SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES OF THE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF
PERSONS WITH DISABILITES
SOUS-COMITÉ DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES DU COMITÉ
PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES
PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 11, 2001
• 1531
[Translation]
The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): Welcome
to the Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities
which has been given a mandate to study the administration of the
Disability Tax Credit.
[English]
Today, in our study of the disability tax
credit, we are focusing on the definition of “disability”,
the eligibility criteria, and the administration. After
talking about the need to begin the study dealing with
the disability tax credit for the past two sessions of
Parliament, the subcommittee began this study on an
urgent basis about a month ago. We decided to proceed
because members of Parliament were receiving many
representations from their constituents about a letter
sent by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. This
letter told people with disabilities who have been
eligible for the DTC that they had to recertify in
order to retain their eligibility for the disability
tax credit.
To date, the committee has heard from organizations
representing hundreds of thousands of Canadians with
disabilities, along with individuals who have received
the letter from CCRA. Originally, the subcommittee had
invited the Minister of National Revenue, the
Honourable Martin Cauchon, to appear today. Unfortunately, he is
unable to be with us because he is meeting with Tom
Ridge, the U.S. Director of Homeland Security.
Similarly, the Commissioner of CCRA, Mr. Rob Wright, is
meeting with his American counterparts.
We are pleased, however, to welcome senior officials
from CCRA, Mr. Alain Jolicoeur, deputy
commissioner; Mr. David Miller, assistant
commissioner; and Ms. Kathy Turner, director
general. They will provide us with their views on the
immediate issues surrounding the letter and, if we
have time, about the DTC generally.
I would like to stress that because this meeting will
last less than an hour, we'll probably not cover all
the questions the members of the subcommittee
might like answered, but when Parliament resumes following
the Christmas break, we will hold meetings with CCRA
and other federal departments, as the subcommittee sees
fit.
Following the officials' testimony, the subcommittee
will hold a brief in camera meeting from 4:15 p.m. to
4:30 p.m.
So, Mr. Jolicoeur, I believe you have about ten
minutes of overview for us and then we'll go to the
questions.
Mr. Alain Jolicoeur (Deputy Commissioner, Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency): Thank you, Madam Chair.
On behalf of CCRA, I'd like to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I welcome the
opportunity to clarify certain important matters
related to the disability tax credit, the DTC.
We've been closely following the proceedings of the committee
and have carefully reviewed the testimony to date.
Based on the testimony you've received, there are four
main issues that I'd like to raise today. The first
one is the application of the law regarding the DTC;
the form used by the CCRA; the public consultation
conducted by CCRA; and the special review that is
under way for claims originating between 1985 and 1996.
On the first one, the application of the law, the role
of the CCRA is to administer the legislation that has
been enacted by Parliament. As with all tax measures,
our responsibility is to ensure that all eligible
individuals applying for the DTC receive the amount to
which they are entitled under the Income Tax Act.
The agency also has a mandate to ensure compliance with
the provisions of the act. It must ensure fairness and
equity to all Canadians.
• 1535
The disability tax credit is a significant government
initiative. Between 550,000 and 600,000 claims are
made every year on the T1 tax return, including
approximately 170,000 new applications every year. The
DTC is a very unique tax credit. Since 1997, 100% of
applications are reviewed prior to the processing of
the T1 tax return. Approximately one-third of the new
applications are approved only for a temporary period
of time. The others are approved for life.
I would also like to clarify the eligibility criteria
for the DTC. The criteria are very specific, and I
would like to quote some of them from the Income Tax
Act. To receive the DTC, an individual must have a
severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment.
The effects of the impairment must be such that the
individual's ability to perform a basic activity of
daily living is markedly restricted, and a recent
amendment to the act also adds therapy that is
essential to sustain a vital function of the
individual. All claims must also be certified in a
prescribed form by a medical professional as identified
in the act. As tax administrators, we cannot stretch
the law. We cannot allow claims that do not meet the
specific requirements of the Income Tax Act. We must
be fair and equitable.
[Translation]
One common misconception about this credit is that as long
as someone has a disability they will qualify for the DTC.
Different programs and services have different requirements. The
criteria for the DTC are very specific and not everyone with a
disability will qualify, not even everyone with the same
disability.
An individual may qualify for one government program but not
another. We make every effort to clarify the requirements that
must be met in order to qualify for the DTC.
Form T2201, the Disability Tax Credit Certificate: I have
provided you each with a copy of the guide that the CCRA
publishes every year entitled Information Concerning People with
Disabilities. This guide addresses several issues of interest to
persons with disabilities, including services available to them,
tax information, excise tax information, GST information and
customs information.
With respect to the DTC, Form T2201 is part of the guide
document. The Disability Tax Credit Certificate is the tool used
by clients and medical practitioners to present an application
for the DTC. This form must reflect the legislation. It must
obtain information in an efficient and effective manner. It must
also be flexible enough to deal with a wide range of conditions
and impairments.
We have added clarifying data or an example wherever
possible at each of the “impairment” questions on the form. The
form also offers the opportunity to include both a diagnosis and
any other pertinent information that would assist in completing
the assessment of the claim. We recognize that there is always
room for improvement. And, as is the case with all of our
publications, we invite feedback from the public with respect to
the T2201 and the guide Information Concerning People with
Disabilities. On the inside cover of the guide, we have a prominent
invitation that “Your Opinion Counts!”.
Madam Chair, we recognize and encourage constructive feedback
on ways in which we can improve our products and services.
To the best of my knowledge, though, we have not recently
received any detailed submissions in this regard from any of the
organizations that have appeared before you in the last few weeks.
[English]
The third one is public consultation. The CCRA has
a long record of effective public consultation. The
DTC is no exception. Let me begin with 1996.
• 1540
That year we consulted with 55 different associations
and advocacy groups representing persons with
disability concerning the T2201 and the new brochure
for 1996, entitled Disability Tax Credit and You.
We received many suggestions. Those relating to
legislative issues were passed along to the Department
of Finance.
Those suggestions that could be implemented without
legislative change were incorporated into the form and
the new brochure. This input assisted greatly in
improving both publications. A copy of the updated
brochure was mailed to all members of Parliament and to
some 900 associations and advocacy groups.
We communicate and consult with interest groups and
associations on an ongoing basis. These have included
the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada,
the Canadian Diabetes Association, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis
Foundation,
[Translation]
the Association des handicapés respiratoires de Québec
[English]
and many others.
We also recognize and appreciate the important and
critical role played by health professionals in this
process. For that reason, we look to them for their
input and advice. We have a good working relationship
with the Canadian Medical Association and have
consulted with them a number of times over the years to
discuss the form and the other assessment tools and
questions we use in evaluating applications. We have
also met recently with the Canadian Psychological
Association to obtain their input related to issues
dealing with mental conditions.
In November 2000, when speech language pathologists
were added to the Income Tax Act as being authorized to
sign the form, we met with the Canadian Association of
Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists.
I would note that we also conduct focus testing to
investigate various issues. In November 1999, for
example, we engaged Brighton Research to conduct a
study relating to awareness and knowledge of and attitude
to the disability tax credit among health care
professionals. Participants included general
practitioners and specialists. The latter included
pediatricians, psychiatrists, optometrists,
audiologists, occupational therapists, and others.
We work hard at having an open-door policy. We
actively take steps to consult and obtain feedback that
can improve all our products. The disability tax
credit certificate is no exception.
Finally, the present review. What can every Canadian
expect from the CCRA in its administration of the DTC?
In fact, for all of our programs, they can expect this
agency to be fair and consistent in its treatment of
clients.
We've heard criticism about the present review. The
present review is not about money; it's not about
reducing numbers. The project is about fairness and
equity. It's about ensuring that all claims for the
DTC have received the same level of review. We want to
determine the continuing eligibility of clients who
were originally approved between 1985 and 1996.
[Translation]
Let me give you some background on this review. During the 12-
year period between 1985 and 1996, clients who applied for the DTC
were accepted upon assessment. Subsequently, a small percentage
were selected for post-assessing review. Since then, our procedures
have changed and a single new application is reviewed up front and
a clear determination of the client's eligibility is made. It
should also be noted that our current denial rate is between 15 per
cent and 20 per cent of new applications.
So, when we do go back and look at the documentation we have
for claims that were approved prior to 1996, it should not comes as
a surprise that we find clients who do not meet the criteria for
the DTC. We find others where it is not clear whether they meet the
criteria. And of course, we find records that do clearly support
continuing entitlement.
I would also like to point out that we did conduct a pilot
project in 2000 to review older files. The results convinced us of
the need to proceed with the present review.
• 1545
[English]
This review is not about denying persons who have a
legitimate right to claim the DTC. The review
is about discontinuing payment to persons who do not
meet the requirements for the DTC. Our review is
finding many cases where people should not have been
approved in the first place or where they should only
have been approved for a temporary period of time.
We have taken the high road and are not immediately
disallowing these clients. As with every client in
this review where there is insufficient information on
file, we are simply saying that for someone to claim
this credit in 2001, a new form will be required. For
these clients I have mentioned, it may turn out that
they meet the requirement for the DTC. We are not
jumping to any conclusions.
With regard to this project, I would also like to say
for the record that we have received letters from
clients advising us that they do not meet the
requirements for the DTC and that they will not be
filing the form for 2001. This has included good-news
stories from clients whose conditions have improved to
the point where they no longer need the DTC. We have
also received letters from clients expressing their
appreciation to the government for the assistance
provided to them over the years.
Thank you, Madam.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Before we go on, I think you have circulated a copy of
the act.
Do all members have a copy of those sections
in the Income Tax Act, part I?
One of the questions,
before the committee begins, relates to the evolution
of the form, from the review in 1992 to the review in
1995 to this present form. What we have been concerned
about is that it's become more linear and more
prescriptive. Could you just help us with how you take
the act and interpret that “walk” means “50 metres
on level ground” when the world isn't level. How
do you take the criteria from the act and put them in
the form?
Mr. David W. Miller (Assistant Commissioner,
Assessment and Collections Branch, Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency): I'd be happy to start, and I'll ask
Mrs. Turner to fill in any blanks.
It's the Department of Finance in this case that is
responsible for putting forward the details. In the
case where there may be some ambiguity or room for
interpretation, we work with the Department of Finance
to try to eliminate that. We do not make the policy.
We simply point out areas where it could be
misinterpreted or is not clear, and we rely on them,
with the intention of respecting what's in legislation
in order to clarify and put forward what they mean.
If you look at the legislation in section 118.4, which
is towards the back of the pages, you'll notice, for
example, that the term “prolonged” is actually
defined in the legislation, so there's no ambiguity.
We have to follow it. We know that's difficult for
certain illnesses such as MS, where you may have
remission periods, but that is the way the legislation
was actually approved by Parliament. We do not and
should not have any leeway in interpreting how that
comes out.
Actually, in most of the areas covered, it is very
specific. We do have copies of the tax guide
Information Concerning People with Disabilities.
In that guide, in addition to several other
potential tax credits or favourable tax treatment, is
the form we use for people to fill in. Many of the
words in that guide are virtually identical to those
contained in the legislation. Even in discussing the
form and the guide we were held to the words as
approved by Parliament to a certain extent.
I don't know, Ms. Turner, whether you want to answer
anything more on that.
Ms. Kathy Turner (Director General,
Benefit Programs Directorate, Assessment and
Collections Branch, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency):
I would just add that when there is a change to the
legislation to assist us in determining how to
administer that legislation, we generally have
representation or input from various associations. For
example, in the most recent legislative
change—actually, I'm not sure it was the most recent
one—where occupational therapists were allowed to
certify, we then met with organizations to help us
understand the
accreditation of occupational therapists, what
would be certified, and how we would provide guidelines
on that.
• 1550
The Chair: We would still want to know, where does
this 50 metres come from?
Mr. David Miller: In that particular case, the 50
metres was determined prior to us taking over the
medical certification of the disability in 1994. We
only inherited the implications of that. It was
established policy when CCRA began reviewing the forms
for the medical implications of that.
The Chair: As to the concern around mental
illness, we are saying cannot “perceive, think, and
remember”, even if it's in technicolour. That's
viewed to be thinking, perceiving, and remembering.
This has been our huge concern, that if a physician is
to answer no on that form, for a lot of people we
should call the coroner, not you. If you can't think,
perceive, and remember, maybe you're not alive. We
feel that the whole of mental illness has been
eliminated by the prescriptive nature of this question,
which no one can answer honestly. Where does this
question come from?
Mr. David Miller: The question comes from that
legislation, item 118.4(1)(c)(i); the line
there says “perceiving, thinking and remembering”.
We have simply had to take the legislation as passed by
Parliament and apply it in that case to the form.
I agree, it's extremely difficult to interpret that,
but we certainly didn't...it would require a
legislative change for us to put—
The Chair: But you didn't need any legislative
change for the 50 metres.
Mr. David Miller: It was clarification on the
provision, because it doesn't stipulate what that
means, and I'm not sure whether or not we could clarify
it. It wouldn't be us; these are policy issues that
would go back to the Department of Finance.
The Chair: You didn't think that perceiving,
thinking, and remembering needed clarification.
Mr. David Miller: We think there are a lot of
tax changes that are necessary to make it easier to
administer, and unfortunately it's not often that those
occur. Therefore, it's for policy reasons.
The Chair: This wasn't my favourite form to fill
out before I got this new job.
Mr. Spencer.
Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre,
Canadian Alliance): I'm looking at the term “markedly
restricted”. Would you not consider yourself
markedly restricted if you could only think, perceive,
and remember half the time, never mind the 90% of the
time required by your forms?
Mr. David Miller: If I could answer that
indirectly, that is certainly a problem we have with
this tax credit, where people who are obviously
disabled to a certain extent in one of those functions
feel they are entitled to it. But again, as a tax
administration, we have to deal with the rules as they
are established. As a person, I would agree that I
would feel that I was certainly in trouble if I could
only remember 50%. Unfortunately—and it's tough on
the physicians and health experts who have to fill in
these forms to say, “You don't meet the criteria of the
legislation; even though you are restricted to a
certain point, it is not sufficient to meet what the
legislation intends.”
Mr. Larry Spencer: Am I misunderstanding the
legislation? I thought the legislation said “markedly
restricted”, yet when we go over to the forms, that's
interpreted to mean almost all the time; i.e. 90%.
That seems to me to be an extremely high percentage or
expectation to be markedly restricted in any of these
categories.
Mr. David Miller: I agree, and I can only refer
you back to the legislation, where the definition is:
“ability to perform a basic activity of daily living
is markedly restricted only where all or substantially
all of the time”. All we were doing was defining
“all or substantially all of the time”, and that
ended up at 90%.
Mr. Larry Spencer: I've played with words for a
long time. “Markedly restricted” all or most all of
the time could mean that I was markedly restricted a
portion of every day or of every month and that it was
a lingering and continuing thing.
It would not necessarily, in a liberal
interpretation, have to mean 20 or 23 hours of a
24-hour day. You see, this is where the committee
feels bad about what's happening here. We feel that
the interpretation of some of this wording has become
too restrictive.
• 1555
You've answered that, but let me just ask you another
question here to see if I understand this. This form
was sent to 106,000 individuals, or thereabouts. Are you
saying this request for recertification went to
people who were certified between certain years,
1980-something and whatever, and that was how you
selected who this was to be sent to?
Mr. David Miller: That is correct. Unfortunately,
again, we were not the department responsible for
administering the information at that time. When we
took over the program, there was incomplete information
on the records. We did our best with the information
we had available to minimize the number of people we
would have to contact. As a matter of fact, there was
a group of nearly 200,000 for whom this tax benefit had
been provided for life, and we have not contacted
anyone in that group for at least the last five years,
if not the last 15.
The Chair: What year did you take over the
program?
Mr. David Miller: It was 1996.
[Translation]
The Chair: Go ahead, Madeleine.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you,
Madam Chair.
I worked for many years in the health field as a nurse. I
quickly understood that a nurse's job was to assist persons with
the greatest needs. I also understand very well that the Department
of Finance and CCRA have different roles to play.
I'd like to ask you a question to which the answer might seem
obvious. By drafting this letter and sending it out to persons have
been eligible for the DTC for x number of years, were you hoping
that this would increase the number of persons entitled to receive
the DTC, or were you hoping for the opposite result?
Mr. Alain Jolicoeur: I believe I can answer that question.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It's easier because I asked it
in French.
Mr. Alain Jolicoeur: The answer will be the same.
Basically, our job is to ensure that those who receive the DTC
are entitled to the credit under the act.
If a greater number of persons are entitled to the DTC because
they meet the requirements, then so be it. We provide information
on many programs. We do not act as judges. We simply want to ensure
that the law is applied.
In this particular case, we found that many persons did not
meet the criteria, even according to our records. In many
instances, the reasons listed in their initial application bore no
relation whatsoever to the act. Therefore, we must contact these
persons again and ask for some reason that would justify their
receiving the DTC pursuant to the act, sometimes for the rest of
their lives.
We are no more committed to this cause than we are to any
other. It's simply that our everyday job is to ensure compliance
with the provisions of the act.
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Before preparing the new form
and sending this letter out to over 100,000 recipients, did you
consult with national or provincial organizations, in particular
those that provide support to persons with disabilities? If so,
what sort of feedback did you get from them?
[English]
Ms. Kathy Turner: The form we used for this review
is the form we've been using for the program since
1996, with minor adjustments since that time as a
result of new changes to the legislation.
• 1600
When this form was developed in 1996 and redesigned at
that time, we did consult with 55 associations from
across the country. We also sent the form to 900
different associations to assist us in the redesign of
the form.
Mr. David Miller: The other
thing is, we have been using the form for five
years, and we get 170,000 new applicants each year. So
there's been 700,000 or 800,000 applications that have
come in on this form and we've not had a single
complaint or comment in that process. We keep very
close track of these things because we like to
use that information to make improvements.
So the form has been in for a period of time.
The review we're doing this year is actually a small
part of what the annual process is for new applicants.
Yet it was a group of people who we hadn't actually
had any communication with for 15 years.
The Chair: With due respect, Mr. Miller, when
you lose a case in tax court, like our witness, Lembi
Buchanan, doesn't that lead you to
believe the form isn't working?
Mr. David Miller: There are two reasons to lose a
court case. The first one is because of the particular
interpretation of a case. The second reason is in
order to actually help us clarify the intent of
legislation.
The difference is, do we consider a
particular case to be precedent-setting so that we can
then establish a new basis for administering the law, or
is it an example or an exception that would just
deal with the one situation?
We don't actually make the call on that as much
as the Department of Finance in terms of
legislation or policy. Obviously, if someone wins a
case in this particular situation, and the legal experts
looking at it say it is not a precedent and that it
only applies under these particular circumstances, we would
never pursue that further.
If it ended up being a precedent, then someone would
have to decide whether that is the correct interpretation as
intended or is a legislative change needed to
actually reflect what the law is supposed to be.
Certainly, in an individual applicant's case,
very seldom do we do anything with it beyond initial
review, if it is not going to be precedent-setting.
The Chair: Is it the agency or the Department of
Finance that decides whether to appeal?
Mr. David Miller: Depending on the actual case, it
could be either, quite honestly. If we're comfortable
with it, fine. But the department may have reasons of policy or
legislation to pursue it as well.
The Chair: Wendy.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very
much for coming before us.
As you know, we started hearing as individual MPs
and as a committee about this letter that has gone out
to 80,000 people. We now hear it's over 100,000 people.
I want to start by saying that it is the
letter itself that started the ball rolling. It is
perceived as being offensive. I personally see it as
offensive. There have been dozens of people who have
come before us, representing groups, who say the
letter is offensive.
It's offensive for various reasons. One of
the ones that I think it is important for you to know is
that major disability groups in this
country do not feel they were consulted at all about it.
I'm wondering why it is that disability groups aren't
told when these kinds of reviews are about to happen, when hundreds of
thousands of people, potentially, are about to be hit
with one more obstacle in their life.
I ask you, how is it that these things seem to
come out of the blue and hit everybody without warning?
I go back to the issue of what the whole point of
this form is about. We know it is
supposedly about a public policy
tool, that it's to provide fairness, as you say,
greater fairness for persons with disabilities.
But do you really believe that the form, in its present
form, is actually meeting the primary policy goals of this act?
Where do you think
we should be going at this point in
time, given the widespread dissatisfaction that is now
being expressed from our committee and from disability
groups and individuals?
Mr. David Miller: Perhaps I could start and my
colleagues will help me out.
• 1605
On the first point about the letter, obviously we did not
intend to offend anyone. In looking at the wording, as
with most things, if people get this and say, “Gee,
what does this represent?”—for those people who feel
there is absolutely no reason why they should be
reviewed in their disability—we can apologize in the
sense of saying, “That's unfortunate, but we just do
not have sufficient information to understand your
situation.” That's really what the letter was
intended to convey. If it was misinterpreted or wasn't
clear enough for these people, we would certainly like
to communicate with them and clarify that.
However, as Mr. Jolicoeur mentioned, there are lots of
reasons why we should be going out to talk to these
people, based on the limited information we have—not
on every one, but on many of those that were done.
So certainly we had no intention of offending anyone.
And again, after reading the testimony, yes, some of
the groups here were quite open about their belief.
I've always felt that if someone with a disability....
It is a situation where it's very personal. But at
the same time, if anyone can apply and say, “Well, I
have a disability—I'm hard of hearing—but
I would never conceive of getting this tax credit”, in
a way it's our responsibility to ensure that only those
people who meet the requirement of the law are
therefore getting the entitlement in favour of people
who are actually disabled to the extent the legislation
says.
If you're asking us, on the second part, if the form
can be improved, we would love to improve the form. We
think our job at CCRA is to work with our client
groups. We try in all our publications and guides to
look for ways we can improve in the future. We welcome
input from any groups. Unfortunately, our restriction
is, unless someone changes the law—or the policy
associated with it, in many cases—there's not much we
can do. I know, in some of the testimony, people were
interested in moving away from a “yes and no”. The
Government of Quebec has introduced a “yes, no, and
not assessed”, which is quite interesting.
But for us, in working with the people in design of
the form five years ago, it was clear that if we put
down “yes and no” and didn't leave it to interpretation,
it would be the health care professional who decided.
It would not be someone in CCRA who then looked and
read the information and said, “Well, I don't think
they meet the criteria”—or not. It would be the
person involved with the client, face to face, or in a
lengthy involvement and understanding of their
disability, who would then make the decision. It would
not be someone reviewing a form.
We felt it was important, and certainly in our survey
in 1999 of the health care professionals they didn't
find any grey areas. They were quite comfortable with
the form, from that aspect. They said, “No, it's
clear for us that we can categorize it one way or
another.” They didn't like filling in the form, as
the chair has acknowledged, but not for the reason that
it was unclear. It's because you end up in a situation
of saying, “Yes, I do have a disability, but it's not
to the extent required in legislation for me to
qualify.” That's the relationship we have to put
in with the health care professional, against their
patient.
We would be happy to work with any groups or with
anyone to improve this form; there's no question about
that.
The Chair: Tony.
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank
you, Madam Chair. I too would like to thank the
witnesses for appearing here today to clarify some of
this.
I would just like to concur with Ms. Lill across the
way. Previous to this coming before the committee in
the last few meetings—during the break, I believe it
was, of Thanksgiving week—I had a constituent come in,
and I'd like to cover off two issues this constituent
brought to my attention, which then just seemed to
mushroom and were evidenced by many others who appeared
before the committee.
Number one, they did wave the letter in front
of my face—and I think it's fair criticism. At a quick
glance, both my staff person who sat in on the meeting
with this constituent and I could see that there were
several negative connotations. If you look in the
letter, which I have in front of me, “you were allowed”
implies that we may be doing something different.
“We do not have enough“; “in order to continue to
allow”; “If you feel that you still; “Without this
information we cannot confirm”; and “if you meet the
eligibility criteria”, and so on and so forth—those
are several quotes I've lifted out of there.
• 1610
Again, not to micro-manage line for line, I could see
why they were really upset. And then, as I said,
coming back after the Thanksgiving break here and
hearing the several witnesses, I'd seen it first hand,
and it was reaffirmed by those witnesses.
Regarding the second complaint—and it's my
understanding that you did confer with the CMA, that
there was some dialogue—what was the response you
received from them as to what they would be charging
their patients to fill out these forms? I've
heard a variation of numbers. Could you please
comment on that?
Mr. David Miller: In the report, which we can
certainly make available to members of the
committee.... In 1999 there was a
survey dealing with understanding
and attitudes towards the disability tax credit. The
comment that came through concerning charging is that
most health care professionals said they would not
charge their patients under normal circumstances if
they felt it was somehow an imposition on them.
In other words, if it was an affluent family and they
could afford it, they might charge. But the intention
left from our survey work was that in situations where
people clearly met the criteria, where it was a very
simple, straightforward matter of completing the form,
they would not charge.
Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Okay.
The final comment I'd like to offer on that is, this
constituent—and again, my staff deal with this type of
issue, maybe not exactly like this, but forms and
family doctors and what have you, on a weekly, even
daily basis—was charged up to $150 to deal with the
form. I just leave that with you.
Certainly it was no news to my staff; they are aware
that doctors charge quite regularly to fill out forms
of this nature. And I can honestly say I doubt very
much that there are that many “affluent who can
afford” who are on this program. I'll just leave that
with you as well.
Mr. David Miller: I appreciate that comment.
Again, we tried to do survey work that would
result in an understanding of how the health care
professionals—because it's not only of course medical
doctors—would do this. But the thing that's slightly
confusing to us is that we get at least 170,000 new
applicants every year who go out and have a form filled
in. We know that a certain proportion of those
will not be eligible under the current legislation.
This was the first time in perhaps 15 years that we'd
contacted this group of people to actually make sure we
had sufficient information for them. If they meet the
criteria, they will be exempted for life again. It's
once out of every 40 or 50 years, you could almost say.
So I understand the point.
Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Very good.
The Chair: Wendy, did you have a question?
Ms. Wendy Lill: I was just going to say that we saw
representatives from the CNIB who made the point that
only 21 out of 100,000 CNIB clients have regained some
level of vision sufficient to have their status changed
from legally blind to low vision. The question is, why
is it that people in that situation are finding
themselves being asked to reclassify? I guess the
question is, what kind of selection process did you
undergo to decide who got these letters? I mean, who
were the magic group?
Mr. David Miller: Actually, with the CNIB we
have a special relationship, because they're the only
organization we're aware of that actually issues a card
indicating a particular individual is, in this case,
blind. And we will accept that card as proof, in lieu
of having a form completed. But they're the only group
that has effectively an authentication process for the
people who are thus afflicted.
If anyone comes back to us, all they have to do—and
we've had this on the CNIB website and we've met and
discussed it with them—is just indicate “here's the
card”, and that would substitute for having an actual
form filled out.
• 1615
In determining the people we selected for this review,
it was a matter of going through approximately, to
begin with, 135,000 returns and all the information we
had dating back to 1985. From that, we were able to
reduce the number we actually had to contact because
there was sufficient information on their files to
indicate permanent impairments, such as being blind, so
we didn't have to go back and do it. We also excluded
anyone over the age of 75 from having to go through
this process of having to reassess.
So we were left with a large group of people we had no
information on. We asked our tax offices on Friday to
give us a selection of some of the information that had
been used as the basis for a lifetime exemption from
review in obtaining the disability tax credit. It
was, quite honestly, shocking. Some of them were
completely blank, others had very minor...“sprained
ankle”, “doesn't speak either English or French”, “speaks a
foreign language”. These kinds of things had been
approved in those days because only a small sample
of returns were reviewed.
Those are the kinds of things we hope to correct.
That's the extent of our targeted group. We're
not cutting anyone off; we're not collecting money back
if they were not actually entitled to it in previous
years. We're saying that to proceed into the future,
you're going to have to provide us with sufficient
information to know that you meet the eligibility
criteria.
The Chair: Thank you very much. On that note, on
the 1992 form, the CNIB registration number is there.
It's not on subsequent forms. Is there a reason why
that was left off, and why these people would have been
contacted?
Ms. Kathy Turner: It's my understanding that the
CNIB registration number is not the same as the
certification card they have. But in any event, that
registration number was taken off the form before we
took over the program, so I don't believe we were aware
that it was ever on the form.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I thank you
very much for coming. As you administer the tax
credit, there are obviously questions in terms of
interpretation. I think you've been helpful in
clarifying the reason for the review and all of that.
There are obviously bigger questions in terms of the
policy objectives, as Wendy Lill said, of the Income
Tax Act and what it was there to do. The
committee has been impressed by the testimony of the
people who need canes, hearing apparatus, special
vision apparatus that then disqualify them from getting
the tax credit to pay for them. The fact that they pay
for all these things out of pocket and then disqualify
themselves for the credit seems sort of perverse.
So I promise we will continue the study and will
explore the policy aspects as well. If there are any
models in terms of recommendations around the form,
any consultations with specific groups, like you have
with the blind, a lot of the disability groups will be
very keen to help. I hope we will eventually figure
out that breathing is an activity of daily living.
We'll do what we can to help, and we will welcome you
back after we've heard the next round of witnesses. So
thank you very much for coming.
I will now suspend for two minutes while we go in
camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]