Summary of concerns re: Social Security Tribunal

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SOCIAL SECURITY TRIBUNAL AS OUTLINED IN DIVISION 6 OF BILL C-38

Background

One of the initiatives in Bill C-36 which has received little media attention is the proposal to replace the existing second and higher levels of appeal for EI, CPP and OAS with a single agency – the Social Security Tribunal will commence operations in April 2013, and the existing bodies will cease operations in April 2014.

1.      These comments apply only to the provisions related to the Canada Pension Plan, and not to the Employment Insurance Act or the Old Age Security Act.

2.      The summative evaluation of Canada Pension Plan Disability (CPPD) (reported in 2011, covering the years 1997 – 2007) included two findings which indicate that a significant proportion of denied applicants (up to 75%) had had little or no success in returning to work in the three years following denial.  One possible explanation is an unacceptably high proportion of incorrect decisions.

3.      Under the existing system, fewer than 10% of all CPPD applications progress to the Review Tribunal/Pension Appeals Board levels.  The proposed Social Security Tribunal which replaces these bodies will therefore have little impact on the overall approval/denial rates.  The majority of incorrect decisions (if this is in fact the case) will be made at the initial (application) and first appeal (reconsideration) stages.

4.      While there may be perceived administrative advantages to changing the process, any improvement in terms of service to Canadians will be marginal at best, will depend on the quality of the appointees to the Tribunal, and will not be quantifiable (if at all) for several years.

5.      A minimum requirement for the proposed Tribunal should be a reduction in the time to process appeals.  Currently, it can take more than a year from submission of an appeal to receiving a decision from a Review Tribunal, and up to two years from applying to the Pension Appeals Board to receiving a decision.

6.      It is noted that the establishment of the proposed Tribunal will create up to 74 new patronage appointments.

7.      It would be interesting and relevant to know if the Commissioner of Review Tribunals and the Chairman of the Pension Appeals Board were included in the consultations leading to this proposal.

8.      A specific concern: Late appeals arising because of an appellant’s incapacity should be exempted from the proposed one-year time limit.  Setting an arbitrary limit on something which is by its very nature unpredictable, would be both cruel and irrational.