Thank you very much.
I represent CARP, a national non-profit non-partisan organization with 350,000 members and 50 chapters across the country. We advocate for public policy change that improves the quality of life for all Canadians as we age.
Health care remains a top priority for our members, as it is for all Canadians, but it matters more as we age. Despite the fact that today's generation of older Canadians are living longer, healthier lives, the Canadian health care system serves Canadians very well for acute care, but it's not mandated to provide continuing care for those with chronic diseases for which medicine has no cure. That responsibility falls to informal caregivers and the home-care sector, which is at best a patchwork across the country.
CARP's particular focus today is on clause 23 of BIll C-13, which provides for a non-refundable caregiver tax credit. CARP is recommending that the tax credit be made refundable, that it be increased, that it be targeted at those who provide the heaviest care, and that all of this funding be within the same funding envelope.
The vast majority of Canadians want to stay in their own homes as long as possible, even if they have medical challenges. Being able to do so not only improves their health outcomes but keeps them among their friends and family, all of which adds to their quality of life.
This good social and health policy is also good fiscal policy. A well-integrated and successful home-care strategy has the potential of diverting massive amounts of demand from the formal health care system. It's estimated that home care is 40% to 75% less expensive than institutional care is.
Finally, not only is the comprehensive home-care and caregiver support strategy good public policy, it also makes good political sense. CARP polls its members regularly on our advocacy proposals, and they consistently rank caregiver support as a top priority. They appreciated the attention given to the role of family caregivers in the recent federal and provincial elections. They appreciated the acknowledgment of family caregivers with the specific non-refundable tax credit proposed and now passed in the recent budget, but they would prefer the refundable tax credit or allowance proposed in other platforms. Fifty percent of those polled by CARP last week thought the best way to support caregivers was through an allowance or a refundable tax credit.
The amount set forth in the budget, if it were refundable, would be welcomed by the 2.7 million Canadians now providing care to older loved ones. However, there should be a focus on those providing heavy care: those who are most likely to be reducing their hours of work or quitting their jobs altogether to look after a loved one, either permanently or during an acute period. Such people would not benefit from a non-refundable tax credit unless they had other sources of taxable income. Not only should they receive a refundable tax credit, but the amount should be increased beyond the $300 resulting from the budget changes. We believe it's possible to limit the budget expenditures with such a measure.
One in five Canadians over the age of 45 is providing care to an older person. That's about 2.7 million Canadians, according to Statistics Canada. Of that 2.7 million caregivers, 25% provide heavy care, defined as 30 hours or more of care each week. That brings us down to about 675,000 Canadians. Of the 2.7 million caregivers, some 25% are themselves seniors, and 30%, or some 200,000 people, are themselves over 75 years of age. A modest $1,500 per year for 675,000 caregivers would cost about $1 billion a year.
There are existing models of caregiver support and allowances here in Canada. Nova Scotia targets low-income families. It looks at the 20-hour threshold of care per week, and it provides up to $4,800 per year. It has budgeted a small amount and would look after only about 375 families. Manitoba has an option as well. Germany has something interesting, which is long-term-care insurance that provides a significant amount of care to caregivers.
I will be able to give you some more specific facts and figures, but suffice it to say that if there were an opportunity to divert a massive amount of care, and if you looked at the differential between home-care costs and institutional costs, there is the potential for anywhere from $4 billion to $10 billion a year in diverted costs.
Thank you very much.