House of Commons Hansard #27 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was disabled.
Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the parliamentary secretary's litany of all the good things the government has done for the disabled over the last three years. The reality is that the CCRA has interpreted a law here in a way where there are 30,000-plus disabled people who right now are really getting screwed.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
Order. I did caution the hon. member earlier in terms of parliamentary language. Can we get to the question, we have 13 seconds left.
Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Madam Speaker, through you, I will tell the parliamentary secretary that I do not think that there is a more important issue in front of us today.
My question is how quickly will we get a resolution on this critical issue?
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Oak Ridges, ON
Madam Speaker, although I do not have an answer, it is my hope that it will be much sooner than later.
Raymonde Folco LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development
Madam Speaker, there has been a fair amount of discussion over the disability tax credit and it is indeed an important program, helping Canadians with disabilities to obtain the tax credits to which they are entitled under the Income Tax Act.
I would like to address some concerns that have been expressed by members in the House and Canadians in general with regard to the review process undertaken by the CCRA by better explaining the review and its importance. It is important that we all deal with the same information.
I would also like to tell the House about the efforts that have been made by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the CCRA, in consulting with those most deeply concerned with disabilities in ensuring fair and equitable administration of the program.
It is critical that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, CCRA, take measures to protect the integrity of this program and other programs so that persons with disabilities can continue to benefit from them.
As members know, very few claims for the disability tax credit accepted between 1985 and 1996 were subject to the current level of review. Since 1996, when the CCRA became responsible for validating eligibility, it has been reviewing all applications in advance of assessment to ensure that the benefit is available to those for whom it is intended.
This is especially important since under the disability tax credit a one time review can lead to a lifetime benefit. Given a significant rejection rate for claims to the disability tax credit since 1996, it is possible that applications were accepted between 1985 and 1996 that were never eligible for the disability tax credit, and some recipients are no longer eligible to receive it. To ensure the integrity of this benefit program, claims filed during this period are being reviewed.
A number of concerns have been raised by the CCRA's recent review of disability claims.
An important aspect of tax fairness is ensuring that those who benefit from tax measures are entitled to receive them in accordance with the policy intent.
Prior to 1996, all applications for the disability tax credit were accepted upon assessment. Subsequently some of these returns were selected for review. This review resulted in some adjustments in which the disability tax credit was disallowed for more than the current year.
This approach was not favourably received and caused hardship for some individuals.
Further, following recommendations by the 1996 parliamentary task force chaired by the hon. member for Fredericton, the CCRA changed this administrative approach for the disability tax credit.
Since 1996 the CCRA has been verifying all new disability tax credit claims before granting the credits. The adoption of this new administrative policy reveals that a substantial number of individuals who applied for the DTC are not eligible to receive it. This is not to suggest that these individuals do not have impairments but rather that the effects of their impairments are not in accordance with the policy intent of the DTC.
This led the CCRA to conduct a pilot project in 2000 to review the eligibility of a sample of individuals who had applied for the credit between 1985 and 1996. The pilot project found that a significant number of individuals should not have qualified for the credit, should have been approved only on a temporary basis or did not have sufficient information on their files to determine if they were eligible. This information indicated that a full review of claims between 1985 and 1996 was needed.
Of the approximately 200,000 active files for disability tax credit claims made between 1985 and 1996, 135,000 claims were reviewed in the fall of 2001. Tax filers whose claims were supported by sufficient information, as well as those over age 75, were excluded from the review.
This left 106,000 claimants, just more than half of the entire number of claimants, who were asked to submit a new form T2201 in order to continue to claim the credit. No claims were immediately disallowed; all individuals contacted in the review were given the opportunity to substantiate their eligibility under the disability tax credit for the 2001 tax year.
No one will be denied access to the benefit without a full review of their claim, and the minister has ensured that clients who have documentation from the period from 1985 to 1996 will be able to submit this documentation as evidence that they are entitled to the benefit.
The purpose of the current review is to ensure that all claimants who apply for the credit are treated fairly and consistently and that the DTC is administered in accordance with its requirements. Of the 106,000 individuals who were asked to re-certify their DTC eligibility for 2001 and subsequent years, about 90,000 have responded to date. Of those, about 60,000 have been determined to continue to qualify for the credit.
It is important to note that this review ensures all claims for the DTC prior to and after 1996 receive the same level of eligibility scrutiny and that the governing criteria are applied to all claims in a consistent manner.
Nonetheless, after hearing from members of Parliament, senators and Canadians, and in response to a March 2002 report by the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities that expressed concern about the T2201 form used to determine eligibility for this benefit, extensive consultations on administrative matters were initiated by the CCRA with organizations representing persons with disabilities and medical practitioners.
Furthermore, the minister has asked her officials to conduct further consultations before initiating the second phase of the review, a review of the pre-1996 spousal and dependent claims originally scheduled for this year. As part of these consultations, a new T2201 form for the DTC has been drafted and distributed to all participants and to the members of the subcommittee.
At the request of organizations representing persons with disabilities, the existing version of the T2201 form will be used for the coming tax filing season while consultations are completed. The Minister of National Revenue has instructed CCRA officials that no new administrative reviews are to take place until these consultations and changes are completed.
The government is committed to consulting with organizations representing persons with disabilities and medical practitioners on an ongoing basis. It is important that the government hear their views to help ensure that federal tax assistance for persons with disabilities is fair and effective.
As indicated above, the CCRA will establish a new permanent administrative advisory committee on disability to ensure ongoing consultations on administrative issues.
Finally, I would like to conclude by saying that I do not believe that Canadians would want the CCRA to extend the disability tax credits in cases where it is not warranted. Nor would they object to a review being conducted to ensure the integrity of this important program. The CCRA has a responsibility to administer the disability tax credit in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with legislation approved by Parliament and to ensure that those who are entitled to receive the disability tax credit can continue to benefit from it.
As my colleague from Oak Ridges indicated earlier, the government is continuing its consultation and will be reporting to Parliament at a later date.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Madam Speaker, I have a hard time not getting emotional over this. It is often said that we really do not know what someone else's life is like unless we experience it ourselves or possibly have a family member or a friend who because of their disability is greatly affected. It is apparent that is what is happening on the other side of the House by the comments of the hon. member.
We will not let the Liberal government off the hook. The Liberal government is the problem. The member is absolutely correct that it is the government that has brought in these changes. It is the government that is attacking the disabled. The CCRA is following through on bad legislation and on a mistake. The government should simply admit it is wrong and get it over.
In no way should we attack the disabled and the small pittance of a tax credit which they receive. I do not want to hear one more person talk of the seriously disabled or those who really deserve it when we have a tax exemption for a child under a certain age in the Income Tax Act. We do not say that because this is the third child, the child will get hand me downs. We do not say that because that child does not cost as much money, we will give less of an exemption. The bottom line is we recognize that in certain aspects of human living there are greater costs incurred.
I would suggest that the member listen very clearly. I mentioned some things that maybe she does not consider the seriously disabled have to pay for, such as incontinent pads because when they go to bed at night they are not sure whether something will happen. Catheters ensure that they have adequate bladder drainage. They pay for suppositories that so they can fully empty their bowels because when they go to work they do not have an accident. There are additional foot coverings that are not covered because their feet swell because of their disability. Adjustments must be made to clothing because their arms or legs might be a bit shorter or not there at all. Those are all costs that she might not consider to be the cost of a seriously disabled person.
However until she and everyone here experiences those types of costs, the mere pittance of a tax credit that the disabled get should not be attacked. The government should go after those who get tax breaks which they should not get. For years the NDP has called for tax fairness. This is living proof that the government's priorities are out of whack.
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval West, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that I have a lot of sympathy for the hon. member's position, particularly since I understand that she is personally involved in this. I have a lot of sympathy for the position of all the other people who have disabilities.
I would like to say that at no time have I or the member who spoke before me talked about degrees of seriousness. We are talking about the fact that all people who were eligible for the disability tax credit will still be eligible for it. We are looking at a review so that those people who are not eligible will not receive a credit. I cannot be any clearer than that.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
We have a minute and thirty seconds remaining. The hon. member for Halifax.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Madam Speaker, we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance a few minutes ago admit that he did not have a sweet clue as to how many people had been disqualified of the 106,000 who received that letter demanding that they requalify. One minute later the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development stood up said and acknowledged that 30,000 claimants had been cut off as a result of that demand to go through hoops and loops to requalify for this tax benefit. At least she has done her homework I guess.
I have heard now from two parliamentary secretaries in a row that it was not the intent of the government to disqualify these people. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said that people should take it on good faith and that as a result of the new proposed changes coming forth they would not be disqualified or punished.
How can the government expect people to take it on faith that the new proposed, more restrictive measures being introduced are not going to hurt them, when the government said that it was not the intent to disqualify anybody as a result of those 106,000 letters and the--
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
I did mention the fact that there was only one minute and thirty seconds left. I apologize but miracles I cannot do.
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval West, QC
Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member, there is no division between members on the opposite side who have asked me questions, and the government.
We are all trying to fix something that is not working properly. We are trying to fix it to the best of our ability. The intent of this debate is to hear from members, not only from our side but from the opposition side, on the best ways to fix this. This is what we intend to do.
Larry Spencer Canadian Alliance Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Surrey Central.
It is indeed an honour to stand and speak in the House on behalf of Canadians, individuals and families, who are dealing with the burden of disabilities. We all feel for those people. Our hearts are broken in many cases because of what we see.
A moment ago the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned that it was the aim of the government to ensure that all those who re-apply or apply are treated fairly and consistently. However, if we look carefully at the way the act is written, it could be contested. For instance, people who are blind can receive the disability tax credit, even though they may be fully functional in other ways, employed and that sort of thing, but if they are missing, let us say, their hands and parts of their legs, but by the use of devices can walk and feed himself, they are no longer counted to be severely disabled.
I would count myself to be severely disabled if I were in that condition. I think some very basic problems with the act need to be explored as well as these on the surface that we have been mentioning.
The disability tax credit was established during World War II to recognize the fact that individuals with severe and prolonged impairments often face additional non-discretionary expense for the basic daily living that reduced their ability to pay taxes.
The DTC is to provide support for those with severe and prolonged mental and physical disabilities who have marked restriction performing basic activities of daily living, such as seeing, hearing, walking, speaking, perceiving, thinking, remembering, controlling waste elimination and feeding or dressing themselves.
It seems to me that the interpretation being given most of the time would be that those who severely disabled are those who have to go to great lengths just to keep themselves alive. It seems to me that we are tightening this up way beyond what was really stated in the legislation.
The credit is claimed by approximately 430,000 Canadians. The maximum benefit per year is only $960 and it costs the federal budget only about $390 million. We are not talking about a real huge dollar hit on the federal budget. It is peanuts to the government and to the country. It is absolutely absurd that we would go through this kind of tightening and tightwad activity to impair further those who are already impaired through disabilities.
The people who need to qualify need to have a doctor or another professional certify that they have the disability to the extent prescribed by law. The word “prolonged” is in there; the requirement that if they have a disability it must be prolonged. It would be for a year or more was the interpretation. Sometimes people have recurring problems that may not last an entire year. Let us say that they last nine or ten months and later on more and more. These people do not qualify.
Marked restriction is a requirement, of an activity of daily living. It is interpreted to be all or a significant portion of the time, and that of course is interpreted to be 90% of the time.
I am not really sure why that mark has to be so high, unless the government is concerned that it might not be eligible or it might be able to receive tax credits, if it is not thinking or perceiving 90% of the time or more than 10% of the time. Maybe that is why there is such a narrow gate to get through.
No credit is given for multiple disabilities. For instance, if a person is afflicted with a disability that disables him completely for 35% of the time, has a second disability that perhaps only bothers him 35% of the time and a third disability that only bothers him 35% of the time, that comes up to being 105% disabled but he would not qualify because not any single disability is there all the time. This of course applies especially to those who have cyclical mental problems or disabilities that recur but are basically unpredictable.
I have a constituent who has a problem. One of the allowances is that if a person needs life giving therapy for 15 hours or so a week they qualify. My constituent is a former member of the RCMP. During his time of service he broke his neck and back in three places. As the years have gone by, those broken vertebrae have increasingly caused trouble until he finally had to go on disability. He cannot work. He is unemployable and must stay at home.
The only therapy that will stop the intense pain that drives him to his bed is for him to simply lie on his bed for sometimes a few hours, sometimes many hours and sometimes days. However, because that is not a life giving therapy, he does not qualify even though he has to do it. He is not able to do any of the other activities of life while he is in that condition.
I suggest that there are many ways in which this legislation is not entirely fair in the way that it is being interpreted.
Some of the changes made by Revenue Canada were suggested by the committee but most of them are very superficial things. One of the major changes is simply dividing the ability to dress oneself and the ability to feed oneself into two separate categories rather than appearing that they are together. For the most part the changes simply tighten the restriction, not loosen it.
I would like to refer to a news release, released by the chairman of the committee for disabilities, with whom I served as we did this investigation. The release states:
Recent court rulings... have interpreted the legislation in a more humane and compassionate manner than Finance is willing to accept... To make matters worse, this decision by the Department of Finance ignores all of the hard work by the government's own parliamentary committee. The Sub-committee's report, recommending a complete overhaul of the DTC program, was tabled in the House of Commons in March this year. The Sub-committee recommended that “the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) and the Department of Finance take immediate steps” to consult with disability groups and professional organizations, to discuss future amendments to the Act. Instead the Department of Finance acted arbitrarily.
Over and over we see the government ignoring the work and the recommendations of committees. We saw that when the health committee, which was working on recommendations for stem cell research, was pre-empted by the announcement of the guidelines even before it heard the recommendations. We hear rumours going on now about what the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice will do in relation to safe injections sites, the legalization of marijuana and so on.
As members of the committee, we heard many witnesses. We had the responsibility of making recommendations to the government. It is a real tragedy and an insult to the operation of Parliament to see the government ignore its own committees and the reports they bring back. We on this side will certainly be supporting the motion.
Philip Mayfield Canadian Alliance Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC
Madam Speaker, I would have liked to pose a question to the previous speaker but unfortunately time prevented that. She mentioned in her speech that the rules governing this were those adopted by Parliament and yet I hear in the speech just delivered that the parliamentary committee's report was absolutely ignored.
I wonder if the member who just spoke can correlate the parliamentary secretary's comment that what is being done is within the purview of Parliament, when he said that the parliamentary committee was absolutely ignored. Could he comment on that?
Larry Spencer Canadian Alliance Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Madam Speaker, the only way it has not been ignored is that the government made a few minor changes. However most of the changes ignored the feeling of the committee that this tax benefit was not to be made more restrictive, and that form T2201 was already too restrictive, too prohibitive, too complicated and too hard to follow through on. We asked for a review of the whole thing.
Such minor changes, as what the government has so far proposed, are basically in no way a review of the whole situation. We asked that the government go back and review the original intent of the legislation. If we were to go back to the days when this was instituted during World War II, we would probably find out that it was for more than just keeping people alive. Although we have asked the government to do it, that is the way it is done but it is done outside the House.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of discussion today with regard to integrity. The government has used that word a number of times. However we have to look at the broader issues.
The government introduced a litany of small piecemeal tax credits with regard to persons with disabilities. However over the last 10 years my community has had increased employment challenges. We have had a widening of the gap in terms of our standard of living and additional challenges.
Within the hon. member's community, does he think there has been integrity in this process? Is he seeing more vulnerable Canadians in his community similar to those in mine of Windsor West where this government has not addressed the general issue of disability? This tax credit is really an attack when the government is widening the scope of people's ability to have tax exemptions and capital losses. It is focusing all those things on one small group. I would like to ask the hon. member how he feels about integrity in this process.
Larry Spencer Canadian Alliance Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Madam Speaker, I agree that integrity is quite hard to find, especially, as has already been pointed out in this debate this morning, considering the kinds of tax deductions given to others. We hear about companies being fined for breaking the law and the fines being tax deductible. We hear about major amounts of money leaving the country and thus escaping taxes.
People with disabilities, no matter whether they are life threatening or not, have extra expenses. We need to take that into consideration and acknowledge that. How many of us would want a disability payment of $960 a year maximum? Not one of us would. We would not take a minor disability if somebody paid us that much every year. To slap these people in the face by not allowing them these kinds of benefits shows a callous and uncaring group of people who worry more about money than people. Good government is about people, not about money.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Madam Speaker, could the hon. member who just spoke about the disability tax credit tell us about the experience of disabled persons in his riding? They cannot even consult a physician to have him or her fill out the new form introduced by the government.
Larry Spencer Canadian Alliance Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Madam Speaker, of course we believe the government has a responsibility to ensure that proper steps are followed and that people do receive it if they do not qualify. However it is fairly obvious that some people with disabilities would have difficulty in getting to see a doctor.
One recommendation the committee made was that if this was required unnecessarily and the disabled person went to the expense, usually around $125, to requalify, the government should recognize that as its responsibility. The government is asking for this and is asking people to spend over one month of disability benefits simply to requalify.
Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central and many disabled Canadians to participate in the debate on the disability tax credit motion by the NDP.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for his eloquent remarks and for allowing me to share my time with him.
We are talking about the most vulnerable people in Canadian society. One hundred and six thousand disabled Canadians will be denied the modest tax credit benefits and will have to reapply to be eligible. Forty per cent of Canadians with disabilities live in poverty and one-third are unemployed. The Liberal government only knows how to reward its friends, those who contribute to the Liberal Party's coffers, or to give out corporate welfare.
We already know the dismal record of the Liberal government when it comes to compassion and caring of Canadians. The government denied compensation to hepatitis C victims. We all know that. Single parents or stay at home parents providing care to their children had been discriminated against for tax benefits until the Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance, forced the government to take action. We know all that. As responsible Canadians we must stand up and fight for people who cannot, because of circumstances beyond their control, fight for themselves.
Under the proposed amendment, this arrogant, weak and heartless Liberal government has narrowly defined the ability to eat and dress oneself as the physical act of putting food in one's mouth and an arm through one's sleeve. However, as critics have already pointed out, the proposed tightening of the rules excludes individuals who might be able to get their spoons up but cannot get their dish to the table.
The disability tax credit was established during the second world war to recognize the fact that individuals with severe and prolonged impairments often faced additional non-discretionary expenses for basic daily living that reduce their ability to pay tax. The DTC is a $6,180 credit to provide support to those with severe and prolonged mental and physical disabilities who have marked restrictions in performing basic daily living activities.
In a case involving an individual who suffered from an intestinal disease, the Tax Court of Canada decided that because he had to spend a significant amount of time each day in identifying, producing and cooking food he could digest, he met the “inordinate amount of time” test. This decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal.
In response the Department of Finance has announced its decision to amend the Income Tax Act so that individuals will not be eligible for the DTC merely on the basis of a dietary restriction that results in an extraordinary amount of time being spent on choosing, shopping for, preparing or cooking food. Specifically, the amendment proposes that the expression “feeding oneself” be defined for DTC purposes to mean the act of putting food in the mouth or swallowing that food. The proposed legislative amendments apply in the current 2002 tax year.
About 200,000 Canadians claim the disability tax credit. In total the credit provides about $390 million in tax assistance. DTC's rules should be clear and fair across the board and fraud should be vigorously pursued.
CCRA form T2201 is problematic. That is where the problem is. The guidelines pertaining to the application's questions are very restrictive and result in denying support to many legitimate applicants.
The Department of Finance evaluated the DTC in 1991 and stated that under an administrative system in which eligibility was determined and certified by a family physician depended on the development and communication of guidelines which illustrated the intended application of the definition. When the CCRA simplified the form in 1996, it failed to capture the true nature of many disabilities.
After three months of hearings, the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities on March 21 tabled in the House a report, “Getting it Right for Canadians: The Disability Tax Credit”. It stated that the current practices in administering the DTC were “grossly inadequate”. The disability community supported the recommendations in principle.
On August 21, the Department of Finance responded formally to the report. Less than 4 of the report's 21 pages actually addressed the subcommittee's report.
The draft T2201 form, which was distributed by the CCRA on August 28, does not reflect the spirit and the objectives of the Income Tax Act. It is too restrictive and will continue to unjustly deny the tax credit.
On August 30, the Department of Finance aggravated an already sensitive matter by proposing amendments to further restrict access to the tax credit because of a Federal Court of Appeal decision which ruled in favour of the appellant. This was Villani v. the Attorney General of Canada 2001 case.
The Department of Finance and its administrative arm in the CCRA have taken the opposing position and have applied the most restrictive interpretation possible to the language of the act. The Liberal chair of the subcommittee is extraordinarily disappointed.
It is alarming that the CCRA is narrowing the eligibility for the credit. It is not consistent with the Canadian values of fairness and equality. It is a disturbing message to all Canadians by discouraging them from seeking justice in our court system.
Philip Gudger, who has only one leg, was told by taxation officials that he no longer was considered disabled. After going through all the hoops, he has won an appeal and is entitled to the credit. We will be hearing a lot of horror stories. Decisions made in the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada must be considered by Parliament.
The DTC is intended to reduce taxable income for people who have severe and prolonged mental or physical impairments, causing them to be markedly restricted in the basic activities of daily living. Yes, the Department of Finance must make tough choices to keep our budget in balance, but the Liberal finance minister is going about it in the wrong way when he removes resources from those most in need.
The government must withdraw the proposed amendments to the disability tax credit and act on the unanimous recommendations of the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities which call for fairness and effective consultation before any changes to the Income Tax Act are made in regard to Canadians with disabilities. The decision by the Department of Finance ignores all the hard work by the government's own parliamentary committee. This is an affront to democracy.
The subcommittee's report tabled earlier this year recommended a complete overhaul of the DTC program but the government chose to ignore that.
Canadians with disabilities deserve to have their concerns addressed with the same consideration, if not more, than would be afforded to any population other group. This is not a question of seeking special benefits for special interests. Instead, it is seeking an effective and efficient process for providing a much needed tax credit to severely disabled Canadians. The failure to do so subverts the hard work of the parliamentary committee and ignores it.
I am appalled at our skewed tax laws that allow a businessman to write off 50% of a business lunch, while disabled people are only allowed to write off less than 20% on the purchase of wheelchairs.
An all party parliamentary committee came up with unanimous recommendations which the government should abide by. This would ease the burden on persons with disabilities in claiming DTC.
When will this weak, arrogant Liberal government do the right thing, implement the recommendations and help rather than hurt disabled people in Canada?
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC
Madam Speaker, there are times when coming back from a week of recess is absolutely great. This is one instance, and I will tell you why.
As everyone knows, a week of recess is a unique opportunity for members to do any number of things, including, in my case, devoting six and a half days to constituency work.
During the last two recesses however, I deliberately broke with tradition. I did not spend that time in my riding. Where was I, do you ask?
I used these two weeks to sleep in a different town every night. I toured Quebec. It is indeed a pleasure to travel across Quebec. Sadly, those I met on my journey are easy targets for the federal government. This is our topic of discussion today: the status of persons with disabilities. I am therefore delighted to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Halifax. I will not reread this important motion, which the Bloc Quebecois fully supports.
Going after the most vulnerable people in our society seems to have become a habit of this government. After targeting the unemployed and the elderly, the party in office is at it again, this time going after those who have functional limitations. Its incomprehension of the plight of the disabled is nothing new. It is unfortunate that the current Liberal government should be marking the beginning of the 21st century in such a sad way. Let us take a look at the recent events relating to this issue.
There is definitely a reason behind my taking advantage of those two weeks of recess to tour Quebec, instead of staying in my wonderful riding of Laval Centre. That reason is simple: if the government does not care to inform the public of its most contemptuous actions, someone has to do it. For almost 10 years now, the Bloc Quebecois has made it its duty to protect the most vulnerable people. It had to do so again this time.
While the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has been recommending for years that the government review the administration of the disability tax credit, the message seems to have either been misunderstood or totally ignored.
To understand how the situation has evolved, we have to go back to the year 2000. That is the very recent past. That year, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, which has been managing this tax credit since 1996, decided to review the case of several thousands of claimants who had been deemed eligible between 1985 and 1996.
After closely examining various files, the government decided to ask close to 170,000 claimants to fill out a new claim form. This review process was to be conducted in two phases. The first phase was to reach 106,000 claimants from coast to coast, through an insolent letter sent on October 19, 2001. That letter asked these claimants to resubmit their claim by using the controversial eligibility form, the infamous T2201. The purpose of this measure was to ensure that those who benefit from this tax credit are entitled to it. The second phase will target an additional 65,000 claimants, for the same reasons. Let us hope that this second phase never takes place, because this process is au outrage.
For the government to decide to review some files is one thing, but for it to act without any judgment or respect is a different matter.
Imagine some double amputees receiving the letter, asking whether their condition might perhaps have improved. Imagine blind people being asked whether, by some miracle, one that would by the way be greatly desired, they had recovered their sight. And imagine parents of Down syndrome children being asked whether their children did indeed have that syndrome.
These examples are not figments of my imagination, nor exaggerations. They are true events that have been shared with me by blind people, amputees and parents of children with Down syndrome.
Obviously, no time was wasted in informing the Sub-committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities of this situation, and it reacted immediately. We heard a number of witnesses who spoke of the experiences of the disabled and of how they felt when they received this infamous letter of October 19.
Following on these consultations, the sub-committee unanimously adopted the report “Getting it Right for Canadians: The Disability Tax Credit ”. This report was unanimously adopted by the full Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
So what does this report say? There are 16 recommendations in all, and I shall quote the main ones only. The first is:
that the CCRA send a letter to every individual who received the letter dated 19 October 2001 requesting DTC recertification. This correspondence should apologize for the tone of the letter and provide a complete explanation as to why the CCRA requested recertification.
Yet, guess what, no letter has been forthcoming.
The second recommendation is as follows:
that the T2201 be thoroughly modified in conjunction with organizations working with the disabled and health professionals.
Third recommendation:
that no new requests for recertification be sent... until Form T2201 is redesigned.
As well, it is recommended that:
health professionals have greater latitude for applications;
that registered nurses should be able to complete the form in certain specific cases, particularly for individuals who do not have ready access to “qualified persons”, such as those residing in remote areas of the country;
And finally:
that the Department of Finance conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Disability Tax Credit and that this evaluation be tabled with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities no later than 31 December 2002.
Will this come to pass? I doubt it.
Since House procedure requires the government to respond to committee reports, the Minister of Finance replied some months later, in fact, on August 21. I use the word respond lightly, since it was basically a flat refusal to consider it. It was as if the government had told us that we did not understand anything, that our work in committee, even though the report was unanimous, was nothing but a mirage of the reality. Consequently, there would be no major changes.
However, something very interesting transpired during this time. A man by the name of Ray Hamilton claimed the disability tax credit. He suffered from celiac disease, a severe gluten intolerance. While I am sure that you are aware of this disease, it might be useful to explain briefly the implications of this type of intolerance.
Gluten is found in flour, and everyone knows that flour is an essential part of most people's diet. In fact, most of the foods that we eat every day contain gluten. In the morning, we eat toast, or cereal or muffins. At lunch, we might have pasta, and tonight, you might have some type of sauce on a beautiful fillet steak, and with your tea some cookies or cake. This is all perfectly normal.
People with this disease must buy gluten-free foods, because for them, eating gluten is tantamount to eating varying quantities of arsenic. This means additional costs, as you can imagine, because these products cannot be purchased at the corner store, or even the local supermarket. These people must visit specialty stores in order to feed themselves safely.
In addition, gluten-free food is very expensive. To give you an idea, a small bag of cookies costs approximately $7. That is a lot of money for a few cookies to munch on with a cup of tea after dinner. You can imagine the grocery bill when you have to shop for gluten-free items.
So, Mr. Hamilton had his application filled out, but lo and behold, it was turned down by department officials. Mr. Hamilton decided to appeal to the Federal Court. The court ruled in his favour, finding that Mr. Hamilton is disabled within the meaning of the Income Tax Act and may benefit from the tax measure in question. In its reasons, the court stated that the disability tax credit is an affirmative measure and must be given a broad, non-restrictive interpretation.
This is a very heartening judgment for persons with any disability who have expenses associated with their condition. From the moment that the court rules in favour of a citizen, we can expect the government to abide by its ruling and act on it. This is, anyway, how things should go in a State worthy of the name, where the judiciary is supposed to be independent from the executive.
To the dismay of many, however, the current Minister of Finance amended the act to circumvent the court ruling. Instead of abiding by the judgment, the minister with a heart of gold—in the financial sense of the term—developed a draft bill designed to change the definition of what is meant by feeding and clothing oneself.
According to the minister, someone's ability to feed oneself will be determined by answering the question: “Am I able to bring food to my mouth— as you can see, I can do it with water, so it should be the same with food—and to swallow it?”. I may not be able to hold a glass in my hand, but if a kind person brings me one, I will be able to drink from it. That is the minister's definition: as long as a person can take or swallow, that person is not considered as disabled under the definition of feeding oneself.
And there is a second point. Our friend, the minister, must certainly benefit from some special treatment at home, since it does not seem necessary for him to buy food, to prepare it, or even to digest it. There is no doubt that the Minister of Finance does not live in the same world as the rest of us do. The great money man of the federal government really seems like a Harry Potter character. We were used to seeing surpluses appear by magic, but now the Minister of Finance is feeding himself without buying food, without preparing it, perhaps without even swallowing it, and, what is most surprising, without digesting it. No doubt, what we have here is a true sorcerer.
Let us now see how the draft bill defines the expression “to dress oneself”. It says:
To dress oneself means the act of dressing and undressing oneself.
How nice. What about a person who has a foot problem and needs special $800 shoes, but can put these shoes on by himself? The tax credit should primarily help deal with the financial implications of a disability. And what if it takes a person three hours to get dressed? Sure, that person manages to do it, but his morning has been somewhat shortened, unless of course that person can get dressed like our Minister of Finance or like the character in Bewitched, that is by simply twitching his nose.
This draft legislation is unacceptable since it tries to circumvent a court ruling and goes against common sense. Nothing prevents the government from giving us a logical explanation for its action. This is a non-refundable tax credit, which means that the government does not have to take one dollar out of its pockets. While this credit may result in a shortfall, it is definitely not an expenditure.
What is more, when we see from the statistics that one in two disabled persons lives below the poverty line, the mere act of offering a non-refundable tax credit is questionable in itself. The government is seeking to restrict access to a tax deduction for people who are already having problems making ends meet, whereas it seems not to have any problem with making it possible for certain members on the other side of this House, who probably have no trouble making ends meet, to take advantage of tax havens such as Barbados.
Now that hon. members are familiar with the details, allow me to tell you about what came next, the struggle to ensure that the most vulnerable members of our society are entitled to fair and equitable treatment. When we became aware of the draft bill, it was clear to us that they had gone too far and that we needed to react vigorously. But how could the maximum number of people be reached within a short time?
It is also rather revealing that the government decided to release the news of its draft bill over the summer, when people are on vacation and organizations advocating for the disabled are operating with skeleton staffs.
The Minister of Finance, of course, did refrain from holding a press conference to promote and justify the new measures. Without the opposition parties and the organizations for the disabled, the minister would have got away with his little trick.
The approach used by the Bloc Quebecois was one that had proven itself in the past, particularly with the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. After a discussion with my colleagues, we all agreed that a tour of Quebec was called for. I took advantage of two weeks of parliamentary recess to visit some ten cities in Quebec. As a result, I was able to meet directly with over 85 regional organizations working directly or indirectly with individuals with disabilities, as well as meeting face to face with more than 170 individuals. I was also able to explain the issue to more than 35 regional and national media outlets. All in all, directly or indirectly, we met with over 100 organizations and 200 individuals.
As members know, when we meet people in the real world, when we shake their hand and look them in the eye, they no longer represent just some statistic from a report. The horror stories that we heard throughout our tour about people's terrible circumstances moved us. These are people who want nothing more than respect for their dignity, who want nothing more than justice.
It is both discouraging and humiliating to have to beg the government for what one rightly deserves. Do we question tax deductions for professional groups? Never.
In a democracy, there are tools for people to demonstrate their disagreement with certain government policies. Petitions are one such tool.
I have been a member of Parliament for almost ten years now. I have always been reticent about personally initiating petitions. They must be initiated by citizens in response to injustices. To my great delight, during the first day of our tour, which began in beautiful Quebec City, some organizations approached me and asked if they could start a petition asking the House to oppose any government action to restrict eligibility for the disability tax credit.
That was all it took to get things moving. Now there is a petition that is making its way across Quebec and it will also travel across the rest of Canada.
Indeed, I would like to seize this opportunity given to us today by the New Democratic Party, an initiative I applaud and support, to inform my colleagues that I would be happy to forward them a copy of the petition in both official languages, so that they can forward it to organizations and residents in their ridings.
I am sure that I can count on their cooperation, because as we saw in the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, this is an issue that is non partisan, and under no circumstances must that change.
We are all aware that the true strength of democracy is felt when the actions and support of citizens is combined with the actions of their representatives. One thing is sure; if the Minister of Finance ignores the entirely legitimate requests of citizens, they are quite likely to remember it in the not-too distant future.
For all of these reasons, I am proud to support the NDP motion. I encourage people to contact their member of Parliament, or call my office at 613-995-7398 to obtain a copy of this petition.
Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the Bloc for her insightful comments.
I found her summary of the Hamilton case and the issue of persons with celiac disease being cut off the disability tax credit very interesting.
I was also interested in the whole issue around the way the federal government very quietly and surreptitiously tabled its response to the disability subcommittee's report. I am sure all the committee members were embarrassed when they received calls from the media saying that the media had heard the report was out and that the finance committee had put forward some new amendments. We knew nothing of them and when we did see them they were punitive and meanspirited. We were left feeling very much that the whole democratic process we had undertaken in good faith with people in the disability community and with professionals in the medical community had been for naught and had been a joke.
New Democrats have a letter writing campaign to put this whole issue on the table. I am happy to hear that the Bloc is doing the same kind of thing as a petition in Quebec.
What does the member think of this type of strategy on the part of the government? It released the response in the middle of the summer. It released proposed amendments in the dog days of summer when in fact no one was around to respond, to herald it or to criticize it? What does that really say to her about the kind of government we are looking at here?
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC
I thank my hon. colleague for her question. Everyone will agree with me that making announcements at 5 p.m. on a Friday before a break week or during the summer, particularly on potentially contentious issues, is a long-standing strategy of this government. This is a reality.
What does it tell us? It tells us two things. The Minister of Finance may be floating trial balloons to see how people react; this is possible, but it does not say very much about him. Where the condition of persons with disabilities is concerned, a minister worthy of the name and office should be able to recognize the needs of people and take them into account in making decisions.
The other aspect is a financial one. I did not address this in my speech, but I will make a comment on the 106,000 letters sent out last fall to people with disabilities who qualified for the tax credit, asking them to reapply so that it could be ascertained whether or not they did qualify.
A number of them did not reply to the letter, figuring it did not make any sense, because they had already provided all the information. These people lost their tax credit.
Among those who responded to the government's request, a number also lost their tax credit. In the end, one person out of every two among the 106,000 contacted lost their credit. That is a substantial number. In Quebec, for example, some 90,000 persons with disabilities—I am quoting this figure from memory—were entitled to the tax credit for 2000. This credit is worth a maximum of $960. Let us say $1,000 to make it a round figure. We are talking about $90 million.
Is that too high a price to pay to recognize the plight of persons with disabilities? Only for heartless people obsessed with squeezing the taxpayer in order to come up with money to spend elsewhere, on more appealing things, as the Liberal government is doing, and I find that deeply regrettable.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, I have a question and I do not know if any of the members have dealt with this issue.
The fact is that there are 58,000 people who are disqualified and many of them are probably mentally impaired. I have worked with the mentally challenged. Those people are not able to fill out their own forms. Some of them do not have any family members to help them. Does the hon. member know how many are mentally impaired and has anyone asked the government to look into that situation?
There is a lady at my church who is having a terrible time. The government took away her disability tax credit and she cannot even walk alone.
How many has the hon. member looked at, has her party looked at, has the government looked at? How many of those 58,000 people are mentally impaired and cannot fill out the forms?
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. Unfortunately, I cannot answer it, but it would definitely be something worth looking into, so as to have an idea of the various groups to whom this infamous questionnaire was sent.
It is very clear that, given the obstacles with which people with disabilities may be confronted, those who are mentally challenged require almost constant support. Many of these people get only occasional support.
Sometimes, when we read something that is too complicated—and we have all had the experience of reading something and wondering what it is all about—we throw it in the garbage. Therefore, it is quite possible that a number of mentally challenged people decided not to reply. Having said that, this is definitely an issue that we will raise in committee and we will demand that we be given the appropriate breakdown.
Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue, even though we really should not have to have this debate. I will be sharing my time with the distinguished member for St. John's East.
We should not be having the debate because this should never have happened. The system was working before and the whole restructuring of the disability tax credit system should not have happened.
What seems to be happening now is that every effort is being made to eliminate people, not include people, with disabilities. The concept is simple to me, it costs more when a person is disabled. It costs more for transportation, alteration of a house, devices to help a person get through a day, and medication and treatments. This is a sensible program. The government must allow people to deduct a certain amount from their income tax to help pay for these extra costs. Certainly, in most cases where someone is disabled, this does not even address those additional costs. It is only a token of the additional costs disabled people run into.
I had a meeting with the Minister of National Revenue over this issue. The minister took her time and went through all the issues with me. The only conclusion I could draw at the end of the meeting was that it was too bad not everybody had the advantage of that discussion. It was very helpful to me. It really homes in on the fact that there was a poor communication process as this unfolded, poor consultation and poor decisions as well. I do appreciate the minister taking time with me. It does not change the fact that the program is poorly directed and has the wrong concept.
The concept or the goal is to cut costs, when the goal should be to help people with disabilities pay the extra costs that they must pay.
I will run through three examples of cases. There have been many cases that have come to my attention. This is how I became involved in the first place.
Don Pryor from Truro was run over by a train in 1979. He had one leg amputated and there were a lot of other serious injuries. He has not been able to work since that time. He has many extra costs relating to limbs, transportation and medication. This man has an artificial leg. Suddenly after 20 years of qualifying for the disability tax credit, some smart person in the department wrote him a letter and said, “Mr. Pryor, you are no longer disabled.” This is a shame.
I want to mention Sherman Bent, a real gentleman, who was diagnosed with cancer some years ago. He went through the full chemotherapy treatment and it did not work. Then he had an entire bone marrow transplant. He has lost much of his hearing and vision. He cannot get around and he is totally disabled by any standards. He is another person who received a letter from the Department of National Revenue saying, “Mr. Bent, you are no longer disabled and we are denying you the tax credit.”
I received a call this morning from Mr. Albert Comeau of Rothesay, New Brunswick. He is the chairman of K.V. Committee for Disabled Persons. He has not been able to work since 1989. He has leg problems. He has had his knees replaced and he is impaired in many ways. He cannot even get dressed by himself. He cannot walk; he cannot negotiate stairs. He too has extra costs relating to braces, canes and extra medication. Why can we not give these people this small disability tax credit?
These are all examples of people with real disabilities who have been turned down and denied the disability tax credit.
We are debating the details of this legislation and the criteria, but we should be talking about the concept. The concept is to help people with disabilities cover the extra costs that most of us who do not have disabilities do not have to deal with. It is so simple, yet we seem to be focusing on how we can get more people off the disability tax credit rolls.
The Department of National Revenue sent a form to people with disabilities to determine whether they were disabled. It was also sent to their doctors. It states in one section:
Answer the following questions as they apply to your patient's impairment.
Can your patient walk?
Answer no only if, all or almost all the time, even with therapy, medication, or a device, your patient cannot walk 50 metres on level ground, or he or she takes an inordinate amount of time to do so.
If you answered no and your patient is confined to a bed or a wheelchair, how many hours per day (excluding sleeping hours) does this apply?
I cannot even understand that. What it is saying, Mr. Speaker, is if individuals can walk from me to you and back again they are not disabled. That means somebody with two artificial legs that could negotiate down there, even with medical devices, from me to you and back again but not up the stairs, just on the level floor here, he or she is declared no longer disabled. That is not good enough. Because someone can traverse 50 metres on level ground, the fact that he or she is not able to climb stairs does not count. It is entirely discriminatory. It is offensive the way that is handled.
It first came to my attention as a member when people would come and ask me about this. I thought there were a lot of people who were asking about this so I put in an access to information request to find out how many of these letters went out to people, how many answered the letters, and how many were disqualified.
As of May 2002 we learned that of the 106,000 letters that went to people who were already deemed disabled and qualified for the program for years and years 36,000 did not even reply. They were automatically removed. These were people who had been on the disability tax credit rolls for years. They were automatically removed because they did not reply.
Of the 70,000 that did reply, 22,000 at that time had also been denied. Therefore 58,000 of the 106,000 people at that time had been ruled out. These are people who had already qualified for it and had enjoyed the benefits of it for years, some as many as 20 or 30 years.
I asked if there was any attempt to contact the 36,000 people who did not respond to find out why they did not respond. Was it because they could not read or could not see? Was it because they had an emotional disability or their doctor would not fill out the form? I questioned why 36,000 people did not return the forms. Maybe it was because it was so confusing. I cannot even understand it. I asked that question and it has never been answered.
The government has a responsibility to contact all the people who did not reply to the first form, now that it acknowledges it was wrong, confusing and difficult. It should contact every single one of the people who did not respond the first time and give them a second chance to respond when and if it ever gets a new form developed that can be understood and interpreted. It should also contact all of the 22,000 people who were denied and the 70,000 who did reply and inform them that they can appeal, especially now because the process is undergoing another review process to change the rules.
I call on the government to contact all of those people who were denied the tax credit. It is incumbent upon the government because it owes it to them. We would not be here today if there was no problem with the readjustment of the program. The government is acknowledging there is a problem and it is going to change it. It should go back and address all of the people who were excluded when the first form went out, the first criteria that were outlined to the doctors, the patients and the people with disabilities. Let us go back to those people. That is what this is about. That is what we should be doing here. We should be trying to help people with disabilities. We should not be trying to get them off the disability tax credit roll to save a little money. We should be reaching out to these people.
I am asking the government now to contact those people who did not return the form in the first place. I am asking it to recontact the people who did return it and were turned down now that it acknowledges that the criteria were wrong in the first place. I make that request on behalf of disabled people in Canada. I hope the government will change its attitude on this and say, “How can we ensure everybody that needs it gets it?”, instead of, “How can we get people off of it?”