Evidence of meeting #129 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was disabilities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
I was just curious about how you arrived at that number, because $50 million would be a modest—
10:05 a.m.
Professor of Social Policy, Faculty of Human and Social Development, University of Victoria, As an Individual
Yes, I would say so.
10:05 a.m.
Professor of Social Policy, Faculty of Human and Social Development, University of Victoria, As an Individual
That would be the low end. Yes, I would think that would be modest.
December 4th, 2018 / 10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
My next question is for Ms. Buchanan. You referenced that you were on the advisory panel to CRA, interpreting. One of the frustrating things that I confront on the DTC from constituents is the wide range of interpretations from medical practitioners. I believe Mr. Stapleton just spoke to that.
How do we as legislators deal with that? One of you made the comment that some doctors won't sign anything to help their patients, and some get caught up in trying to give interpretations of a piece of legislation that should really wait to be adjudicated—what if this occurs or that occurs? Somebody else should really make that decision. People who are denied can have similar health conditions to those of another individual who is approved because the medical practitioner signed it and checked off the right boxes. It occurs in a couple of areas of the DTC.
10:10 a.m.
Founding Member, Disability Tax Fairness Alliance
It's very difficult. I assist a lot of individuals with their applications, with their appeals, even up to the Tax Court of Canada. I don't charge a fee. I just do this because it provides me with insight into what's going on at CRA. Actually, in one appeal case the doctor refused to complete the questionnaire where you just tick off the yes-and-no answers; he wrote a letter, and the appeal was accepted.
The biggest problem is that there are a lot of doctors now who refuse to even fill out the form because CRA imposes this 90% threshold that has no legislative basis.
Going back, I've been advocating for so many years. I've known Michael Prince for a long time. This is my 20th anniversary—
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Could I just stop you there?
About the 90%, has CRA reached out to the medical community with an advisory cautioning them to use this? Where...?
10:10 a.m.
Founding Member, Disability Tax Fairness Alliance
It's on the form that the applicants and the doctors complete. The 90% has been traditionally defining “all or substantially all of the time” with GST cases. There have been several GST cases that have gone to court, and in every single case the judge has ruled against the 90% threshold. Those cases are all on my website.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
10:10 a.m.
Founding Member, Disability Tax Fairness Alliance
It's fightingforfairness.ca.
10:10 a.m.
Founding Member, Disability Tax Fairness Alliance
Justice Donald Bowman, former chief justice of the Tax Court of Canada, was always very adamant about this arbitrary definition. I was very distressed when CRA, almost two years ago, sent out a PowerPoint to all MPs, a brief analysis of the eligibility criteria for the DTC, and it had the 90% right there.
Going back a little bit, you're asking how legislators can be more involved in this issue.
In 2003, a technical advisory committee for persons with disabilities was created by both the Minister of Finance and the minister of CRA at that time, and we put together a report, “Disability Tax Fairness”. The CRA certainly took a lot of our recommendations in that report very seriously, so they made a number of amendments for the 2005 tax year, and they had an application form that had a considerable number of examples to guide the physicians in terms of how to—
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Are you saying those changes are no longer within the interpretation of the CRA?
10:10 a.m.
Founding Member, Disability Tax Fairness Alliance
The examples are no longer there.
10:15 a.m.
Founding Member, Disability Tax Fairness Alliance
The examples were removed slowly. By the time we got to 2012, there were no examples at all. The CRA has a document called RC4064, and those examples are in it, but most doctors aren't going to go and hunt down documents from CRA.
In my written submission, I have one of the examples. It's a very important example that CRA used. It has to do with someone who has psychotic disorder. It recognizes that someone like that is not continuously psychotic all the time. The example indicates that an individual may have a number of psychotic episodes during the year. It recognizes that the condition is permanent. They're not continuously psychotic, but they do require daily supervision. That was a very interesting example. Someone with dementia, for example, may be perceived to be living independently on their own and in their own home, but they're not really independent because somebody else is looking after their finances or getting Meals on Wheels, etc. That was a very important example.
There were also examples of children with autism. Those examples are gone. The form is so basic now. I've been fighting the 90% for years. We've brought up this issue, and hopefully, with our disability advisory committee, we'll be able to get that out. “All or substantially all of the time” is not terrific, but at least it doesn't put a timeline onto the physicians.
10:15 a.m.
John Barlow Foothills, CPC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate everybody's input on this subject.
I just want to make a quick comment before I ask some questions. My good friends across the table like to criticize when we ask about numbers, but here's a good example. When we talk about the potential costs for these types of programs, we have Mr. Prince saying this could cost between $50 million and $150 million.
We're in the process of going through another study on extending EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks. In 2012, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the cost of that program would be $900 million. That's a big difference from $150 million. When we ask these questions, I think it behooves us, as members of Parliament, to make sure we know what the costs are. That $900 million in 2012 dollars is probably well over a billion now for the cost of this program.
When we ask these types of questions, it's not that we're trying to show that we don't care, but we need to understand the impact these programs have on the taxpayer. As much as my friends like to think we can tweet out $50 million and pay for programs, we need to ensure that we're doing our due diligence. I think that's just good practice.
My first question is for Patrycia. I was stunned by one of your answers, where you said that you still have to give a letter every year saying you still have MS. Maybe Deborah can chime in on this as well. We've gone through this with veterans, where they still have to prove that they've lost their legs and things like that, which I find to be appalling.
Is this a matter of a change in approach at the bureaucratic level? Do you have to prove all the time that you still have MS because it's easier to deny you these benefits than to approve these benefits for you? Is that a big frustration, just going through the bureaucracy of trying to apply for these benefits?
10:15 a.m.
Ambassador and Spokesperson, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
I think so. The interesting thing was that I thought this was an issue with my Blue Cross coverage in Alberta. When I had a conversation with them, it ended up being that they had a conversation with the employer. It's actually the Government of Alberta, as the employer, and the union that require the medical note for me to be able to access certain aspects of the coverage. That's definitely a conversation to have.
If you think about the amount of time with taking some time off work to go see a doctor every year, having to pay the doctor to fill out the form and paying me for taking time off.... That's a huge cost for something so simple. You could literally just make a note saying that the patient has MS.
I don't really know where the solution to that would come from.
10:15 a.m.
Foothills, CPC
Deborah, I know you touched on it, and we appreciate your giving us the personal anecdote. You were saying there are too many loopholes. Is one of the problems just how difficult it is to navigate the system?
10:20 a.m.
Representative, Neurological Health Charities Canada
I do think that there are too many loopholes. From my own personal experience, I know that I qualified for a CPP disability payment. It may not have been a lot, but it's more than nothing, and I should be thankful. However, this year I was denied my tax credit for disability, so I'm having to go through the rigmarole of trying to convince somebody that I qualified once before. My three years are now up, and I'm sitting on the fence post, not knowing if I have to repay because I no longer qualify for this credit.
If a person qualifies for a disability payment, whether it's ODSP or CPP disability, why does that person have to jump through hoops to get that tax credit? It should be automatic. They've already jumped through hoops to get some sort of income support.
Why do I have to go through that rigmarole every year in order to qualify, not knowing if I'm going to get that credit and not knowing if I have to repay the government? A person with PTSD, I can tell you, cannot take that extra stress. I find that the systems don't work together. They're not communicating. Something that simple should be automatic. You've already medically qualified to get a disability. Why do you have to jump through hoops to get a tax credit?
I'm sorry. I still have my arms; I still have my limbs, and I am not blind, so I don't qualify. I think it's ludicrous.
