discussion paper does not even mention the principles in the charter.
-- Canadian Disability Rights Council, Speaking Notes to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development

Axworthy’s paper was very empowering for people with disabilities. A lot of people have said that they like his articulation of the principles, but they found that he was short on specifics around solutions. Our association views that as being a real commitment to the consultation process. People with disabilities have been saying all along that we want to be part of the solution. It will be up to us to point to some specifics, and certainly that’s what our association has done in a document, "Working Together: Citizens with Disabilities in the Canadian Commonwealth," which we’ve just released.
-- Eric Boyd, National President, Canadian Paraplegic Association

2) Specifically, what do you think about the "short-term" and "longer-term" options for reform of supports and services for people with disabilities?

CACL fully endorses the Canadian Disability Resource Program (CDRP) as a basis for reform. By providing people with the supports they need, this proposal would enable people to take jobs. By redirecting the dollars that are currently spent on services and giving more control to individuals who have a disability, current inefficiencies would be eliminated.

One of the major reasons that people who have a disability are excluded from participation in the labour market is that in order to qualify for the disability supports that they need, they must be attached to the income support system. Even if a person who has an intellectual disability is working, they may earn enough to cover the cost of their basic needs, but require some additional supports because of their disability, e.g. for budgeting or household planning. They cannot get those supports unless they qualify for welfare. By providing the disability-related supports which people need outside of the welfare system, people who have a disability will no longer be forced to stay on welfare. In addition to these built-in disincentives to participation, there are enormous administrative and policy inefficiencies in the existing ad hoc approach.

The Canadian Disability Resource Program outlines a program which would 1) demonstrate how disability-related supports could be taken out of the welfare system and 2) replace the existing myriad of disjointed and uncoordinated programs and policies that are added on to mainstream programs for people who have a disability with a comprehensive national program which compensates for the cost of disability. The program would give more control to individuals who have a disability by giving them the money to purchase the kinds of supports they want and need. All people who have a disability would be eligible to receive supports. In addition, the proposal outlines what is called a community allocation. This ensures that communities are able to supply the services people want.

The section of the discussion paper on security lays out potential long-term and short-term reforms. For people who have a disability, there are significant risks associated with the short-term option, which proposes changes to the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) that create more flexibility for provinces. Without ensuring the establishment of federal standards, changes to CAP will result in further decreases in the adequacy of the supports people receive, lack of assurances regarding the appropriateness of those supports, and risk to the fairness of the distribution of those supports. Without a comprehensive system in place, it would be ineffective and possibly dangerous to tinker with existing programs and policies.
-- Paulette Berthiaume, President, Canadian Association for Community Living

We applaud the intention expressed in the discussion paper to promote independent living for persons with disabilities. In particular, we are pleased to see that the government is proposing the deÄlinking of disability-related supports and services from eligibility for social assistance. However, we would like to see more discussion about increasing the control of persons with disabilities over decisions regarding disability-related supports and services.

The discussion paper also mentions "the substitution of community-based programs for outmoded institutional care." While we wholeheartedly support the exploration of innovative ways of offering persons with disabilities more options for independent living, we are concerned that a move to community-based programs may also imply the off-loading of responsibility onto ill-prepared lower level governments or community groups.
-- Gail Fawcett, Research Associate, Canadian Council on Social Development

Talking about the economic gains of integrating or including people with disabilities as contributors to the community rather than recipients of good will is not a new idea. If the federal government is sincere in its commitment to resource the community-based approach, then block funding to provinces is one option as opposed to the current CAP system. However, block funding could end up feeding systems and programs and not people. There is also a danger that it will widen the gap between "have" and "have-not" provinces. Block funding that is not designated to individuals and delivered in an equitable, standardized manner is simply a buy-out.
-- Joan Westland, Board Member, Canadian Labour Force Development
First, I agree that portability of supports should be targeted. Canada boasts about its human rights standards, but when a person with a disability in this country cannot move from one town to the next because they can’t access services, there is no equality. Lack of portability creates "disability ghettos." People with disabilities cannot live where they want to live -- they have to migrate to cities and be housed in particular apartment buildings in particular accessible units. Most people don’t realize that if you develop a disability, you cannot stay in the country because you cannot get the services that you can in the city.

Not attaching services to welfare and unemployment is also long overdue. Right now, if you work, you cannot access any services. But in order to be able to buy these services, a person with a disability would have to earn at least $70,000!

As for the innovative Independent Living models, I don’t know how often government would go out on a limb testing pilots like this. It’s wonderful, because it’s the only way it can be done. I think this government has confidence in itself; I don’t think they would do this unless they were confident.
-- Traci Walters, National Director, Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres

Most of the recommendations that CPA addresses in its document fit within the context of something Axworthy has said in his paper. An example is the whole issue around supports and the separation of cost of disability from income. We have put forward specific "how to" recommendations. They may be different from what another organization says, but that may not be that important. What is important is that our principles are getting closer and closer together. We certainly support separating cost from income as an option. But we don’t support it as a long-term option -- we support it as a "now" option. We’ve made recommendations as to how that can happen, using instruments that are already in place.
-- Eric Boyd, National President, Canadian Paraplegic Association

3) What role should the federal government play in ensuring the economic and social independence of people with disabilities?

In the context of increasing pressures for governments to become smaller and less intrusive, it is especially critical for the federal government and Minister Axworthy to establish federal standards which will be used as benchmarks in the achievement of social well-being. It is important for the federal government to play a strong leadership role in the delivery of services and supports for people who have a disability. Experience has shown that where dollars transferred to the provinces are substantial, the federal government is able to maintain some national standards. For people who have an intellectual disability, the services they receive and have access to vary significantly from one part of the country to the next. In order for people who have a disability to participate in the economic and social life of their communities, supports must be responsive, accessible, portable and equitable.

Reforms could significantly change the lives of people with intellectual disabilities. CACL is concerned that this opportunity for reform not be lost as a result of struggles for jurisdiction. In order for the proposed reforms to change effectively the way that people are supported to participate in the economic and social life of their communities, there must be significant federal leadership through funding-sharing arrangements that ensure national standards.

While it is important to acknowledge the difficulties associated with achieving federal-provincial agreement on mechanisms for shared costs and issues of jurisdiction, the CDRP proposal accommodates the need for provincial flexibility and allows for federal leadership. This is not a question of jurisdiction; it is a question of equity. By eliminating administrative duplication and inefficiencies, reforms should ensure that the dollars being transferred will be sufficient to ensure equitable and adequate supports.
-- Paulette Berthiaume, President, Canadian Association for Community Living

The federal government needs to take a leadership role in attaining equality of opportunity and full-citizenship for persons with disabilities. This would entail overhauling the present service-delivery system, providing persons with disabilities with more direct decision-making power over supports and services, and attempting to coordinate programs with the provinces with an eye to achieving greater equality of treatment for persons with disabilities across Canada.
-- Gail Fawcett, Research Associate, Canadian Council on Social Development

The government currently is completing its "National Strategy on the Integration of People who have a Disability." In terms of initiatives and projects, the strategy can point to some positive results. Certainly the allocation of targeted resources to the Disabled Persons’ Participation Program has meant that activities have increased and disability issues gained some profile. If the government does not launch a long-term strategy with specific goals and objectives, negotiate policy implementation and program support with provinces, or hold itself accountable for the further promotion of the rights of people who have disabilities, we can expect a future of sluggish progress and few leaps of success at the federal level.

However, putting too high an expectation on the government at a time when government is trying to unload its responsibility is not realistic either. In the current situation, we could look to the federal government to set policy, provide direction, determine national standards and monitor activities.
-- Joan Westland, Board Member, Canadian Labour Force Development

It’s critical to have national standards in place. We all live in one country, but depending on your region or province, your entitlements are totally different. If people are to reach equality here in Canada, everybody in every town has to be assured the same goods and services as the next person. And wherever this government puts taxpayers’ dollars towards people with disabilities, people with disabilities should be well represented, whether it be on boards, committees or their staffs. It seems that the government keeps pouring money into this industry but, up until now, they have never really asked people with disabilities if their needs were being met. Wherever their funding goes, the government should put down in the criteria that there is participation at all levels of the decision-making process.
-- Traci Walters, National Director, Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres

The development of social welfare policy for people with disabilities should be examined within the large social, economic, political and historical context of disability social policy, which provides important information. For instance, the discrimination inherent in social welfare policies which require persons with disabilities to be classified as "unemployable" in order to obtain disability-related social services is not apparent until the social and economic costs of such categorization to the individual are recognized. The government must ensure that any new social policies resulting from this current review of social programs address the discrimination faced by people with disabilities in this society. It must also be seen to enhance the equality rights of people with disabilities.
-- Canadian Disability Rights Council, Speaking Notes to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development

The government must be really committed to the concept of consultation and involving other people in solutions. As far as people with disabilities are concerned, there will probably be a loud cry that we want to have a part in the detailed process. For example, the social security reform document talks about the need for changes in the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. Yet the bureaucrats are already designing the solutions, and we don’t agree with the solutions that are being designed. If they would come right out and say, "We want to do something," create some consultation and get people involved in the solution, they’d end up in a win-win situation.
-- Eric Boyd, National President, Canadian Paraplegic Association

For more information about social policy reform, to obtain copies of publications, or to submit your comments to the minister, please call 1-800-735-3551.