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.
