Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Banking, Trade and Commerce
Issue 4 - Evidence - January 29, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, January 29, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce met this day, at 4:23 p.m., to study the ability of individuals to establish a registered disability savings plan (RDSP), with particular emphasis on legal representation and the ability of individuals to enter into a contract.
Senator Irving Gerstein (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon. I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce to order.
Today the committee is holding its fourth meeting as part of its study on Registered Disability Savings Plans, or RDSPs, with particular emphasis on legal representation and the ability of individuals to enter into a contract for the purposes of opening an RDSP.
Just to refresh our memories, since it's been a little while since the committee has met, in December the committee heard from the Minister of State for Finance, Mr. Kevin Sorenson, with officials from the Department of Finance; the Council of Canadians with Disabilities; the Canadian Association for Community Living; and Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network. The committee also heard from the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the BMO Global Asset Management.
Today the committee is going to hear from both the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, CNIB, and the Ottawa branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
I'm going to ask Mr. Marc Workman, the national manager of advocacy for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, to address the committee first, to be followed by Ms. Nelson, the president of the Ottawa branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association, who is accompanied by Mr. Tim Simboli.
I'd like to turn the meeting over to our witnesses. Mr. Workman, the floor is yours.
Marc Workman, National Manager of Advocacy, Canadian National Institute for the Blind: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you as well to the other senators for this opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of CNIB.
CNIB is a registered charity that, for nearly 100 years, has been providing services to individuals experiencing vision loss. Our mission is to provide community-based support, knowledge and a national voice to ensure Canadians who are blind or partially sighted have the skills, confidence and opportunities to fully participate in life.
CNIB is a strong supporter of the Registered Disability Savings Plan. The RDSP is an innovative program that will help ensure that people with disabilities can live comfortably and with dignity as they get older.
However, as this committee has heard, the issue of legal representation has meant that some Canadians face a choice between foregoing the RDSP or going through the process of being declared legally incompetent and having someone named as their legal guardian, which is often a time-consuming process.
For most CNIB clients, the issue of legal representation does not present a problem with establishing an RDSP. Vision loss alone does not preclude someone from entering into contracts with financial institutions — although I will say it is, of course, crucial to ensure that any materials related to entering into a contract are provided in a format that's accessible to the person with vision loss.
That said, blindness is sometimes coupled with developmental disabilities that can raise issues of legal capacity. For example, a study in the U.S. showed that 28 per cent of children diagnosed with significant and uncorrectable vision loss between the ages of 0 and 3 also had a developmental disability. So nearly a third of children who are essentially born blind are also developmentally disabled. CNIB is thus concerned with ensuring that the clients we serve, for whom legal capacity may be an issue, are not forced to make the choice between foregoing the RDSP and being declared legally incompetent.
To address this issue, CNIB would like to endorse the proposal that was put forward by the Canadian Association for Community Living, CACL, and the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, CCD.
This proposal was initially presented to the Department of Finance in 2011, and it was discussed again in December in front of this committee.
CACL and CCD are better able to explain the details of the proposal, but just as a quick reminder, what's proposed is that the federal government establish a form — and this is important — related exclusively to the RDSP, whereby a person with a disability could appoint one or more qualifying persons to become joint RDSP account holders. In situations where the person with a disability is unable to give direction, one or more qualifying persons may be self-appointed as account holders so long as a third party who is a professional attests to the nature of the relationship to the person with the disability.
This proposal eliminates the need to choose between not opening an RDSP and being declared legally incompetent. It's also national, which means that individuals are not forced to jump through different hoops depending on where they live, and financial institutions are not forced to deal with a patchwork of legislation across the country. It's a proposal that can be adopted relatively quickly, at least when compared to implementing similar solutions province by province.
Lastly, this solution promotes the supported decision making that is required under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the federal government, with the support of all provinces and territories, has ratified.
CNIB believes that the solution proposed by CACL and CCD is the best way to deal with the issue of legal representation and ensure greater access to the RDSP for those it was designed to assist.
I want to thank you for this opportunity again, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Workman, for that presentation. Ms. Nelson.
Karen Nelson, President, Canadian Mental Health Association, Ottawa Branch: Thank you, chair and committee members, for this opportunity to contribute some perspective on the Registered Disability Savings Plan and the ability of individuals with serious mental illnesses to utilize and benefit from the RDSP.
First I'd like to describe for you the population that CMHA Ottawa serves. We serve more than 1,000 individuals in Ottawa who live with serious mental illness and complex mental health problems, who often have co-occurring substance use problems and co-morbid physical health problems. By definition, they have had a diagnosis from a psychiatrist or physician of their mental illness, which has been affecting their lives for a long duration, and the effect has been disabling, the triple-D standard.
In addition, when individuals are referred to our service, they are typically homeless, hospitalized and/or in contact with the judicial system. Most often, they are estranged from their families and isolated in their communities. Many don't have a primary health provider. They are poor; some receive a disability pension or social assistance, and some have no income at all when they start their service with CMHA. A significant number do not have a bank account, a mailing address, contact information, documentation or even basic ID. They may have been incarcerated repeatedly or moved in and out of institutions and temporary supports.
Amazingly, despite how unwell our clients are when we start working with them, only a small percentage would be deemed ``incapable'' under the law. Their poverty, inadequate food and housing, and their isolation all exacerbate their mental illness. Their overall health is amongst the poorest in Canada, with a life expectancy fully 25 years less than the average Canadian.
In addition to the client numbers we serve in Ottawa, an equal number are served in other organizations, but a far greater number are not engaged at all in any enduring or reliable service system. The estimates suggest that there are between 7,000 and 10,000 such individuals in the Ottawa region.
Our clients include the most impoverished and marginalized of Canadians with disabilities, and they are not well served by the RDSP provisions.
When RDSPs were first announced by the federal government in December of 2008, we had hopes that this program, specifically the Canada Disability Savings Bonds, would allow people with serious mental illnesses to improve their future financial state and address one of their fundamental challenges, which is poverty. Our agency was quick to tell our clients and staff about RDSPs; by the spring of 2009, a lawyer on our board had developed an information sheet and given a presentation to caseworkers. More recently, we hosted outside organizations funded by the federal government to deliver information about RDSPs to our clients, families and mental health workers. However, all along, CMHA Ottawa has been concerned about the ability of our clients to access and benefit from this financial savings tool.
Our assumptions have proven correct. We know that public information is not sufficient to make this program accessible to our clients. In the years since the program started, we are familiar with only a few clients who have opened an RDSP. When informed of the number of steps required to access the RDSP and the ongoing requirements for maintaining eligibility, our clients are overwhelmed, skeptical and defeated. Cognitive limitations, fluctuations in their mental illness and lack of stability in their lives make the RDSP process too complex for them.
The Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network has developed a very clear and helpful step-by-step guide for opening and managing RDSPs. It breaks the process of accessing RDSPs into 10 steps and is helpful for individuals with disabilities who do not have significant pervasive mental, psychiatric, emotional or psychological limitations. But for our clients, this is not a simple process; there are many more steps.
Having a social insurance number requires a birth certificate, help with forms and money to pay for these pieces of ID. If the client doesn't have a bank account, they are also going to need a photo ID, which costs more money. They need to find a bank where they can open an account, where accounts are affordable, and where the banking environment is welcoming. Then they need to get the Disability Tax Credit form filled out, and this is dependent on if they have a doctor, if they have money to pay the doctor to complete the form, and if the doctor knows how to properly fill in the form; then they may be successful in attaining the Disability Tax Credit. Those three ``ifs'' are the biggest challenges in the process.
The Disability Tax Credit form has been a difficult tool for assessing impairments related to mental health disabilities, and doctors are not well trained to properly complete the form. The nature of a person's mental illness and its presentation means that while the illness is pervasive, the symptoms may be episodic, and it becomes difficult to meet the expectations of the Disability Tax Credit each year. One year, a person may be too unwell to even consider a tax return and in a better year might have trouble meeting the criteria. This is the nature of mental illness for many people.
Then there is the income tax filing every year. You can't forget; you can't lose your papers; you have to be able to complete the tax return or find a free income tax clinic that has an available appointment; and you have to feel well enough to pull everything together to get your taxes done. And you have to do this every year, whether you are healthy or not and when the moment comes.
Many of these barriers — access to ID, bank accounts, benefits, income tax filing — are areas that CMHA Ottawa has worked on at both the systems level and the client level to help reduce or remove the barriers. It is our position that individuals living with severe and persistent mental illnesses and complex needs will not have adequate access to RDSPs unless they are provided with more direct assistance. Advertising and promotion of the plan, while beneficial to some, is not very beneficial to our clients, but practical assistance to help navigate the system and meet the requirements has proven effective in similar systems.
We've had success with a similar program we conduct in partnership with Anglican Social Services in Ottawa, Centre 454, which helps people work through the many steps of the Ontario Disability Support Program, or ODSP.
Staff work with the client at every stage, from assisting disabled clients to finding doctors, collecting past medical records, attending doctors' appointments, educating doctors on filling in the forms, helping clients to complete their self-reports, keeping clients informed of the process and helping with appeals. This is a talented, small team that provides a template for exactly what would need to be done to help people access the Disability Tax Credit.
Combine this kind of service with a financial literacy outreach function that accompanies clients, either individually or in groups, to go to banks to set up RDSPs and then, with some follow-up support for income tax filing, individuals will be able to establish and sustain a Registered Disability Savings Plan.
Benefit programs for people with disabilities that do not consider the realities of the people they are trying to help can be inaccessible to the point where they are mere gestures of support. Information opens doors, but practical supports allow the person to enter. Without this kind of support, Canadians with disabilities, like the clients we serve, with no families and many complex needs, will not be able to take advantage of benefits of the RDSP, despite the potential it offers them to improve their financial situation.
Thank you very much for hearing this report from us, and we would welcome any questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Simboli, do you wish to add anything?
Tim Simboli, Executive Director, Canadian Mental Health Association, Ottawa Branch: Not very much. The message we would like to bring is that whenever you're providing services to individuals with disabilities, you really have to consider the disability itself and the limiting factors that it puts on any kind of process.
With our clients, we're dealing with people who may have cognitive disabilities, cognitive inadequacies, but they also have erratic lifestyles. These are folks who, for the most part, are off the grid. To get them on the grid and accessing this would be a tremendous benefit to them and to their long-term health. Our services provide a clinical kind of intervention for these folks, but without the stability of a house or financial stability or medical stability, our work is often simply wasted.
The Chair: Thank you for the excellent presentations.
Senator Black: Thank you all for being here today but, more generally, thank you for the work you do for our communities. It's extraordinarily important to us.
I work from the premise that this program is essential and we need to make certain that any barriers to ensuring communities can access it should be knocked down. That's where I'm coming from.
There are, as I understand it, three potential barriers. You've all touched on them, but I need some help with this, because ultimately this work leads to a report and we want to accurately reflect the needs of the communities. I'll put my concerns out and you can help me, please.
The first point is that there's clearly an access problem for a small community, and the community has been broadened today because I hadn't conceived of those with mental illness, to be perfectly frank. When I was considering disabilities, I was considering physical disabilities. There's a whole community there that cannot, for various reasons, legally access this plan.
As has been suggested by Mr. Workman today, there are proposals out there to broaden this, but the practical problems, or the legal problems, and the proposal that you've referred to today, sir, the Government of Canada form — we've heard evidence that banks have trouble with that, and I can understand that. There's the potential for fraud and there are constitutional issues.
Do you believe that there is a system that you could support whereby, as in British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador, a person who is disabled could nominate a friend or a colleague or someone in a trusted relationship to perform the legal functions necessary? Would that work in your worlds?
Mr. Workman: I'll respond to that first. I think that is the idea with the proposal of CACL and CCD, so I have no problem with that in principle. The challenge is making sure that it's consistent across the country, that it's similar from province to province and that it gives the person with the disability the ability to, like you say, nominate, appoint; it gives them some control over what's going on, as opposed to being declared legally incompetent and giving up all sorts of decision-making abilities. I think what you propose is good. It's just a matter of making sure we get something in all provinces that is consistent, which is the real challenge.
Senator Black: Very helpful. Thank you.
Mr. Simboli: I might add that I think it's a wonderful suggestion. These individuals, in many cases, may be capable of doing some of this some of the time, but in terms of an ongoing ability to do this, it's nigh on impossible for most of the folks we would be dealing with.
The question is going to be whom you name. That's going to be a critical piece. A fairly large percentage of these folks are estranged from their families, so any kind of blood-relative support is simply not going to be there. In some cases not only are they distanced from their family, they're also actually actively rejected from their family.
The other thing to recognize is that a huge percentage of these folks are victims of all sorts of abuse, so being able to rely on an acquaintance is not a positive development. These folks are taken advantage of all of the time. They're physically, financially and emotionally abused. Again, not all of them, but a very significant proportion.
Being able to find someone who can act as a friend at court or a friend in the process, who has a fairly high standard of ethics and diligence and responsibility, if those things can be constructed, then I think it's a very worthwhile suggestion.
Senator Black: Could it be an individual in your association whose role is to be a trustee or an advocate?
Mr. Simboli: It's not something that CMHA traditionally does, but it's certainly something we would be willing to look at. Our objectives and mandates are clearly to serve this population, so being able to assist in some way would be something we could consider.
Senator Black: As I understand the plan, an individual who can benefit from the plan cannot take funds out for 10 years after the last contribution by the Government of Canada. That strikes me as an awfully long time if you need a new chair or you need a new seeing-eye dog or something.
Having said that, now that I've pre-coloured your view, what is your view?
Ms. Nelson: One of the issues is you're trying to help people save for retirement, so you need the money to be invested for a certain amount of time. If people are taking it out right away, it's definitely not going to be there for them in retirement.
Typically the population that we're representing here with serious and persistent mental illnesses could need a chair every week. Their needs are so great all the time that I think a family or a situation that was trying to set up money for this person later on would see the money depleted very quickly. So I understand where this is coming from.
Senator Black: You would support that?
Ms. Nelson: I think it's reasonable, given the purpose of the plan.
Senator Black: Mr. Workman, would you agree or not with that?
Mr. Workman: I agree, given the intent, that 10 years does make sense. You are right that some people would like to be able to access it earlier, but it's aimed at retirement and long-term savings.
Mr. Simboli: May I add, part of the presentation that Ms. Nelson made was the statement that people with serious mental illness have a life expectancy that's 25 years shorter than that of the average Canadian. So for somebody living on the street with a serious mental illness, old age is their mid-fifties. They're not going to be around to enjoy a plan that saves for their retirement that would kick in when they're 65. I think a balance is needed between an effective investment strategy and a recognition that these folks don't have long to live.
Senator Black: What more could governments, organizations, whomever, do to notify populations that these programs exist? Advice on that would be helpful. Seventeen per cent of the eligible population access this plan, which strikes me as very low. What would you do?
Mr. Workman: I think probably having partnerships with organizations like CMHA, CNIB and other organizations that have direct contact with the community is probably the best way of getting the word out there.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you. You certainly bring a new perspective to what we've heard so far.
From your knowledge and your work, what would be the average income of your clientele? You've talked about extreme poverty and poverty.
Mr. Simboli: Yes. For most of the folks that are off the grid, there is no earned income. Our objective is usually to try to get them onto Ontario Works or the Ontario Disability Support Program.
With Ontario Works, the total payment falls 20 per cent short of an average apartment rental in Ottawa. It amounts to probably about $500 a month, maybe a little bit less. The Ontario Disability Support Program payment is a little bit higher than that, and if you use all of your ODSP, you can afford an average apartment in Ottawa.
Senator Ringuette: We're looking at a group of citizens who can hardly meet the basic daily needs of housing and food, so how can we expect that they will be able to save to a plan? This probably leaves out the most in need, notwithstanding all the other barriers, being able to have a bank account. I certainly know how the institutions operate, and I'm not surprised that they would have a hard time getting a bank account.
The basic premise with regard to the program is not there, notwithstanding the fact that because of their monthly income, they can barely afford essential needs. The objective of the program was to provide for the future, and maybe it should be revisited to a program that would look into the immediate needs of citizens. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Simboli: Certainly the day-to-day needs for the populations that we're talking about are huge, and they don't have the income to meet those needs. Part of the work we do is to provide them with some kind of longer-term stability. Even a small amount of stability, a drop in the bucket, is an investment in their future.
These folks are not irrecoverable. A typical experience for us is we will take someone who is on the street with no means of income, possibly living in a shelter, if they're lucky. We will work with them in a process that involves a lot of hand holding. Getting them into a house or a proper place to live is one of the critical things here.
Within about three or four years — it's long-term and intensive — they are able to start to take control of their lives. Getting their illness under control, getting themselves properly medicated and getting good care from a physician can start to deal with some of the immediate problems. Then being able to take whatever income they've got and taking advantage of some of the matching and top-up provisions that are here in this plan starts to give them a little bit towards the future.
In some cases, it's a practical benefit to their lives. In some cases, it's a symbolic benefit. These folks don't believe they've got a future, in many cases. Knowing that they've got something to look forward to, knowing that they've got a life worth living, that they've got a future worth living towards, that is a tremendous tonic to these people. And it's more than just the dollars and cents.
Senator Ringuette: I can understand and I cannot help but admire the continuous work that is required of you. You've mentioned that a church is helping a lot of your clients with regard to the Ontario program.
Mr. Simboli: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: From your perspective, is there an additional organization that works closely with you that could take on this specific program, as one is doing with the Ontario program?
Mr. Simboli: I think there are probably a number of different options in any city in the country. It just so happens that the faith community and this particular church operate a day program, which is a place where a lot of these people go, and they tend to attract services. So it's a project that we developed with them to help allow these people to make that first step from no visible means of support into at least some of the public support that they're entitled to.
There are communities like that, but there are half a dozen day programs in Ottawa. Some are run by the faith community; some are run by health and resource centres in this city. Then there are shelters and then there are community-based services. There's a network of 50 or 60 organizations in Ottawa alone that would have the best interests of these people at heart and that we would work closely with. We take advantage of blending together different expertise and different access points for this client population.
Senator Ringuette: In order to do that, would you require more funding?
Mr. Simboli: Always more funding. We look at our potential client population in Ottawa, which needs exactly the kind of services that we offer, and we look at the number of other agencies that are doing it, and we know the shortfall in Ottawa alone is about 50 per cent.
With the kind of work we do on a per capita analysis, we should be running about 135 intensive case managers, the people doing the really hard, on-the-ground work, and we're running about 65 or 70 in Ottawa. There's always a need for more. The problem is one of insufficiency, not inefficiency.
Help in doing this is one of the messages we're bringing here today. To help make this kind of thing a reality, there needs to be some real, on-the-ground, practical support, and the system is swamped right now.
The Chair: Mr. Workman, do you have a comment on this?
Mr. Workman: No, just to agree that there are people who are qualified for the program but lack the financial resources.
I'll give you a sense of the CNIB client population. Roughly half live on incomes of less than $20,000. Of working-age people with vision loss, roughly 30 per cent are employed. The other 70 per cent are not employed, so they would be in a position to qualify for the RDSP but not in a position to contribute to it.
I will say, though, a defender of the program would point out that the Canada Savings Bond, the thousand dollars, will get put in whether or not you contribute at all. I don't want to diminish the value of the program, because it is a valuable program, but the senator is correct that there are people who just can't afford to make the contributions and fully benefit from the program.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Thank you, and welcome. You all have my admiration for the work you're doing. I know it's tough. I was formerly with the department of social affairs in Quebec, and I know that dealing with mental illness is a tough thing. In big cities it's probably worse because people are more anonymous than in small communities like my former hometown. When you have just a few thousand, the community takes care of these people, but in a big city they have nobody.
I was wondering if you had any alternatives, other ways of changing the rules, the procedures, to give us some advice on how to deal with these cases. This program doesn't seem tailored to your clientele. It's very nice to talk about this, but if it's not applicable to mentally ill people and they're not even surviving long enough to benefit from it, maybe you have new rules, a new age, a new way of dealing with this.
Ms. Nelson: There are ways of delivering services and financial services to these populations. We see, in the case of the Ontario Disability Support Program and Ontario Works, we do have a means to put money into the hands of this clientele. So I think it's to look at how those systems operate, what the requirements are to continue to have proof of eligibility or proof of this or that, and minimize the amount of bureaucracy there is in maintaining your status with the program once you've qualified.
Certainly, from the point of view of the caseworkers and social workers, once they do all this work to get someone in, in the case of ODSP, OW and some of the other financial assistance programs, once you're in, it continues to roll. I think that's the real advantage here, because then if you happen to be sick at a critical time, in hospital or whatever, your eligibility in the program — once you've gotten over that big hurdle with ID and the others and the bank account — will follow you.
Once someone has been proven to have a serious and prolonged illness or health issue that qualifies as a disability, they aren't, tomorrow, going to be out earning a large income and buying a huge home. It's probably going to follow them, and that's the presumption of a lot of these other programs.
I think the minimum amount of bureaucracy and paperwork and re-qualification possible enables the program to follow the individual.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: May I make a suggestion? I think it would be good for you to give us the recipe, because if we ask a government official to start that it would just initiate another type of paperwork. I've known them for a long time. I agree with you: I think once they're in, they're in, and they should continue.
My question is for Mr. Workman. You probably know the full-time employment and independence of blind people. I know there are some who are contributing to society, are earning a salary, are totally contributing people. But, in the overall population, how many, percentage wise, would you say would be able to take advantage of the program? It's good, but is it good for 100 per cent of your members or just a portion of your membership?
Mr. Workman: In terms of qualifying for the program, anyone who is legally blind would be eligible for the program. But in terms of contributing, I'd say our research indicates that around 30 per cent are working. So that means 70 per cent of people who are blind or partially sighted are not working. Roughly half of the population are living on incomes of less than $20,000. These would typically be people who are on disability support programs, like ODSP in Ontario, and their income would be less than $20,000. When you're making that much money it is very difficult to set aside even $1,500 a year to maximize the government contributions in an RDSP.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: What would be your suggestion so that 100 per cent of your membership could have access? What you're telling me is that 30 per cent have access, 70 per cent can barely have access. I suppose the paperwork, if it's on one side for the mental illness, also exists for blind people. Would you also have some recommendations with regard to management of the program?
Mr. Workman: It's difficult because this is a federal program and many of the people we're talking about are on provincial support programs. In Alberta a person on the disability support program would earn just over $1,500 a month, whereas in British Columbia, not that far away, it's less than $1,000. There's a pretty big disparity in what a person receives from their disability support program, but obviously the provinces control how much a person can earn on these programs.
Would I prefer that those programs made sure that people had enough money to live in a comfortable location and also be able to set aside a little bit of money for retirement? I think that would be fantastic, but that is provincial jurisdiction at this point.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Both organizations, would you say that those managing the program should be the ones who provide the assistance — they know the program — and help to fill in all these things and follow up? When you look at volunteers, because your associations are not necessarily rich in terms of paid staff — and I'm talking about you, but you and all your colleagues across the country — would you say that there should be one officer within the department who deals with this at the service bureau of the Government of Canada to assist these people in going through the process?
Mr. Simboli: Yes, I think any kind of practical assistance that can be added would make the program doable. Anything that reduces the paperwork demand would be doable, would be an improvement — any steps that can provide the kinds of support to these individuals to do this.
Something maybe we haven't mentioned is any encouragement that can be given to the financial institutions to participate in this. That's often a part where we run into problems: Our clients are not terribly welcome by the banks.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Surprise.
Mr. Simboli: They're not wanted in there. They're not great banking clients. So to be able to encourage them to participate in this you need to have a connection with the banking institutions. There are some things there that might tip the balance in favour of these people.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I think we might have a paragraph in our report about this, because obviously they are not the only group in this country. I have dealt with the social assistance people, and they're dealing with the same thing. We had to force them to allow people to get a bank account and so on, because they were just out of the system.
With all the good things they are enjoying, I agree with you, but at the same time I guess the only relationship I would see that would fall on your shoulders, that you would just be the one guiding the person to the service bureau. From then on the service bureau should be doing the rest of the job. I think you have enough on your shoulders with regard to their daily lives. They are also physically sick, they catch colds like we do, and sometimes there is a bit of violence, so there are also a few bruises here and there.
I have the feeling that this clientele should not be a burden for your organization.
Mr. Simboli: If I might add something, we won't want to put our employees who are there to be advocates for these people, to work with them, in the position of also having to be kind of judge and jury about qualifications and amounts and all that sort of stuff. I would not suggest any kind of thing where we're using the people in there to try and make their lives better.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: That's what I foresee. You just direct them, help them, take them by the hand to get access, but from then on you provide other services to them.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I would like to congratulate the witnesses for the work they do. It is not obvious that working with mentally disabled individuals takes a lot of patience and even some angelic behaviour to some degree.
We are discussing making improvements to the disability savings plan. If I understand correctly, a savings plan is money that is being saved for the future.
To benefit from the advantages of a traditional RRSP or a disability savings plan (RDSP), you need to make contributions.
How do you expect the people you have described to me to be able to contribute? They have no income; they have no address; they are on the street. It is almost impossible for them to contribute. It is unfortunate, but they do not need this kind of system. What individuals with mental disabilities need is a system that takes responsibility for them, a system at either the provincial or the federal level.
I do not think this plan can apply to these people. They have no income and cannot contribute. They have no address, no job, no ID, no bank account, no housing, no money. They have nothing. How do you expect these people to contribute to a savings plan?
I admit that your presentation was very emotional, but I do not think the problems will be solved through this kind of program. If you have made this kind of presentation to the provincial government, what was the response?
We are discussing saving, but in order to save, you have to work. Over the holidays, I visited four families with members who have very serious mental and physical disabilities. They do not have the same concerns as the people you mention because their families are taking care of them. They have not been abandoned by their families, unlike many of your individuals, where the families have rejected them. The parents' concerns are not the same as yours because they are taking care of their children, even though they have very serious disabilities.
What you have said is touching, but I am trying to see how the current legislation can help someone contribute to a retirement plan if they have no income. Could you comment further on that?
[English]
Mr. Workman: I think the question is better directed at CMHA. In our case, we don't deal with quite the same episodic illnesses and homelessness as CMHA would.
But in response to what I said earlier, if you're on a disability program that gives you $1,000 a month and it takes $700 to pay for rent and the rest goes to food, you don't have enough money to set aside $1,500 a year. So that is a problem.
Mr. Simboli: I think that's the question here. How do you help people save when they don't have anything to save?
Some of the provisions of the plan where there's a contribution, whether or not it's matched, is a step in the right direction. For many of our folks, to be quite honest, probably many will never be able to take advantage of this. What we're recommending is that with a bit better process, we'll start to pick up more than that and start to move the needle so that we can have more people connecting to this.
The other thing to realize is that if we in this society are successful in addressing these people with serious mental illness, we actually will get them back to being stable. They do have a life worth living. They do have a future. They will start to get back to being employed. In many cases, people with serious mental illness can, with proper care and medication, have well-paying or decently paying jobs.
It's another brick, if you will, in terms of how these people can move from being in such terrible straits to being in good straits. So it's not a magic bullet in any sense, but I do see it as being valuable to our people. If we can get them connected earlier in their recovery process and if we can get more of them connected, then we can take advantage of what is really a well-intentioned plan of the federal government.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Does your association have contacts with your counterparts in other provinces, such as Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba or Saskatchewan? Do you have inter-provincial contacts? Surely, they are facing the same challenges you are. What solutions have they have found? What do they think of the project? Are you sort of their general spokesperson from coast to coast to coast, or is their vision different than yours?
[English]
Mr. Simboli: Yes, we're part of a national network of about 140 Canadian Mental Health Associations. They're all independent associations based in their communities, but we do share a common set of values as well as a common name. Our dedication is to people with serious mental illness and improving the lot of them through changes in social policy, public education or direct intervention. So we do share that across the country.
I don't know if I would be so bold as to say that we're a spokesperson for the entire network, but I think we're a representative of that network. Part of our policy positions on this and many other topics are informed by our colleagues in other cities, so we certainly bring that forward.
To your question about what we do, we're advocating constantly to all of those in government around these kinds of issues.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Twenty-five years ago, we closed the institutions that took care of these people. We decided to put them out on the street with financial and moral support, and what have you. We thought we were going to give them a sense of responsibility and make them citizens like everyone else.
Unfortunately, 25 years later, they are on the street. They have no address, no identity, nothing, because the experts at the time thought that those people would become normal over time and could live a normal life.
I am not saying that there have not been any successes. Certainly, there have been a few cases that turned out very well. Do the provinces not have responsibilities toward these people?
[English]
Ms. Nelson: Housing is the number one need that people have. It's the number one thing that will make a difference for them in their lives, and the de-institutionalization and lack of a supportive, structured environment has really created a lot of issues for people with serious and persistent mental illnesses.
There was a huge backlash against the institutions as we knew them. They were operational in a time when that was seen as an appropriate way to care for people, and for some people, it put a roof over their heads and it put food in their mouths. But without a similar structure of support outside the institution, we closed them all.
I will tell you that I work at the hospital here in Ottawa — and have for a long time — and they are revolving in and out of hospital or getting stuck for extreme amounts of time because they actually need that level of structure and support.
So it's a huge issue that people are on the street, they can't save and they don't have ID, and homelessness is really at the basis of a lot of these issues.
I did have a thought, too, about how you could help those people who are on Ontario Works or the Ontario disability pension to contribute to one of these plans, and that is to attach something to their benefit monthly. So without them getting the cheque and then having to put $10 or $20 aside, this would be done for them as part of their eligibility for ODSP or a program they already qualify for. In a way, it's how I save because my employer puts money into a pension for me, right? It's not to suggest they're incapable of saving — we all use these forms of enforced savings — but it would be a way to see that some money was set aside for this population later on.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: I would like to thank our three witnesses for being here today, and I would especially like to thank them for the good work they are doing for a part of the population that is very dependent on their skills and competences.
I want to follow up on something. Senator Black asked some questions, and we want to make sure we fully understand the problem. I want to speak about the savings plan in particular.
I think the problem is a legal one where the definition of acceptable delegation according to provincial legislation seems to indicate that it is fairly strict and not very flexible. Therefore, disabled individuals cannot be considered competent from a legal standpoint, and there is a problem with delegating that authority.
However, four provinces — British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador — found a solution. They changed the provincial legislation to make delegation easier. If I understand correctly, the amendments in those provinces have made some actions possible and found a solution to the problem. You give the impression that this was generally acceptable.
I have the impression that the most important solution is that we have to encourage the six other provinces and territories to make similar amendments to their provincial legislation, which would largely solve the problem.
Am I right in making that assumption?
[English]
Mr. Simboli: I confess to not knowing all the details about what's going on, but it's not an unusual situation to have one province come up with a very good solution that then another province needs to be encouraged to adopt. I think with the jurisdictional practices across Canada, in particular, there are probably best practices in different aspects of this whole system and the systems that it depends upon, because it's not just the ODSP system; it requires a basis in provincial and even municipal kinds of practices. I can't speak to it in detail, but it wouldn't be a surprise.
Senator Massicotte: Let's say all the provinces are doing the same thing. If the other provinces adopt legislation that was adopted in B.C., does that remedy the problem? There are a lot of other issues with the program, but does that remedy the most significant issue in trying to deal with the ability to designate a competent trustee or competent official? Does that resolve that issue?
Mr. Simboli: I'm not sure.
Senator Massicotte: Mr. Workman, can you help us there?
Mr. Workman: Well, reading the testimony given to this committee in December, that question is tricky because on the one hand you heard that B.C. had the solution, and then you heard that the numbers were still the same, and then you had the representative from CIBC say that the British Columbia solution didn't cover the RDSP. I think to really answer that, you might need to see if you can talk to someone in British Columbia and find out how the legislation works, whether it covers the RDSP.
If it does, then adopting that in other provinces, provided you can get them to adopt similar legislation across the country, going back to Senator Black, is a solution. It's just that I would say it's arguably a harder one than having a federal solution that covers all provinces.
Senator Massicotte: You're right, Mr. Workman, about the testimony we heard earlier; in one conference call, the people involved in that community said the solution works, but then we heard testimony from other legally minded persons saying it doesn't work. I'm trying to find out the truth here, the facts. I appreciate that. It's not an easy one. Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: In your perspective, many of the people that you are trying to help receive financial support from the provincial government, the Government of Ontario, in your case.
Following your comment and suggestion with regard to the provincial government being a contributor indirectly, in that scenario, would it be possible for the provinces to become a kind of trustee in this program for the people under provincial programs and who receive provincial contributions? If a change to the legislation would allow a province to act as a trustee individually, would it be possible, from your perspective, to facilitate the mechanism? For many people, if they are already recognized within a provincial program with regard to their handicapped state, then the province certifies their state. They could also be, in my perspective, a kind of guardian or trustee for this program. Maybe I'm stretching it.
Ms. Nelson: You already have a system in most provinces with a public guardian or trustee, and they already act on behalf of many of these individuals around decisions about housing, entering long-term care facilities, et cetera. They do make decisions and assist with decisions; that is already in place. It's conceivable that some kind of interface between those programs could be possible because there would already be an interface. You may be receiving ODSP, and you may have a guardian or trustee involved with you.
Currently, you would have to be designated incapable to act, and with the case of people with mental health issues, sometimes they are capable and sometimes they are not. That's one of the issues that would have to be addressed, but there is a way to do so through that system, I think. Possibly.
The Chair: That concludes our questions. Mr. Workman, Ms. Nelson, Mr. Simboli, I know I speak on behalf of all of the members of the committee to express our great appreciation, not only for your appearance here today, during which you have been most helpful to our deliberations, but also for the tremendous work you do in the community, and we all applaud you.
Again, thank you very much for joining us today.
(The committee adjourned.)