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.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything that the member has stated because, having worked with those who are disabled, I have seen the difficult time that they have and so many of them have no one to help them.

The hon. member mentioned an access to information request. Did it show those who were mentally disabled? Did it show how many of them were turned down because they could not fill out a form or read it? Even if a new one is sent out they will not be able to read it because they cannot read. Did the hon. member find out how many of the 58,000 were mentally challenged? How could any government take away any pension or any tax credit from any one of them?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could answer the member's question, but I cannot because I did not get that information. However, I will say from personal experience that people with emotional disabilities had the most difficulty qualifying for Canada pension disability and also for the disability tax credit. When someone has an emotional disability an x-ray cannot be taken of it to show the problem.

It is so difficult to define it and difficult for people with emotional disabilities to convince the authorities that they have a disability. It is the most difficult type of disability to qualify for and it is difficult for people to go through this process. When people with emotional disabilities receive these government forms, demands, appeals and rejections, they cannot handle it. They already have an emotional problem in many cases.

In my experience people with physical disabilities end up with an emotional disability as well because they cannot contribute to their families any more, they cannot work or contribute to their communities. This must be taken into consideration. We throw all these hurdles in front of them and make it more difficult for them to receive the Canada pension disability as well as the disability tax credit. I know that we must have rules and parameters, but it seems to me that we throw more hurdles in their way than we do trying to reach out to help people with disabilities.

There is a third disability that eventually affects almost all people with disabilities. First of all, they start with a physical disability and end up with an emotional disability because they cannot contribute. Then they end up with a financial disability because they cannot work.

I refer to the man that was run over by a train in 1979. He cannot contribute. He cannot earn a living and his disability tax credit was taken away after having received it since 1979. He has now been informed that he is no longer disabled. The man has a sense of humour. He looked down and said, “My legs are gone, but I have a letter saying I am no longer disabled”. God bless the man for having a sense of humour and being able to handle that, but what the government has done is wrong.

In answer to the member's question, there is no way to tell how many of these people are emotionally disabled and how many are physically disabled, but often they are both.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Norman E. Doyle Progressive Conservative St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the motion put forward by the NDP. I am also very pleased to support my colleague who made a very compassionate and passionate speech on this issue.

As we are all very much aware, the motion calls upon the government to make changes in the eligibility requirements for the disability tax credit. It calls for changes that take account of the real life circumstances of people with disabilities, changes that are a little more humane and a little more compassionate in how the government approaches the disabled problem.

We would not be having this problem today if we had a government that was a little more humane and compassionate in its approach. One would think that a tax credit program designed to assist the disabled community would be the heart and soul of compassion and humanity. However, in the hands of the government, even a program designed to assist disabled people can become a very blunt instrument causing no end to grief. It can become an instrument that government dickers around with and causes an awful lot of problems for our disabled community.

Nearly a year ago my office and all members' offices were flooded with calls about the pending changes to the disability tax credit. Then the changes came and thousands of Canadians were notified that they no longer qualified for the disability tax credit. Imagine, as a member pointed out with one of his constituents, being a disabled individual and after 10 or 15 years of receiving a disability tax credit suddenly being told that the government will make that determination as to whether or not the person is disabled. These are people with genuine disabilities, people who had availed of the tax credit for years who were suddenly and summarily cut off from the program. That not only played havoc with the mental abilities of disabled people, it played havoc with the household budgets of thousands of Canadians on low or fixed incomes, who had little in the way of options to plug the hole in their budget that was caused by the stroke of a pen in Ottawa.

The speed and harshness of the cuts only served to maximize their impact. One day someone was a disabled person availing of a certain government program, and the next day that person was not disabled. There are no provisions to take into account the various types and levels of disability.

The member for Saint John made the very good point about the individual who happened to be mentally disabled. There is no x-ray for the doctor to hold up to the light and say that the individual is mentally disabled.

As a matter of fact, the form the CCRA sends to people has ridiculous questions, for example:

Can your patient perceive, think, and remember? Answer no only if, all or almost all the time, even with therapy, medication, or a device, your patient cannot perceive, think, and remember. For example, answer no if he or she cannot manage or initiate personal care without constant supervision.

This is absolutely ridiculous and it places the onus upon the doctor to get back to the CCRA on this.

The speed and harshness of the cuts only serve to maximize the impact. These questions, as the member for Cumberland—Colchester pointed out, are designed to exclude people. It makes it very difficult for people within the disabled community to get a fair reading from the government.

The government makes much of the fact that it has balanced the nation's books. What the government has really shown is that it had the necessary ruthlessness to balance the nation's books on the backs of the unemployed, the people who are disabled and the people who are sick in the community.

We see it everywhere, not just within the disabled community. Transfers to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education were cut as well, which threw the budgets of the provinces and the territories into a tailspin. A university education became the domain of the rich or the massively indebted. The sick are lined up for treatment in the health care system, whose strains are only surpassed by those of the armed forces. Now it is the disabled. In the regions of the country dependent on seasonal employment, there have been massive cuts to the EI system.

All of those things are an indication that the government is balancing its books on the backs of the unemployed, the people who are sick and who cannot avail themselves of decent health care. Now it is people who are disabled. First it was the sick, then it was the unemployed, and now it is our disabled community. All groups in our society are potential targets when the government starts slashing funding to serve its own particular priorities.

If the government would only cut out some of its waste and political patronage, that would go a long way to financing the disability tax credit that is suited to the everyday realities and practical needs of our disabled people.

We do not need any more unilateral cuts or changes. Interest groups should be thoroughly consulted about these things before sweeping changes are made to a program like the disability tax credit.

We are dealing here with many of our society's disadvantaged people. It behooves us to be extra sensitive, not insensitive, not unilateral, but extra sensitive to the harsh realities that are faced by many Canadians through no fault of their own.

It is no problem really for any of us to support this motion. The motion makes sense. It is a motion the government should be willing to deal with before the day is out.

We should also realize that the tax credit does not recognize the significant variation of cuts for individuals who have disabilities. We should realize that the tax credit only offsets a very small portion of the costs most individuals experience, which does not create tax fairness for people with disabilities. The tax credit does not benefit the majority of Canadians with disabilities because they might be living in poverty. Most of them do not have a taxable income.

A review was recently held by the parliamentary Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It held hearings last winter and issued a report on the issues related to the tax credit. The report criticized the CCRA for “practices that are grossly inadequate for people with disabilities”. It called for a complete overhaul of the disability tax credit program.

Everyone on this side of the House is in support of the government overhauling that program. Everyone on this side of the House is in support of the government doing something very quickly to help our disabled people.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON

Mr. Speaker, I just wonder, having heard the member opposite, in his experience whether he has had people come into his office, even before he became a member of Parliament, who were receiving the disability tax credit but who, at least as far as he could see, were probably perfectly capable of working and making their own way?

I would suggest to him and ask him, does he not think at least the government's intention, which is to promote self-reliance and to promote people trying to do things for themselves even if they are disabled, is the correct thing to be doing? Even if we might see opportunities to amend the rules to make them a little bit more precisely targeted, would he not agree that the basic idea of trying to encourage people to be self-reliant rather than through money through the disability tax credit make them more dependent?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Norman E. Doyle Progressive Conservative St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking here about people who are self-reliant. We all agree that people who are not self-reliant should be encouraged to become self-reliant but this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about people who are genuinely disabled.

I would refer the hon. member once again to the review that was held by the parliamentary Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It held hearings last winter and issued its report, not on people who are self-reliant but on people who are genuinely disabled. I would imagine that the subcommittee had representation from all political parties. When it issued its report, it made it very clear that it was criticizing the CCRA for practices that were grossly inadequate for people with disabilities. It called for a complete overhaul of the disability tax credit program.

That indicates to me there is a problem in the system. The government itself created the problem. The subcommittee looked very closely at the issue and called upon the government to do something to help the disabled community, people who are legitimately disabled, not people who are self-reliant.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will make a comment and my colleague may wish to comment back. In a roundabout way it reflects on the question that my colleague from the governing side just asked.

If the premise behind tax credits within the Income Tax Act is based on self-reliance, I have to question why there are tax breaks for corporations, why there is a tax credit available if one has a child under a certain age, why there is a personal exemption tax credit, and why there is a tax credit so to speak for a political donation or a charitable donation. If the premise behind a tax credit is self-reliance, I think the member on the governing side has missed the whole point.

The premise of a disability tax credit recognizes that disabled people have additional costs, costs that we do not always see. Those costs are there on things we would not normally think about.

I know someone who is a paraplegic and who goes to work every day. Do the people here recognize the things that might push up costs are incontinence pads, suppositories, additional footwear, catheters that have to be used on a daily basis, and increased transportation costs? That person is quite self-reliant but deserves the opportunity of a tax break because of additional costs. That is the premise behind the disability tax credit.

If the member across the way does not realize that, we are in deep trouble.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, I was first elected in 1988. I have seen my job as a member of Parliament change a lot with the cutbacks to government offices, HRDC, CCRA and the Canada pension plan. In many cases I have become the front line for people in my rural riding. If they need to contact the government, it is done through my office when before they had other places where they could go.

Was the member for St. John's East or his staff given a briefing on the proposed changes and how they would affect the disabled people in his community? Was the staff told how to deal with people with disabilities? I ask this because I did have a briefing with the minister a couple of weeks ago. It was very good.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Norman E. Doyle Progressive Conservative St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, no. The very least the government could have done would have been to brief members on what effect this would have upon the disabled community.

The member for Churchill made a very good comment. We have to realize that the tax credit offsets only a very small portion of the costs that most individuals experience and it does not create tax fairness for people with disabilities.

I made the point a moment ago that tax credits probably do not benefit the majority of Canadians with disabilities because a lot of these people live in poverty and most of them do not have a taxable income. The member made a very good point.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have thought a lot about the process and the way the government is going. I am not sure whether it is meanspirited, whether it is ignorant or whether a lot of people on the government side have not done their work and maybe will look at this matter, hear from the public and join us in opposition to this meanspirited attack.

A few moments ago a comment was made regarding whether we can make a visual judgment as to whether or not an individual is disabled. That is a lot of the problem. People are making assumptions. They are drawing conclusions. They have no knowledge or understanding of or respect for those individuals who have muscular dystrophy, fibromyalgia, psychiatric disorders, cerebral palsy or AIDS. We cannot judge just by looking at them, and we should not be doing it anyway, but that is what we in the House are reduced to. That is the insinuation: that one can make a diagnosis on the spot as to whether a person should get money or not. We are talking about $950. It is $950 and we are talking about whether they should be taught self-reliance or self-respect.

I have news for members. The disabled population in Canada is overrepresented in terms of lower income and overrepresented in terms of unemployment. I can tell the House this because I spent seven years as a job developer for persons with physical disabilities and also for persons with developmental disabilities, at two fine organizations that were underfunded. We actually were able to save taxpayers money by helping people get off assistance by working part time or full time, but during that process those individuals incurred additional expenses. If they had to go to work and could not use public transit because it was not accessible, they had to take cabs. These people did not have timeframes that allowed them to use Handi-Transit or other types of accessible transportation systems that ran on a regular basis. They needed systems at alternative times, so they had to take cabs to get to and from work.

There are all kinds of personal support needs required as well and we are talking about $950. We are not talking about something that is a luxury for people. We are not talking about something they can claim because they went on a corporate golf outing or to a sporting event somewhere and were able to write it off. This is not a choice. It is not their choice to be disabled. This is something people have to deal with and we should be supporting them. It is not about making them feel that they have to be more self-reliant. They understand that. They do not want to be a burden to their community or to Canada. They want to contribute and participate.

The process we have gone through is clearly a mess. Anybody across the country who is watching this debate realizes that the comprehensive platforms or tax issues that have been put forth to persons with disabilities are barriers. This is not working for them. The application process is something else again. It is dehumanizing to these individuals to have to go to a doctor again and have him or her reaffirm that they are disabled. It is not something they want to do. They do not want to go back to their doctor to prove again that they are disabled.

I have a letter from one of my constituents, who states:

I have used a cane since I was 62. I have a damaged balance organ because I was given massive doses of Genomycin when I had a ruptured appendix. It made no difference that I used a cane or walker--as long as I could walk 50 metres, I was refused. Over the years I have also developed spinal stenosis and diabetes, which is treated with insulin and metformin. I am certainly much worse than I was 14 years ago.

This is somebody who was collecting the disability tax benefit when she was 62. She is now 76 and has been denied that tax benefit, so somehow age has improved her condition. I just cannot believe that.

In my excitement to get started, Mr. Speaker, I failed to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Palliser. I apologize for not noting that at the beginning of my speech.

In general, we have to look at persons with disabilities in our society and this tax credit is something that could facilitate their inclusion. That is an improvement. The tax credit will provide people with the means to offset their actual incidentals so that they can be more involved in society, involved in employment and in social activities and all kinds of different things. That is why the tax credit is so important. It is a tool. It is a means necessary for them to be able to achieve some of their goals.

With regard to some other situations we have seen, I believe that is the reason why this has been an emotional debate in the House and I think it is one of the reasons why we have to look at this issue. The government has claimed to be opening the tax bracket for many other people, such as the capital gains tax. We heard a recent report involving the return of $1 billion to people because of capital gains tax differences and we are talking about $950 per person. That will not come anywhere near the billion dollars. What about the GST and not closing in those gaps? What about all the uncollected revenue because it chooses not to go after people? One could go on and on.

In the parliamentary subcommittee hearings that were reported in March, 2002, members were unanimous in what they recommended. They also showed a teamwork initiative that should be respected in the House. The amendments clearly defined that there was a participation point for persons with disabilities and one for the agencies that represented them. They said clearly that they wanted to have changes that were more inclusive and they did not want there to be a restrictive element, but that is what has happened.

My local constituency has been really affected by this. Petitions, forms and letters keep coming in on a daily basis. We get more and more examples.

Another gentleman came to see me just the other day and I talked to him. He has cerebral palsy. It is a lifetime condition. He has extreme difficulty with walking and a staff member saw it when he came into the office. His form mentioned the 50 metre rule in terms of the walking distance. On some days he is able to do it, but on most days he is not. The doctor is in a quandary in terms of whether he can or cannot walk 50 metres. Some doctors would say yes and when that happens, people would get disqualified. But it is not all the time, so how can they? Also, where does this 50 metres come from? Why is it not 49? Why not 51? Can anybody answer that? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

This issue is something that is very important to Canadians in general and to society. A number of disabled persons have had challenges over the years. It is something we need to change. We need to be more inclusive. I know that a number of opposition backbenchers have been talking about the troubles that they have had with this in their local offices. There are 30,000 people who are affected by this right now. It is the unknown quantity, the unknown element,that makes it difficult. People are waiting for the shoe to drop, so to speak, with regard to their tax credit. When they have to reapply, it is an additional cost for them. It is also a gamble because if they do not get it, then they are not reimbursed for the doctor's costs and the medical costs. That is something that is very traumatic. It is also about their sense of security.

For those reasons, we need to have this motion debated and, more important, we need to have it implemented. I think the will is out there. I am hoping that people will not draw conclusions and that they will assist in at least maintaining the status quo, while at the same time the government is opening up breaks for big business, corporations and other people.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in the House would agree that we want to treat people with disabilities in a humane and compassionate manner, but surely one of the problems in something like this is the difficulty of framing rules that are indeed humane and compassionate, as was proposed by the subcommittee.

The member opposite cited the example of the 50 metre rule for walking ability and asked why it should not be 49 or why it should not be 51. May I ask him, then, if he were to frame such a rule to test somebody's level of disability in terms of how far they could walk, what would he do?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. First, when we talk about a humane and compassionate manner, let me say that persons with disabilities just want to be treated like anyone else. That is what they are really asking for. This $950 is to offset some of the additional challenges because of the barriers we in our society have created. We are the ones who created the extra barriers by not having accessible transportation, by not investing our public funds in it for so many years. We are the ones who have created architecture that is a barrier to people. That is what we are talking about: being able to eliminate those extra costs they incur on a regular basis.

With regard to the specific number in terms of walking, we should go about it in terms of whether walking is relatively impaired or whether there is difficulty from time to time. It does not have to be 50 metres. What it has to be, medically, is that they have difficulty with ambulatory transportation by themselves. I think that is the way that we should approach this issue. We do not have to look at 50, 51 or 49 metres. We should open that clause so that people who have a difficult time with ambulatory movement and have to use some of their income to purchase some offsetting means for it are the ones who receive the credit.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Windsor West has indicated that some 30,000 people have been denied the disability tax credit. I am not sure whether he is aware of this or not, but some 60,000 people who received that form letter have not replied. Often in my riding what I find is that people are not aware that different credits are available. A number of people are unaware that old age security is available on top of CPP or that there are additional supplemental tax credits they may get. There are more of these types of things.

There are probably a lot of people out there who do not have a whole lot of money to deal with and who are not aware of this. They take their income tax into an H&R Block, and I am not giving them an advertisement, or some tax place and just hand it to them. There is no back and forth to ask if a person should get a disability tax credit because they do not necessarily know that a person has a disability.

I wonder whether my colleague would comment on whether or not he thinks that the cost of the bureaucracy involved in challenging disabled people on this tax credit would outweigh the benefit of what disabled people are receiving in tax credits.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question.

With regard to the 60,000 people who have received the letter and have not replied, it is not surprising given the fact of the written format of a letter and the fact that there are many people with visual disabilities. They have difficulty with regular communication, be it the papers, be it written materials, and they certainly would have a problem with this type of communication element. I think it shows the lack of accessible programming in terms of sending out one form letter to people using a supplement or at least a tax benefit that offsets some of their incurred costs when there are other issues with regard to language, literacy and the ability to read. There are all those different things, so it is really not that surprising that 60,000 people have not responded.

As a former board member for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, I can say that a lot of people are shut out with regard to day to day communications that are in the general media or even generally in their community, be it in flyers and different materials of that nature.

Specifically with regard to the cost, it is certainly one that we would be better off putting toward the implementation of social programs or at least toward assisting in facilitating persons with disabilities to be more involved in the community and, more important, in being able to participate and fully function, as opposed to incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs. Those are the costs we are talking about in terms of the money to get this out through the letter system at a complete waste.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about the NDP opposition day motion. It is a pleasure because there are many people in my riding of Palliser who are very interested in this topic. They have come to my community offices to talk about their concerns and experiences with regard to the disability tax credit and the sudden decision by the government. These people had been declared disabled but must now reapply.

I congratulate the leader of our party and our critic on disability from Dartmouth for putting the motion forward. I also want to recognize the work that has been done by the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I know the chair, the member for St. Paul's across the way, is following the debate closely as I think are a number of the members of Parliament.

That subcommittee has done excellent work which unfortunately has been ignored by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and the Minister of Finance. Therefore it is doubly important that our caucus has brought this issue forward to remind Canadians and the House that we as a country are failing those who have received the disability tax credit. They need our help, not the back of our collective hands.

The great American song writer, Woody Guthrie, had a line in one of his songs about the kind of people who would take nickels from a blind man's cup. I was reminded of that when my colleague from Windsor West talked about the years that he had spent with the chapter of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in Windsor, helping people who desperately need our assistance.

Unfortunately some of those people may be on the other side or may be working with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. We maintain that they are harassing disabled Canadians.

Many people with disabilities encounter costs that the rest of us do not have to bear, as the member for Windsor West so eloquently noted. This may mean, for instance, that they need to have help in preparing their meals or help in getting dressed in the morning.

We know that about 200,000 Canadians who receive CPP disability benefits have also been eligible for a modest disability tax credit, $960, against the federal income tax they pay. This is not a lot of money for individuals. There have been problems with the credit because the federal government has been applying the regulations, as I have indicated, in the most restrictive way possible. Some people who have been denied the credit have gone to court and have won.

Six years ago a federal judge broadened the general scope of the restrictive tests that the government put people through by saying, “If the object of Parliament is to give to disabled persons a measure of relief that will to some degree alleviate the increased difficulties under which their impairment forces them to live, the provision must be given for a humane and compassionate construction”.

A humane and compassionate construction is something we have not seen from the government on this particular issue.

Last fall, CCRA sent letters, as has been pointed out, to 100,000 Canadians receiving the disability tax credit telling them that they would have to reapply in order to maintain that benefit. These letters were sent despite the fact that the individuals involved had been receiving the tax credit for years and despite the fact that opposition members from the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party had stood up and asked pointed questions to the appropriate minister of the day as to why the government was proceeding with those letters.

People now have to get a doctor's certificate and have to fill out a form all over again. Incidentally doctors often charge those people who do not have a lot of additional disposable income to spend in that regard.

As I indicated at the outset, we have received many calls in Regina and Moose Jaw from constituents who are frankly confused, frightened and angry about what has happened, people who know that their health has not improved. At the very least, it has been probably maintained and in many cases it has probably worsened. They are asking why in heaven's name they are being put through this kind of a torture chamber.

Our fear was that the government was using this bureaucratic process to force some recipients to give up their credit, and we believe that these fears have now been realized. About one-third of those receiving letters have been denied the tax credit because they are no longer considered eligible to receive it.

Then a few short months ago, at the end of August, the newly minted Minister of Finance announced that he would amend the Income Tax Act to write these new restrictions into the law. These changes to the Income Tax Act clearly reverse the gains that people with disabilities have made in court. I cited the 1996 decision. The minister has indicated that he intends to tighten the rules by restricting the definition of whether people are capable of feeding themselves. A tax credit will no longer be provided to someone who has to spend a great deal of time shopping or preparing food.

These narrow definitions mean that as long as people can manage to put an arm through a sleeve they will no longer qualify for the benefit. These are callous decisions. One individual said that people almost had to be dead now before they would receive the disability tax credit. I maintain that is not what was ever intended, but it is the way it is being interpreted.

A lot of people are saying that people with disabilities are being cut off. I would also like to emphasize that I met with a couple last week during our constituency week in my office in Regina. It is not just a matter of the fact that this couple's two sons have now been cut off and have been denied at all the appeal stages. It is also the fact that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency sent them a bill for more than $1,200 because they had been receiving the tax benefit. Suddenly it was deemed to be money that was owed by this couple for their sons who had previously been considered as eligible for the disability tax credit. That is just totally unacceptable. They came to my office and said that their collective decision was that whatever was required they would continue to fight because this was simply wrong, that it was inhumane and that something had to be done.

The government is doing a very good job of uniting not only opposition parties on this issue, but I think a lot of their own backbenchers, and the disability community is galvanized as never before. If changes are not made, this fight will grow and continue. I put the government on notice for what will happen if it does not wake up and realize that it has made a significant mistake and is perpetuating that mistake.

Another person who came to my office had been receiving the tax credit for 10 years as a result of a heart attack. Her tax credit has now been disallowed.

A woman in Saskatoon, who I spoke to at our convention on the weekend, said:

I am still waiting, as are many, for a response saying that I still qualified for the Disability Tax Credit. I qualified in previous years and believe, as do my doctors, that I still qualify...

I filed my taxes and expected over $3,000 in a refund based on the Disability Tax Credit. Instead, I was billed. I paid that amount in anticipation that someone would realize a mistake was made. The doctors I see know a heck of a lot more about me and my condition than some doctor that reads my tax files from Winnipeg.

These are comments from ordinary Canadians across the country and across my province. The government has to make the significant changes to address this problem and eliminate this crazy notion of having people who had already qualified for disability tax credits to reapply.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Joe McGuire Liberal Egmont, PE

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the principle behind the motion. Canadians with disabilities should be treated with more leniency than the current disability tax credit now provides. I congratulate the member for Halifax for bringing the motion before us.

The people we are talking about are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. While we have a duty to ensure that taxpayer money is well spent and that there is as little waste as possible in the system, surely we can prevent tax fraud while respecting the dignity of and understanding the special needs of our disabled citizens.

As a compassionate and caring government, we should acknowledge that the current method used to determine whether one is eligible for the tax credit needs improvement and should be reviewed and changed by the Minister of Finance.

I agree entirely with the member for Palliser. He touched upon the questions that are in the disability tax credit certificate for eligibility. The answers are yes or no and seem very restrictive. A lot of the situations with which we deal are not yes and no.

There is one question in particular which I would like to point out. It is can the patient dress himself or herself. The doctor then has to answer yes or no. If the doctor answers no, that the patient does not have the ability and if the patient falls or has a mishap while being dressed, then there is no leeway for the doctor to say that somebody should be supervising while a patient dresses. Pride sometimes comes into the act where patients will insist on dressing themselves, but they need a person either from the family or outside the family to be present just in case they have a mishap.

There is absolutely no discretion when they fill out this certificate application form for any amount of leniency at all.

Could the member for Palliser comment on the disability certificate application form and maybe suggest other areas where the certificate could be improved?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Egmont for his comments. I think parenthetically he is alluding to the point that I made, that I thought a lot of members on the government side were uncomfortable with their executive branch decision on this issue.

With regard to the specific question about the certificate, I believe that if we consulted with the medical community, the people charged with filling out these disability tax credit forms, we would find that they are very concerned about the fact that they are pretty much restricted to yes or no answers. There is little opportunity to put in sufficient explanatory notes that would allow somebody who was assessing a form at a CCRA office in Winnipeg or somewhere else to make an honest determination as to the condition of the individual. There is only the briefest amount of space for the doctor to respond. If there were more opportunity for the doctor to expand and explain the condition of the individual that he or she had seen, it may result in a happier outcome.

Our point is that the medical forms are simply too restrictive for that currently to happen.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Toronto—Danforth.

The real shame of today's motion is that the work of the subcommittee on persons with disabilities is really the best of Parliament.

A constituent of mine, Lembi Buchanan, came to me with her concerns about the restrictive nature of the form and the fact that it really did not deal with mental illness. We then had a huge administrative problem with the CCRA, such that all members of Parliament ended up quite galvanized, that this was not the way to administer an audit and that people were being seriously put out in terms of having to go to the doctor to re-qualify.

As chair of the subcommittee, I want to point out that it was not just an all party support. This was the unanimous report of the subcommittee with the unanimous support of the parent HRDC committee. It was very clear that we wanted the government to act.

If we draw attention to the Library of Parliament document, which compared what we asked for in the report, and the paucity of specific responses in the government response that was tabled in August, it is a shame that this many months later we are still here today commenting on the subcommittee report and on the proposed changes to the disability.

We need to point out that the finance department seems to think that its job is to interpret the Income Tax Act and the CCRA's job is to administer it. I think we need to now understand that we, as Parliament, want the job of interpreting the Income Tax Act back.

There is no question that the disability community does not want people to be getting the disability tax credit if they do not deserve it. They want the money to go to the people who deserve it. That is why, when we look at some of the recommendations of our committee, we actually suggested some very clear solutions.

We wanted an immediate moratorium on the way that the audit was carried on, but mainly we asked for an advisory committee, such that the medical community and the disability community could come together to interpret various things and could be called when there was a court decision that seemed difficult or whatever. It would be a way to get citizens involved in the democracy between elections that we think Parliament represents.

We also asked the finance department to have a look at all disability related measures of the Income Tax Act and to do an audit review of that. There is a lot of confusion right now, not only in terms of the receiptable expenses and the non-receiptable expenses but everything to do with persons with disabilities.

We asked for an appropriate response to the DTC subcommittee report, which we still have not yet received but which, thankfully, will be reviewed at the HRDC committee on Thursday morning with finance officials and CCRA officials.

Let us go to the proposed changes to the Income Tax Act and to the reasons they are so misguided.

The Department of Finance has taken an approach to the disability tax credit. The reverse is the line of all modern judicial interpretation of the Income Tax Act. It contradicts the intentions of Parliament when it passed the act while it is saying it is actually the intentions of Parliament that it is acting out.

The courts and the subcommittee have taken the same approach and argued that the decisions regarding the eligibility should be made on a case by case basis after applying a human and compassionate set of criteria.

The Department of Finance, on the other hand, is trying to exclude whole classes of people with disabilities, for example those with celiac disease, regardless of the degree of their impairment. While it is doing this, the department claims it is carrying out the will and intentions of Parliament when Parliament passed the Income Tax Act measures related to the disability tax credit. This is wrong both in fact and interpretation. The department has never provided any evidence for its claim to know what parliament intended.

Unlike the static view of the Department of Finance, the courts have taken a much more dynamic approach and aim to adapt the legislation to respond to social change and modern thinking about the issues such as disability.

The Supreme Court of Canada has pronounced its views regarding social benefits for Canadians. Justice Bertha Wilson pointed out that in the court's view “any doubt arising from the difficulties of the language should be resolved in favour of the claimant”.

It is entirely reasonable to apply Justice Wilson's logic to the disability tax credit. The courts have done this by stating that where the Income Tax Act is vague or ambiguous, the best approach is to take a “humane and compassionate” approach that achieves “the object of Parliament”.

When we consider the proposed legislation, members of Parliament expect that those who administer it will operate in a sensible and effective way to achieve its purposes. We also expect that those who interpret the legislation will adapt to its involving circumstances.

How is it possible to know, as the Department of Finance claims, what Parliament intended? Parliament did not even consider many of the complex and interrelated conditions associated with the DTC.

We do know that Parliament intended to create a tax measure that would provide some compensation to those with serious disabilities. We do know that the Income Tax Act does not deal exhaustively with the list of disabilities that Canadians have. We do not know that Parliament meant this list to be exhaustive and frozen in time.

As a family physician, the fact that breathing is not viewed as an act of daily living has always been a bit surprising to me but we believe that this section should be interpreted or even expanded in a broad and humane way. I do not believe, nor do my colleagues on the subcommittee, that Parliament intended the statute to disqualify this whole group of disabled people. Knowing my fellow parliamentarians as I do, there is overwhelming evidence that Parliament intended the bureaucratic decisions about the DTC should be dealt with in a humane and compassionate way and with the consultation of the disability community and the medical community. That is what the courts have decided and what three parliamentary committees have recommended in the past 10 years after studying the tax system.

When the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue commissioned the hon. member for Fredericton in 1996 to look at tax issues, he asked the ministers exactly the same thing: Where is the evidence of the Department of Finance that it knows what Parliament decided?

One principle of law is formal equality, which is that laws must be applied fairly and in a consistent and even-handed manner. This means treating different cases differently and like cases alike. Similarly, the concept of horizontal equity requires equal tax treatment of those with equal ability to pay.

The Department of Finance is not applying either of those principles. It is interpreting the Income Tax Act in a manner that treats some people who are disabled differently from other people who are disabled. The act does not mention the cause of disability. It only talks about the effect, the impairment, but the department is focusing on the cost.

Why does the department want to treat people differently? Does the department want to exclude all those with chronic bronchitis, and all those towing their oxygen machines around but technically are not disabled according to its interpretation of the Income Tax Act? Why not all those with dietary restrictions? Why not all those who can get out of bed? Why not all those who even have a minuscule ability to see or hear?

The idea that somebody must be 90% impaired was appalling to the committee. How can people not be disabled if they are only confused 50% of the time? This type of restriction is an ultimate destination where the department is leading us. If we are trying to apply different standards to some groups of Canadians with disabilities, so much for equality and equity. If Parliament had intended to take this approach, it would have passed a statute that said exactly that.

Is that what Parliament decided when it passed the disability tax measures. Absolutely not. If we look at the act closely, Parliament intended exactly the approach that had been taken in the subcommittee's report, that is a case by case approach and not one that excludes entire groups of claimants based on the cause of their disability.

The department, therefore, is directly contradicting the wishes of Parliament as explained in the plain words of the Income Tax Act.

I urge the Department of Finance to interpret the statute in a way that is consistent with existing laws and principles of justice, and the way that Parliament intended and still intends, and will continue to be vigilant on this.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Larry Spencer Canadian Alliance Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across for her fine leadership on that committee.

Does she see any way in which the act is being unfair in that some of the qualifications required to receive DTC are related directly to staying alive, while some would apply to others who are quite able to go out in the community, live a normal life, work at a job, et cetera, for example, a blind person who has a job and is quite capable of working?

Would the member comment on that. Is there a need to look at the fairness overall in the act?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, as a group we need to look at how we help disabled persons, who actually have receipts, with their expenses. There are indirect costs that allow somebody to get out into the community. However if they have trouble walking, they will always have to pay more for parking places that are way closer to their job than people who can park farther away at a much cheaper cost. There are many interpretations of this. It really was an acknowledgment that it costs some people a great deal of money to earn the same salary. That was what we intended.

There has been some trouble and the disabled community is very clear that some people accidentally received the credit. We need to make it clear that they do not qualify in a certain way. That does not mean that those who do have genuine expenses in order to contribute to society but who do not happen to have tax receipts applied to them should not be allowed to have that level playing field that was the intent of the disability tax credit.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear the member for St. Paul's refer to the overall objective here, which really is levelling the playing field for Canadians living with disabilities.

I have to say that every single person with whom I have talked or from whom I have heard since they found themselves, to their utter dismay, disqualified from a benefit that some have received for many years, is actually worse off today than when they first received that benefit. They are worse off in terms of health, in terms of deterioration of their condition and are certainly worse off financially.

However we are now learning that 30,000 people have been cut off and are beginning to get some support in the courts, where they have had the resources, the wherewithal and the support of the community to challenge in the courts, which really gives us a two tier disability tax in a sense because we know great numbers do not.

As I admire the leadership the member has shown through the committee and as a member of Parliament on this issue, will she today, in the spirit of those recommendations that came from her subcommittee, vote to support the opposition day motion that we put together today and crafted in such a way to make it absolutely supportable by all members in the House?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would be very proud to vote for the motion that supports so well the work of our committee. It also supports Parliament. Parliament works well when it allows a committee to come together and put forward some solutions but we expected a better response from our government than the one we received in August.

When the HRDC committee meets on Thursday we may well be sending the bulk of that report back to the government for a better response. I think it deserves that opportunity.

The CCRA has shown good faith in terms of putting together its advisory committee and in getting us a better form. The minister agreed to use last year's form because the community was still not happy with the new form. I think we have seen some progress from the revenue agency.

I was disappointed in the finance department's response, but particularly the government's response when we asked for an advisory committee. The best it could do was tell us that it could avail itself in prebudget consultations. It is really not good enough in terms of what we want in a democracy between elections.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to acknowledge the leadership of the member for Halifax in putting forward today's motion. Also I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to share some of her time. I would also like to acknowledge her leadership on the subcommittee for the disabled.

The first week in September I was sitting in my constituency office on the Danforth. A young fellow who has worked with me in the last three election campaigns on my phone bank rolled into my office in his wheelchair. Johnny has no legs. He said, “Dennis, guess what I have here. I have a letter that says I am no longer eligible for my disability credit”. I said that it must have been some kind of a joke or a computer glitch, that it was a no-brainer and I would get it fixed in a second. I took the letter and sure enough it said he would have to reapply and it went on and on with a long list of things.

I immediately called the office of the Minister of Finance and said it was crazy and that they would have to get on it. The letter was real. I was shocked. I followed through with a letter to the Minister of Finance and I received a response that the law of the land had to be amended because in fact there were some loopholes in the current law. I was shocked when I received that response.

The very first week we were back in the House the issue was raised by a member of the New Democratic Party. In fact I responded to the member by saying that this was something that must be dealt with immediately. I made a commitment that I would be pushing and following through on this. Now it is almost three months later.

I can remember a few months ago when all the Olympic athletes we cheered for in Salt Lake City were ushered into the House of Commons, every one of our athletes who won a medal. I remember how we all stood and cheered for about 10 minutes because of their accomplishments.

In order to get the point across here, we may have to usher in a couple of hundred people who are visibly disabled who have been disallowed their disability credit. This is such an obvious discrimination against the most disadvantaged people in our country. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Department of Finance and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency do not just lock themselves in a room and design the policy that fixes this immediately.

Many years ago I had the opportunity to work across the street in the Langevin Block in Prime Minister Trudeau's office. We coined an expression in those days. It was called the MAD treatment, maximum administrative delay. We would use that expression when we had a political priority that we wanted implemented but the officials would give us the MAD treatment, maximum administrative delay. I think this Parliament, this House of Commons is getting the MAD treatment on this file.

It is pretty basic to me. I will be supporting the New Democratic motion this afternoon, or whenever the vote takes place. I believe that to create any kind of a misperception that we are doing anything other than supporting those people in our country who are most disadvantaged disgraces this chamber.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, the consistent support from the member for Toronto—Danforth on this issue is greatly appreciated and I say that not meaning by the NDP caucus, but by the number of Canadians and their families that are being discriminated against in exactly the way the member has described.

This morning the parliamentary secretary stood up and with no apology, no shame and no embarrassment said that he did not have a clue how many of the 106,000 people who received that letter were disqualified. This leads me to believe that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and certainly the Minister of Finance who has the opportunity to do something about this do not really understand the circumstances of the people living with disabilities for whom it is a severe punishment to have been disqualified.

Could the member for Toronto—Danforth expand upon that? It is clear that some of his colleagues understand why it is necessary for us to take a united stand here, but it is also clear that some of his colleagues do not. I wonder if he might elaborate on that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have not encountered a single member of Parliament on this side of the House or that side of the House who is not in accord with the member's motion.

I am not a technical interpreter of the motion, but sometimes motions are put forward that may need technical amendments in order to get the job done that really needs to be done. I know there have been some discussions that some technical changes to the member's motion may be needed in order for us to get the job done that we want done. I am praying that the member is receptive to that. I do not see any resistance on this side of the House to what has to be done.

The number of people who are affected is really not an issue. If it were only one person, we would still have the duty to amend the law.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to make the comment that the government in question today allowed a $2.1 billion trust fund to go to the United States without any taxes on it, taxes to the tune of $700 million that should have been here in Revenue Canada's pockets for the people of Canada. It did not do so.

My colleague mentioned the term MAD, maximum administrative delay. I would suggest that the term we should be using in relation to the policy the government is implementing on the disability tax credit is snafu, and I will not bother to interpret it.