SPER Committee Meeting

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 4, 2001

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)): I'd like to begin, because we're on a tight timeframe because of votes. Also, Mr. Spencer has to go and speak in the House before 4:30, so we want to make sure we've got the presentations done by then.

The chair would like to begin by apologizing to Mr. Cantlie, the president of the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, because of the lack of real-time captioning services. The clerk tried in vain to locate a company that could provide the real-time captioning and contacted companies from Montreal to Toronto, as well as Ottawa. As you know, we do have two such services in the Senate, but they were unfortunately booked this afternoon. The subcommittee would like to view this particular occurrence as a learning opportunity, so that it never happens again, the necessity to outsource this capability. We believe the House members' offices should be exemplary in this area, and we will take up the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association's offer of sensitivity training for our House of Commons staff. We hope we'll be able to move it to members' offices as soon as possible. It is embarrassing, and we are so grateful that you are such good sports that you will do the improvisation this afternoon with the laptop.

Ms. Janice McNamara (Canadian Hard of Hearing Association): This is double duty for me, but that's okay.

The Chair: And we particularly thank Janice McNamara for doing her double duty. I think we should maybe begin with taking our 40 lashes.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): I think you should take them all, Madam Chair.

Ms. Janice McNamara: Would you like him to start?

The Chair: Absolutely.

Ms. Janice McNamara: Okay, Colin.

Mr. Colin Cantlie (President, Canadian Hard of Hearing Association): Good afternoon, and thank you very much for allowing us to appear in front of the committee. I should point out that I speak possibly a little slower, and I've been told I have seven minutes in which to talk. How firm are you on that?

The Chair: Not very.

Mr. Colin Cantlie: Is three hours okay?

The Chair: Firmer than that.

Mr. Colin Cantlie: Thank you, I'll try to keep it down to—

The Chair: When the bells ring for us to go and vote at 5:30?

Mr. Colin Cantlie: Okay, I understand.

Thank you very much for allowing me to appear in front of the committee. It's been a very long day. I've come in from Calgary, and as soon as I leave here, I'm going right back home again, so it's going to be an extremely long day. But it's a very important issue, and I want to thank you for inviting the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association. We have some brochures we'd like to leave with you, rather than taking up your time in telling you about our association. We are a consumer, non-profit, national organization that represents approximately three million Canadians, or one-tenth of our society, under the Howe survey of 1991.

My presentation is on the subject, and that's the disability tax certificate, but I wish to open it by commenting on the unacceptable practice of calling a meeting at the last minute. To function properly, we need technology, such as assistive listening devices and/or captioning and/or oral facilitation, as I, for one, do not want to miss one word that's being said here. And I thank Jan for taking double duty. I cannot function in the real world without understanding, technology, planning, and effective communication.

• 1540

Second, I wish to indicate that the CCRA appears to be applying a rather bizarre approach with the DTC sweep, one that is insulting, hurtful, and disgraceful when approaching people who have a permanent disability or disabilities and meet the criteria of eligibility. We are taxpaying citizens of the land, and being treated like this is disrespectful, undignified, and unnecessary.

So how are we going to arrive at the solutions? First, we'll look at the problems, then the solutions. Throughout my presentation I'll be referring to hard of hearing or, when you see my notes, HOH, and I'm also including persons who are deafened. For those who do not understand the difference, hard of hearing is when I can't hear you very well, deafened is when I may be deaf or very near deafness, but after childbirth, and my language has always been in the oral area, rather than in the visual area. I do not want to be confused with a deaf person, if you don't mind, because we are hard of hearing. The deaf have their own concerns, and we support them, as they would, I hope, support ours. Now to the problems.

Hearing disabilities, like many others, are invisible to most people. That is to say, we do not live our lives in the same fashion as do people who have no disabilities. We cope through strategy, patience, and perseverance. We do survive through support groups, technology, family, and friends.

The disability tax certificate questions are restrictive, vague, and unfair—and I underline the word unfair. Government gives the impression it doesn't care about the professional or medical opinions or what the professional feels. Government appears to be heavily weighted towards fiscal concerns, as opposed to the human resource.

On the first page of the disability tax certificate, form T2201 E (00), it states:

If you have already qualified, do not file another form unless your previous period of approval has ended or we ask you to send in a new form.

This statement is very questionable. I have never heard of a period of disabilities, unless it is a short-term period due to an accident or medical problem. This needs to be clarified.

The disability tax certificate review described in the letter refers to eligibility being reconsidered for the 2001 taxation year. Past returns are not being considered retroactively through this initiative. However, the tax authority then states that it is possible that some DTC recipients will have claims reviewed or disallowed retroactively. As I understand it, the taxpayer would receive a letter, different from the form letter already set out, a major delay and cost to the taxpayer, and not the way to build trust.

This is a severe form of authoritarianism and intimidation, not to say that it will be costly for everyone involved. I refer to it as a David and Goliath approach. The cost to the individual is a major barrier to that individual, depending on the person's needs. Costs include hearing aids, which is a medical deduction, while assistive listening device technology is not, and preventive maintenance is not necessarily. Other costs are batteries, buying new equipment, maintaining your equipment. This all costs money for us.

The DTC letter says they are “currently upgrading our records” etc. That is the initial paragraph of a letter that was sent out to people like me. This is a hunting expedition of the lowest form. It scares and intimidates people, and is a vile tactic, to say the least.

• 1545

I'm breaking away from my prepared text, because in 1996 I wrote my member of Parliament when I got another letter like this. Then Minister Stewart's office responded to me and said I could calm down. I had said, I am disabled, I am not going to be cured, I know that, I'm going to get worse. The individual in the minister's office then spoke to me and said, if you get another letter, please don't jump off the cliff, but it may be forthcoming. I said, it shouldn't be, because it is extremely painful to people with disabilities to be continually trying to hold onto their eligibility for something they have no control over.

To go back to my prepared text, the DTC letter further states, “In reviewing your new Form T2201, we may need to contact you” etc. The initial form should be comprehensive, so as to allow the taxpayer dignity, not fear of the authorities and consequences.

It does appear that the decision-makers and the policy writers are giving confusing signals. The letter states, “if you wish, you can wait and submit the completed certificate with your 2001 income tax return.” When I spoke with a tax agent here in Ottawa last week, I was told it would take up to four months to evaluate my DTC. The taxpayer is not aware of the process, and thus receives a false expectation. This is absurd. The directive should clearly state the process and the timelines for all to know and work by. That would provide consistency.

The criterion is very stringent. If you can understand a conversation—this is the government now—with hearing aids or implant on in a quiet room without lip-reading, you do not qualify for the exemption. The degree of hearing loss doesn't really matter to the bureaucrat. The way it was written, there is no room for any other interpretation. This assumes that all hard of hearing persons live in a quiet, isolated environment, as opposed to the rest of the population. This criterion does not necessarily reflect the individual's day-to-day environment and difficulties. It means, in fact, that few hard of hearing people actually will qualify. This is so inappropriate and heartless when a diagnosis is not even considered.

The solutions I come up with are a few. First, we should work together to arrive at an understanding and awareness of the issue. CCRA should have organized focus groups to review the new and revised forms. These focus groups should include organizations, physicians, professionals, such as audiologists, who deal directly with the hard of hearing, and the hard of hearing taxpayers whose lives are directly effected by these changes. I refer you to the task force recommendation number 52, October 1996.

Second, you should ensure that all CCRA tax department officials are working from the same page, so that the taxpayer receives consistent and accurate information at all times. CCRA should focus on the wording of the forms, so that it will be less discriminatory and properly include people. They should consult with the hard of hearing again to deal, for example, with the issue of cochlear implants. This is relatively new technology. I think they will fall into the same bracket I am in.

• 1550

Under the earlier T2201 definition of disability tax credit it said, “it is one of the key existing tax mechanisms for recognizing the cost of disability”. The current form is missing this important piece of information. There is no description to factor in the excess cost of disabilities. For instance, my hearing aids cost $6,000, and I have to pay, though it's a tax write-off. My assistive listening devices can cost me up to $12,000. I need real-time captioning. We have it in the notes that you will receive. It's called Communication Access Realtime Translation. That's $65 or more per hour, depending upon the contract. There are batteries, and so on down the line. The form should include something to ensure that this mechanism is taken into consideration. This would help make the decision process more realistic for physicians and professionals called upon to provide a clear, unbiased judgment.

Tax officials should have disability awareness and sensitivity training, which you alluded to earlier, I would suggest every eighteen months for front-line workers, policy-, and decision-makers, and have disability awareness training provided by the person who is representing the disability that is being presented..

We suggest having short-term and long-term disability criteria identified in your DTC. In my notes you will see that I have given you the specific case of myself, with the multiple problems I have with hearing loss. I do not just have a hearing loss, but I have Ménière's disease, which means I have vertigo and everything else with it. My hearing is decreasing with each attack.

Taxpayers need to know and understand the eligibility criteria for DTC. In addition, taxpayers should have access to copies of material in alternative communication format, if necessary, pertaining to the disability tax certificate eligibility, design, process, and evaluation stages.

The T2201 E (00) form needs to be more open for comment, rather than the basic and restrictive yes or no response. This is so inappropriate. PWDs are not machines that function with one or two ideas. Again, I refer to the task force, as there was quite a write up on that by Mr. Scott's committee.

With basic activities of daily living, we need to ensure that each of the six points on the form is separated and not considered cumulatively, and that the evaluator follows a strict guideline towards determining eligibility.

If a re-evaluation of short-term disability is necessary, the taxpayer should be able to claim the expense as a medical expense. See the second page of the form on the upper left-hand side, where CCRA clearly states that the cost is borne by us and not accepted as an income tax expense.

That ends my presentation. I could add more, but I've tried to stay within the seven minutes. I do thank you for your attention. The notes contain fourteen pages, and you've only heard the first five. I do want to emphasize that we're very pleased to be here and to be able to share comments with you, but everyone I have talked to recently in my community about the DTC is angry. They are confused about the reason, and it goes down to the basics: once I have this disability, I'm not expecting a miracle to get me out of it. Even if I go for a surgical procedure, I am still hard of hearing if I'm using technology. I believe the people who are making policy need to recognize that, and we ask that we work with you in a consulting process.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll now hear from Deanna Groetzinger from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, who I believe speaks on behalf of an organization that had trouble even before this dumb form.

Ms. Deanna Groetzinger (Vice-President, Communications, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada): That's quite true. I'll provide a bit of background on that.

• 1555

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to present the views of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. Some of you may recall that we appeared before this subcommittee in May to discuss a variety of issues related to income security and enhancing the quality of life for people affected by MS. Today we're going to focus on the disability tax credit.

To give you a little background about multiple sclerosis, as we mentioned to you in May, there are an estimated 50,000 people in Canada who have this all too frequently disabling disease. Almost twice as many women as men have MS, and most people are diagnosed with it between the ages of 20 and 40. That makes multiple sclerosis the most common disease of the central nervous system affecting the young adult population.

MS attacks the protective myelin covering of the nerves, and this causes inflammation and often the destruction of myelin in patches. With the interruption of the normal flow of nerve impulses, there is a wide variety of signs and symptoms, which can include vision problems, numbness, loss of balance, extreme fatigue, and often paralysis, many of those areas on that form we're talking about today.

MS itself is cyclical and unpredictable, and it's often a progressive and degenerative disease. So with MS people often have to adjust their lifestyles frequently to meet its challenges. Spontaneous recovery from symptoms can occur, and sometimes these remissions last for months, or even years. However, people with MS have to face the reality that they can have unpredictable attacks at any time, which will cause additional signs and symptoms, and their disability will get worse.

There are now some therapies for multiple sclerosis. Four of them have been approved for the treatment of MS in Canada. But these drugs only reduce the frequency and severity of attacks, they do not make the disability that has already occurred any better.

The two principal federal tax measures that benefit people with MS are the DTC and the medical expenses tax credit, as others have mentioned here today. The DTC reduces federal and provincial taxes up to $1,020, as of last year, while the medical expenses tax credit provides a combined federal and provincial tax relief of about one-quarter of eligible medical expenses. It's useful, but it's not a lot of money for most people. Several years ago we were delighted to note that these credits were expanded to provide greater support. This was very encouraging, but frankly, these were only first steps, and we are some years beyond those changes.

To illustrate both the improvements and our continued areas of concern, I think it is important to have an understanding of some of the history in this area. In 1944 came the first time a disability deduction for blind persons was introduced, and that was really to recognize the additional cost of the disability. It wasn't until 1986 that this deduction was expanded to cover those “confined for a substantial period of time each day to a bed or wheelchair”. Shortly thereafter this deduction became a credit against the federal income tax. From 1986 to 1990 the rules and terms were expanded again to include persons with “severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment” and those who were “markedly restricted in activities of daily living”. For some time there was an administrative policy defining the phrases “severe and prolonged” and “markedly restricted”. Then in 1991, apparently to address concerns that individuals who were not sufficiently disabled were qualifying for the DTC, the Income Tax Act was amended to strictly and clearly define the phrase “activities of daily living”.

So right now a qualified person must certify that a person with MS or with another kind of disability has a severe mental or physical impairment that causes them to be markedly restricted in any of the basic activities of daily living. In general, a person qualifies only if all or almost all the time, even with therapy and various appropriate devices, the medical practitioner can certify that this person is unable to walk, unable to speak, unable to perceive, think and remember, unable to hear, unable to feed and dress themselves, or unable to eliminate bodily waste. This mental or physical impairment must also be prolonged, and this is often defined as a continuous period of at least 12 months.

• 1600

So as mentioned above, and certainly as mentioned by other witnesses over the past few weeks, the definition for qualification for the DTC is extremely limited and excludes many people with MS, who incur significant costs due to their disability. As this committee has heard already, thousands of Canadians currently benefiting from the DTC have received a letter from CCRA requesting that a new medical form be completed by a medical practitioner and resubmitted for review for them to become eligible for the credit next year. Indeed, every day our office and regional offices hear from more and more individuals that they've received this letter, and the outcome is extremely upsetting.

As one example, people with MS greet the arrival of this reassessment letter with great fear and with anger. We have received many phone calls and e-mails from people saying they now fear that they will lose the disability tax credit. And they're angry, because they see that the Government of Canada seems to be taking away what little they have as disabled persons. One person said to us, I am faced with so many obstacles on a daily basis, I don't see why I should have to jump through another hoop to keep something I've had for years. They also worry about getting in to see their doctors in a timely manner, not to mention the inconvenience and the expense a disabled person has in travelling to a doctor's office.

In addition, the purpose of this review is unclear. One person said, maybe somewhat cynically, that she wished the government would just make it plain that the purpose of the reapplication process is to disqualify as many people as possible from receiving the disability tax credit. At least, she said, she would know what she was dealing with. I'm hoping we can say she is being overly cynical, but I'm not really sure that's the case.

So this letter and the reassessment form confirm our feeling that the few gains that have been made by the disabled community in the areas of income support and recognition of the cost of disability are being constantly challenged. While, as I outlined earlier, improvements have been made, the MS Society is interested in working with the government on further initiatives in this area.

One thing we would like to tackle with you is that the yes and no format used in the form is not really a practical mechanism to capture the true nature and effect of a disability or impairment—and I think Mr. Cantlie illustrated that a few minutes ago. A disability or an impairment and the effects on an individual's functioning are very complex and difficult to express in a simple yes or no format. Health care professionals specialize in diagnosing a physical or mental impairment and providing appropriate treatment. Defining the disabling impact of the impairment is a much more complex issue, far beyond a mere yes or no answer.

The yes or no questions asked on the certificate do not leave room for a description of the true effect of the disability on the basic activities of daily living. As another example, one of our members, who lives in Sydney, Nova Scotia, has qualified for the disability tax credit for four years. This year he was reassessed. His doctor filled out the form using the yes-no questions, and on the basis of the answers, his application for the disability tax credit was denied. His condition has not improved over the past few years, in fact, he is worse. However, his doctor had to answer yes to the question as to whether his patient could walk 50 metres. The doctor didn't feel he was able to add that the man walks this distance with great difficulty, using a cane, and that he has to rest while completing the 50 metres. Fatigue due to MS is a huge problem for this person. As he says, at suppertime he's sometimes too tired to chew his food.

So on the basis on these kinds of statements, we recommend that the T2201 form be amended to reflect the guidelines and objectives of the Income Tax Act, to ensure that the eligibility criteria are administered fairly for all disabled persons.

• 1605

The definition of disability for determining eligibility for the disability tax credit does not take into account the situation of people with MS, the fact that their disability is both substantial and recurrent. The current requirement is that claimants have a disability that is prolonged, i.e., continuous or expected to last for at least 12 months, and severe. These requirements in some cases exclude people whose MS is cyclical or episodic.

So we would like to see the subcommittee recommend revision of the criteria for the disability tax credit to cover individuals with a substantial physical or mental impairment that is continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more.

As it stands right now, the disability tax credit is non-refundable. It's applied against, and thus reduces, taxable income. This means it does not apply to those people who do not have a taxable income or are dependants of individuals without taxable income. Because they are non-refundable, these tax credits exclude many people with MS who can no longer work or no longer have a taxable income. Many people with MS have considerable disability-related expenses that they could claim if they did have a taxable income. Because individuals without taxable income generally are at the low end of the income scale, they perceive this exclusion as unjust.

Therefore, we urge the subcommittee to recommend to the government the introduction of a new, refundable disability expense tax credit to replace the disability tax credit and the medical expenses tax credit, and the provision of a 29% tax credit, as opposed to the current 17%, for low-income beneficiaries.

In general, the Multiple Sclerosis Society urges the subcommittee to recommend to the government significant additional changes to tax legislation and regulation to more thoroughly recognize the monetary costs of disability. We also hope that once the subcommittee completes its report, it will be tabled in the House and the subcommittee will ask for a report from government, because we believe this issue is so important.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We would be pleased to answer any questions and provide any additional information about multiple sclerosis and the work of the society and its volunteers across the country. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Spencer.

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): I'm intrigued by the requirement here under “Can your patient walk?”. I'm just putting myself in this place. It goes on to ask whether “without therapy, medication, or a device”, you can walk “50 metres on level ground”. To me that seems extremely unfair. I would like to say, “Can you walk without a device or help?”. If I couldn't walk there without a cane, a crutch, or some sort of device, I would consider myself disabled. How would you rewrite that requirement?

Ms. Deanna Groetzinger: One aspect you've hit upon is how much of a mobility device one needs to be considered disabled. I certainly know many people who would be able to walk that distance with a cane and would not necessarily consider themselves disabled. But unfortunately, with a disease like MS, which has a huge fatigue factor that is often not seen by an outside observer, I think it really does need a medical practitioner who would be able to write in beyond the yes or the no, to say that sometimes a person might be able to walk this distance, but this person would not be able to walk this distance perhaps on a hot summer day—because heat also affects a person with MS in the ability to walk—and probably wouldn't be able to walk this distance if there were snow.

Mr. Cantlie said life does not go on in quiet rooms. I don't think life goes on on level floors or level ground either. We face stairs, we face hills, we face snow, and we face ice, and Ottawa very soon will be an illustration of all those things. So I agree with you, it is a very restrictive question, yet on the basis of it, many people are being disqualified.

• 1610

Mr. Larry Spencer: Okay.

Hearing, as you've mentioned, does not always take place in a quiet room. I've lost the sharpness of my hearing enough to know how true that is, because many times I can't hear what's being said across the room. Mr. Cantlie, do you have a suggestion for rewording that question regarding your hearing?

Mr. Colin Cantlie: Before I give you my suggestion, I'd like to go back to Andy Scott's report, in which he uses the word even. I believe the the context where he used the word even has not been related to the DTC. One of my members wrote me a note indicating that we want to work, but who's going to hire you if you can't understand what they're saying. So our vocational opportunities are somewhat restricted.

To reword it, I would suggest that we have to include the word even to have it as a bridge, not to make it a restriction, which is how I read the DTC right now. I want to work, the people I'm with want to work, and we want to have recreation like anybody else. We know our restrictions, but the way the DTC says that if we have hearing aids and I can hear your conversation.... Now, sir, I can hear you speaking, but I can't understand what you are saying, because my discrimination is less than 30%. So I can hear that you're speaking, but have no idea what you're saying. You don't see that. My audiologist and my doctors can tell you that, but I'm afraid to say I'm very cynical in this regard, because I believe the bureaucrats are saying yes and no and making that evaluation on a very black and white table. I think that's wrong.

I said in my opening remarks I'd like to see more consultation, so that we can provide you with that wording or work together on compromise wording. I'd rather do it as a team than as one person or one group. I think it's important that we, from this side, work with you. We can provide you, through the different modes in which we operate, with our ideas.

I don't know how to word it, to answer your question, at this particular point, because I wasn't prepared for that kind of a question, but I think it's important that the people who adjudicate really understand the full parameters. I can go out in the brilliant sunshine, and I can't see. But my age is also giving me that disability. My age is also creeping up and showing me that I can't hear as well, through natural process. I don't deserve the DTC for that, I'm sure, but I do deserve it because I am isolated. I am isolated with my own colleagues at work, I'm isolated with my family, I'm isolated with everybody, and as you see, I'm isolated because I have to read what you're saying on a screen here. I don't know if I've answered your question.

Mr. Larry Spencer: That's good enough.

I have one more quick question, and then I have to run. I'm not understanding clearly. Are there expenses you have with disabilities for which you cannot claim tax deductions, or is everything tax deductible?

Mr. Colin Cantlie: No, it's not. I can buy assisted listening technology, and I can't claim that on taxes. I've tried to claim my batteries on my taxes as part of medical equipment. I don't pay GST when I buy technology if it's for, to use the government's term, hearing impaired—we call it hard of hearing. Hearing aids will be tax deductible, but the maintenance is not necessarily. Insurance will pay for some in some employment areas, but I am a consultant, I pay for everything myself.

So yes, there are a lot of expenses I cannot cover through tax deduction, and the one I'm very annoyed at is when the government sends me a letter saying, qualify, and then tells me I can't write it off as a tax deduction. I've already qualified, and now someone is telling me, well, no, we think you've changed bases, and now we want you to do it at your expense. I find that difficult to swallow.

• 1615

Mr. Larry Spencer: I find it quite interesting as well that what you do not get tax deductions for is the very thing that enables you to disqualify yourself on these questions. In other words, you buy the necessary items to accommodate your disability, which then disqualify you from the DTC.

The Chair: Thanks very much.

So you're saying that getting the physician to fill out the form in some provinces isn't a benefit, so you would have to pay, but then you can't claim that as a medical expense.

Mr. Colin Cantlie: In Alberta we pay $50.

The Chair: To have the form filled out.

Mr. Colin Cantlie: Yes. And if I have an audiologist fill it out, if he's a friend of mine, I have to book time for him. He has to charge me, and he could be charging me more than $50, and I can't claim for that.

The Chair: I should just explain to the committee members that at the last minute the cystic fibrosis people were unable to come, but I think that if you look at the form, as was explained last week, you'll see that they won their little battle on the form in a sort of odd way. There's now a box on the form. They didn't want breathing as an activity of daily living, because it would open it up to the chronic bronchitics and all the older people, so they have wormed their way through the language of “life-sustaining therapy,” so that they didn't have to put down breathing as an activity of daily living. So they've won their battle for the people with their specific condition, but I don't think we've won the war on breathing's being an activity of daily living. It just would be interesting if there were any questions from the committee members about whether you know what the cystic fibrosis people did to win their battle and how you feel about the fact that they won their little battle, but the big picture is still not dealt with.

Ms Deanna Groetzinger: I know a little about some of the arguments they went through. If you know anything about cystic fibrosis, there's a regular regimen one has to go through every day of one's life to loosen the phlegm in the lungs. You cannot breathe unless you go through an hour or so of preparation each morning to send yourself out into the world. I don't know the exact details of how they did this, but it took an extremely long period of time. I've been hearing about this issue with the people from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation for many years, and I'm delighted to know there was something going on there that made a difference, I'm happy to hear that.

It's also an example of a condition that is not necessarily easily seen just by looking at someone. You would not think this was a person who was disabled, from an external view you would never know what effort goes through that person's life to put them in a particular place. Often it's the invisible disabilities that are much harder to understand than the more obvious ones that involve using wheelchairs or being confined to a bed, in that very old-fashioned phrase.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mado.

• 1620

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Thank you for coming today.

This is our third round table with people representing specific clientele groups, and who are all well qualified to speak to this issue, either because they themselves have a disability or because they have been working with this clientele for a long time.

We looked at this form we've been discussing and I think that everyone around this table agrees that... I was a teacher for a long time and I would be unable to evaluate a student with this.

There is one element that does not appear and which I haven't heard anything about, and it was while listening to you, Ms. Groetzinger, that I thought of it. Nowhere on this questionnaire is there any mention of the anxiety generated by disability. There are certain types of disabilities that generate much more anxiety than others. Multiple sclerosis is one because of its unpredictability. On the other hand, there are people who may seem disabled to me, people who must use a wheelchair following an accident, for example, but who do not feel disabled in the sense that they have a great deal of autonomy and manage their anxiety very well.

In a future questionnaire that will be virtually perfect, because we are all going to work on this together, I'd like to know whether you think it would be appropriate to include an item about that, so that we could quantify this factor a little better, even though it might not be absolutely accurate. Mr. Cantlie alluded to the difficulty encountered by the deaf or the significantly hard of hearing. Quite clearly as we age, it becomes a great source of anxiety if one cannot hear the fire alarm in a house, for example. There are all sorts of factors.

So I was wondering whether it would be appropriate to include that and whether in certain cases it might not encourage a favourable response to a request for a tax credit.

[English]

Ms. Deanna Groetzinger: I think you've touched on some very important aspects. I mentioned the unpredictability, the cyclical nature of multiple sclerosis, never knowing if you're going to have an attack that this time will make you so disabled you will no longer be able to see, will actually put you in that wheelchair. I think one characteristic of many people with MS is that they would rather try to struggle that 50 metres than to use a wheelchair. And so the anxiety, the stress of whether next year there might be another attack through which they would be so much more disabled, one they would never recover from, is very much there.

• 1625

With the reassessment part for the disability tax credit, there's additional stress for people with MS and other disabilities. This whole process is really adding to the anxiety, but as one person pointed out to me, it's also putting first and foremost in their minds again the fact that they are disabled. Most people with disabilities don't want to think of themselves as disabled every day of their lives; they want to get on with their lives, they want to live as independently as possible. To get this thing in the mail, to have to be reassessed and be reminded once again that the world is measuring you on what you cannot do I don't think is really what we should be doing with people with disabilities, whatever the reason for that is.

Also, as you point out, as one gets older, the possibility of losing one's hearing, of having sight affected, is going to probably be there for everyone. Should a more general tax credit kind of allowance be made for these kinds of devices? It would broaden it. I suspect the CCRA wouldn't particularly like that idea, but it's an intriguing idea to broaden it so that a much larger part of the population could consider it. It's something we could work on.

Mr. Colin Cantlie: May I comment on a couple of points you mentioned?

You talk about safety, and this is a major factor for us. When we travel, we might book in at a hotel, and if there's a fire, how are we ever going to get out? I can't hear an alarm. I ask hotels to supply me with technology, so that I know if someone's knocking on my door, and I probably will get it once every so often. Not all hotels are covered for that. If someone wants to telephone me, I can't use the phone, because the phones are not volume controlled; they don't have a TTY in their office, so I have to bring my own technology, and that's a cost.

I'm retired from the airline industry, and every time I go through security, as I've done today—fortunately I didn't bring my computer—I'm there for ten minutes turning everything on and turning everything off. I had an incident in Ottawa many years ago with my hearing aid, which was a small contraption that was controlled, and I had it in my breast pocket. They wanted to take that away from me, because they didn't understand it, and I said, you can't have it, I won't even allow you to push the buttons, because I would be doing a dance on the floor. I was prepared to stand back from the airplane rather than have them push it.

What I'm driving at is that safety is a major factor for us in our homes and when we travel, but no one understands it. I'm hard of hearing, so what's the first thing you will do? You'll yell at me. I'll yell right back at you, but I won't understand what you're saying. I have Ménière's disease. I have no idea when my attacks are going to happen, and I am completely immobile with a Ménière's attack. They'll phone for an ambulance. There's no need—just tell me where the toilet is and I'm fine from thereon. We can't seem to talk about safety and understanding in the same paragraph. We say, put on the security lights or the alarms, and people will turn off the alarms. But I need a light, I can't hear the alarm.

I'm in a restaurant, I could be gagging, and everyone will be wondering what's going on. They'll tap me on the shoulder, but if I'm someone that's different, you don't see my disability, and all of a sudden, if I start talking to you and saying, I beg your pardon, you will now think, what is wrong with that man? We're discriminated against in that sense. In matters of safety, we'll come and get you. I can get myself, just give me technology. I have to bring my own technology. It's very expensive to carry from coast to coast to coast, and it breaks down and has to be repaired.

• 1630

I'm very pleased about the cystic fibrosis success, I am really happy. But do you realize that hearing is part of that too? If I can't hear what you are saying or if I can't visually understand your communication, we're on different planets. You'll never communicate with me. To me it is a very basic part of my everyday living, hearing, breathing. It is so important to hear. I may hear with my eyes, which, as you see, I'm doing now. At least I can read what's going on, but if you get me in an environment like an airport and start talking to me, we're not going to communicate well. It is a very important part of my life. As I pointed out in my brief, I don't live in a quiet environment. I'm not a very quiet person, as you probably noticed.

Thank you.

The Chair: We'll let Tony go now, and then Wendy.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to thank the witnesses as well for appearing today.

Much of what you mentioned here today about the DTC and the form and the very unfriendly letter that accompanied it we have certainly heard, and we were very dismayed by it. As I mentioned to previous witnesses in previous meetings, I've had a constituent in my office waving it in front of my face, so I did see it at first hand.

I'm going to read an excerpt from our briefing notes, page 4, on exactly what some of the allowances are under the DTC, and then I'd like you to comment on them.

The most recent changes to the DTC (in the 2000 Budget and the 2000 Economic Statement and Budget Update) have extended eligibility for the DTC to individuals requiring extensive therapy; expanded the list of relatives to whom the DTC can be transferred; extended the maximum child care expense deduction....

Do you want me read them all?

Ms. Janice McNamara: We can read it.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Are those coverages of benefit, and if so, to how many people? I'm wondering if we're on the right track with at least some of the provisions. Understandably, there can always be more. And remember, I did mention that we're well aware that there are problems with the form itself and the way it was distributed.

Ms. Deanna Groetzinger: I think these are helpful. I'd like to know what they mean by expanded therapy, that would be very helpful to know, as well as the administrative parts as to who can receive what.

I think we need to go back, though, to more fundamental questions. What is it to be disabled? The yes and no part of the form a physician has to fill out, saying, okay, yes, this person can walk or can't walk, and this is what the definition of walking is, and this is the definition of what hearing is, I think is at the crux of what we've been hearing all across the country.

I actually was talking to a neurologist in Calgary who says—and I'm not quite sure how she gets away with this—she refuses to tick off the boxes. She basically says, not going to do that, doesn't capture what I want to say. So she will write in there “sometimes” or “only under these conditions”, and when she's asked whether or not she considers this person to be disabled, she says yes. She doesn't have a problem with doing that. However, this is somebody who's very knowledgeable about this disease, knows what people go through who are living with it, so she's willing to do this. So I say it's that black-white, yes-no that's really getting people into trouble.

• 1635

So administratively, yes, nice refinements, but it's not going to help a whole bunch of our people.

Mr. Colin Cantlie: I agree completely with those remarks, and I would also like to point out that depending on which doctor or professional you see, you'll get a yes or a no—it's inconsistent. Yes, this is helpful, but I can't say it's going to be great, because I can't speak for my colleague who's hard of hearing. They have a different set of parameters, they have a different set of systems that work. Some of us are professional, some of us are not. How is it we work in our workplace? Do we need extra equipment? With the government in Alberta at least, we can get extra equipment in the workplace.

I'm having a bit of a battle, which I hope to win some day. I can get hearing aids for somebody in a vocational setting, but I said, does this mean that at 5 o'clock they have to turn the hearing aid back in, because it's for a vocational setting and not a recreational or lifestyle setting?

That's the kind of thing. It's a help, but I can't give you a yes or no answer, just as I've asked you not to give me a yes or no question. I think it does need evaluation.

We need money to buy our equipment, to maintain our equipment. If I have a dog, I have to feed the dog. I don't have one, but we have hearing dogs. As in other areas of the community, we have animals that help us. We need to keep that going. The parameters are different for each person. I find the money that is in there now, from my standpoint, okay. I'm always looking for an extra dollar, I will make no bones about that. I find it punitive when I get a form like this saying, please, re-evaluate. As I said earlier, I find it so hurtful.

One of my colleagues said, if I may quote her, “after at least seven years of receiving the disability tax credit—and bear in mind that at this stage of my life I am deafened—I have received notice that I no longer qualify for the credit. Go figure. If I am to appeal, I must justify that my hearing has not improved—I wish—and that my life is affected by the disability.” She was incensed by this. And I've heard since that the sweep doesn't include everybody. I understand the sweep has included all the hard of hearing—I may be wrong on that—but the sweep is inconsistent. We're pretty incensed about it. Do you want to provide something like that? It's an improvement, and I'll say, bravo, and I'll support, but it may not be the panacea.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you.

The Chair: Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming here to see us today.

I might say, I was at the heritage committee meeting today—we are doing a broadcast study—and we heard from the Canadian Association for the Deaf, who told us they took the CBC to the Human Rights Commission over the lack of captioning for their programs. They won their case at the Human Rights Commission, and now the CBC is appealing it. The members of our committee were not impressed by that, and believe, in fact, that if the CBC, if the federal government cannot provide best practices, the best example of what kind of world we should be living in, no one can. So I just tell you that. It's a disgrace, and we all have to work a lot harder on it.

• 1640

Also, I've just come back from a political convention; the New Democrats met in Winnipeg. There were many delegates there who had disabilities, and over and over they raised issues, such as the fact that their meeting places were a long way from the main hall, they were late in the day, and that was difficult, because there was a lot of fatigue involved in their disabilities. People would be calling for a standing vote, and many people are in wheelchairs, they cannot stand.

All this is by way of saying that it never ends for persons with disabilities. They're constantly being asked to put their hand up one more time and say, I am disabled, if they're going to get anywhere. It is so infuriating. It's what you said about the fact that the world is always measuring you on what you cannot do, always reminding you, and making you become very public if you're going to get anywhere. So here we are one more time doing the same thing. You have come before us, and we appreciate that, but it shouldn't have to happen, and hopefully, some day it will not.

We talk a lot about these yes and no boxes and the gatekeepers, who are the doctors. It appears that it's always the doctor who is making it possible or not for persons with disabilities to get this credit. I'd like to know from both of you whether you see any alternatives to this. Is the doctor the best person in this situation? Colin, you talked about the importance of having sensitivity training at the tax department on a regular basis and advocates meeting with tax people. But who should really be, on a very consistent basis, flagging this problem? Should it be doctors, who are harried and overworked, and not always that sensitive to persons with disabilities, as we all know? If you have any thoughts on that, I'd appreciate them.

Mr. Colin Cantlie: First, I thank you for your comments on the captioning. We feel very strongly that if there's a political convention, if there's an election, TV should have captioning. At the conventions, at any meetings, there should be captioning for the deaf. They may want to have American sign language, but that's their request. Some of us are fed up—I'm not, but some of us are, they're intimidated.

I am disheartened by the CBC. This is breaking away from your point here, but I am disheartened, because CBC isn't doing the job I think they should be. We had a good contact with them, and she is gone, but we are very vigilant on captioning, not only with CBC, but with all television programming, French and English—not just English, we insist that French be there.

But to get back to the disability training, I believe it needs to be ongoing. We've found that government bureaucrats are moving around faster than I can shuffle cards, and as a result, we go back to the start line each time we get a new person in the office. I sit on the minister's group on accessible transportation. Some time ago the Canadian Transportation Agency put out a decree, a legislative statement, that training had to be done in federal installations, airports, airlines, under the federal network. I think that federal legislation needs to go in every department of the government. I believe that wherever there's contact between the public and the government, they must be sensitive to our corporate needs as well. That's not there.

• 1645

When I phoned about the disability tax credit last week, I happened to get a person in Ottawa, a very nice person. I said, you'll have to slow down, I can't understand what you're saying; I'm on a phone that technology-wise is suitable for me. I get different voices, different frequencies, different levels, and I don't always understand communication, no matter how slowly or how loudly they speak. When I ask if I could speak to somebody else, it usually is very intimidating for them, and it has a backlash on me, as they say, well if you don't like it, just...—they'd probably tell me to go where I shouldn't be going. I find that very intimidating. However, I will push on and speak my piece.

Training, in my opinion, is the number one issue in setting up any kind of form. How do you know how we're going to read it? I'll use one of my other community examples. The deaf don't read English, they read American sign language. How is your form going to be suitable for them? I read English, I just don't hear you. I can read it, but put it into a language I understand, rather than a language you, the policy-makers, understand. I may not know what you're talking about.

My doctor has said to me, check, check, check, check. In the note he put down here he said “severe hearing loss”. That to me says it all. I expect I'm going to get a letter asking, could you classify what severe hearing loss is? That's why it's so important for this disability training, where we can interact in a very friendly area and talk about these things.

The Chair: As a follow-up to Wendy's question—we'll go back to Wendy—and I think this is something the committee did raise before, how are you doing on captioning for the safety videos on airlines?

Mr. Colin Cantlie: Oh, I don't really want to answer that one. I'm not doing well at all—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Colin Cantlie: —because they don't caption.

The Chair: No, I know.

It seems to be coloured, as if you're supposed to understand without having any words. Is that what that's supposed to be about? This new one they've got now, is that supposed to be instead of captioning?

Mr. Colin Cantlie: I can't answer for the carriers, but I would suggest to you, no, if they want to go to pictograms and no voice. We have international travellers coming into Canada. They don't understand English or French. How do they know what's being said?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Colin Cantlie: When I board an airplane—and trust me, I get many strange looks—I speak to the flight attendant saying, I'm hard of hearing, so if you need me, could you tap me on the shoulder? So I'm now giving them permission to touch me. “What seat am I in?” Legitimately, I can't see it, because I usually have my glasses in my pocket. In the years I've been with the airline industry, since 1964, I have had one flight attendant write out for me what the pilot said. I have no idea what the weather's like at the next station. I have no idea when I'm arriving. In fact, I have no idea where I'm going. If the agent put me on the wrong flight, I would never know until I got there.

The Chair: Thanks very much.

Mr. Colin Cantlie: I hope that answered your question.

The Chair: No, it didn't. It's not a matter for this particular set of hearings, but it is part of the work of the committee in moving on this universal design piece. I think your point about education and training is extremely valuable at this committee. We need to be able to have everybody think in that universal design way.

By the way, are the American stations any better?

Mr. Colin Cantlie: Yes, I think the U.S. is better. It's not necessarily great, because they're following into the law, then the law goes into the judicial system, then it gets hung up. But in Canada we're doing it by individual, we're not doing it by collective understanding.

The Chair: On the universal design, I like being able to blow-dry my hair watching television, reading what is being said. I think we keep understanding. Whether it's curbs or being able to hit the wheelchair entrance with your arms full of groceries, we have all benefited from the things you have all fought for so hard. I think it is the training piece about the sensitization that we have to go forward on.

• 1650

Mr. Colin Cantlie: Well, Minister Corbeil said in his policy back in the other days, access for all. You're absolutely right, if you give me access, you will have it as well, and you'd be surprised what captioning does.

The Chair: It helps me in French, that's for sure, because if I can read it, I know what's being said. It's helpful to all of us in our second language, and I think for all the new Canadians, where English is not their first language, to be able to see it on the screen is extremely helpful with recognition. Anyway, that's separate.

Ms. Deanna Groetzinger: If I could go back to another part of your question, whether there is anyone other than medical practitioners who should be allowed to answer, I was thinking about that a little bit. I think some of the most knowledgeable people about disability—and I'm going to relate it back to MS, because it's the one I know most of all—are specialized nurses who perhaps deal with people with disabilities more than physicians. They may see a neurologist once a year, if that, they may see their GP more often, but nurses in specialized MS clinics certainly know people very well. They also know the problems they would have with activities of daily living.

I think I have to go back to that form again. It's not just the medical practitioner or the health care practitioner who does the signing, but the fact that there's only the yes, there's only the no, and life isn't really like that. There can be an explanation to the effect that most of the time this person cannot walk 50 metres, even if on an absolutely good day he or she can, that kind of interpretation, then perhaps allowing the health care practitioner to say yes, given these particular guidelines that you're building into the form. Again, I think we would want to be consulted on the development of new questions.

The Chair: Let me just go further with that. We don't need a doctor to say I have two children when I write that on the form.

Ms. Deanna Groetzinger: Yes.

The Chair: It doesn't have to be the medical practitioner who assures the tax department that I really do have two children. How far could we go in having people say themselves that they are this severely hard of hearing, fatigued with MS, or those things, and then leaving it to an audit system, so that if you get caught lying, it's a very serious offence? How far would you be prepared to go with a form?

Ms. Deanna Groetzinger: I think that's an intriguing idea, one we've kicked around as well, the individual report kind of mechanism. I think probably most people would be very honest and straightforward in how they would answer that and would not abuse the system, because most people don't want to be classified as disabled. I don't think that would put a great strain on the system at all. I think the form would have to be a whole lot clearer than it is right now.

It would also have to recognize the fact that there are inordinate costs that are borne by people who have disabilities, costs those of us who do not have them do not have. So I think recognition of that would be a great step forward.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I don't think I have any more questions. I think that is an interesting issue, and we have heard before from people that nobody is going to report a disability that doesn't exist. I guess it goes against nature. We had one woman who wrote to me saying that her adult daughter with an intellectual disability has got this letter and it's heartbreaking. She spends all her life trying to struggle against the hurdle of her disability, and now she is slammed back into defining herself as “less than”. They have made the decision to just forgo it. I bet a lot of people will do that. They will simply say, I'm not going through this, it's too hard on my sense of self. It's a significant problem, and I don't think that people take lightly their disabilities. Obviously, they don't. I think people might distort their income a lot more than they would distort their disability.

• 1655

The Chair: Mr. Cantlie.

Mr. Colin Cantlie: I agree with what I've just heard. I think it's very important that people, when they get this letter, almost feel a big brother or big sister is looking over their shoulder. I would like to encourage the committee to think about a form for the disability tax credit and incorporate the medical expense. We believe in that very strongly, but I think the form should be issued once. I don't think it should be issued repeatedly, because each time you repeat it, I agree with you, some people just say, to hell with it. They might not be able to get their time off work to go and get this form fixed up, and for the credits they're getting, they may say it's not worth it.

I'm asking very seriously. This is a very important form, and I agree with what you said: by the law we would have to be held accountable for any change. If we falsify it, then we'll take that consequence. But the government is not giving us that credit. The government is looking over our shoulder telling us, okay, it's 2001, it's time to re-evaluate you, and frankly, I'm getting worse, not better. So I take deep offence, especially when my doctor charged me $50 the last time to tell everyone I had severe hearing loss and I couldn't do certain things. This time he's abbreviated it to just severe hearing loss.

What happens to the file before? Is it expunged, and this new form goes on? Now you're getting less information, because the doctor is fed up with it and the audiologists. They can't put out forms all the time. We were very grateful that in the last go-around audiologists were part of the equation. I am very grateful for that, but again, we're talking manpower, or I should say, human power, to write these forms up, send them in, and I don't know if we have the energy in some of our cases.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Madeleine, you don't have any questions? No?

[English]

Tony? No.

Well, we thank the witnesses. It's something we, as members of Parliament, are deeply committed to. As we were trying to explain to Minister Stewart what we were up to, she said, I know, I'm a member of Parliament, meaning that she is also getting complaints to her constituency office. Even though it's not her department doing this, she certainly has felt the effect locally.

On Saturday morning I was woken up extraordinarily early by a former patient of mine who'd flown back from Mexico, where she had gone, in her serious battle with depression, to have a simple life, and had come home because of this stupid form. She is changing her residency and doing all of these things. She'd barely got started on her description of the form, and I said, I think I know what you're talking about. It is pervasive how punitive it feels to people, and we do give you our promise that we'll try to do this study properly and come up with some recommendations. Because of your excellent testimony, we'll have good questions when the officials come before us.

• 1700

I have a couple of tiny housekeeping details for the committee, but we thank the witnesses.

For the committee members, some members of Parliament don't seem to know we're doing this. They are getting all of these letters. I thought, with your permission, we could send a letter out to all members of Parliament telling them we're undertaking this study and they can follow it on the website and know what's happening.

The other thing is, in order to corral the kinds of resources we might need to do the CPP study properly and on-line, when we come back in January and February, with this pilot project of being able to talk to citizens directly, we probably would be strengthened by a motion. Maybe what we'll do is put a notice out, so that we could vote on it at the beginning of next week's meeting, if that's okay.

If there are any questions as to what we're thinking about on that, we have a bit of time before the bells go.

Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Carolyn, I'm interested in the concept you have talked about. You have enthused about it, about what's going on in England. Therefore, I'm interested and curious, but I really don't know what you're talking about.

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I think it would be useful for you to tell me.

The Chair: Sure.

We are exploring all the possibilities of what the House of Commons, the clerk, the committee branch, and all that could offer us in support. Previously, when a committee was undertaking a study, the correspondence went to the clerk of the committee, not to the office of the member of Parliament who happens to be the chair. I think what we're trying to do is get Parliament back its rightful place in talking to citizens. If there is a proper study going on, we should be able to talk to Canadians directly who might not be able to come as witnesses, but who could, with e-mail or with letters, be able to deal with the committee. We would circulate them and in this situation try to find a methodology that would work.

What we're trying to do is figure out if there are ways, even through a very specific questionnaire posted on a website that members of Parliament would have in their offices.... There would be a few key questions, depending on whether you're getting CPP disability or you got turned down for it; if you got turned down for it, you didn't appeal, you did appeal; if you didn't appeal, why you didn't appeal; and from the practitioner's point of view, how they feel filling out the form.

Do people on income security programs in this country feel secure about their income? Is it actually working? How would we design a study that includes the usual suspects as witnesses, the experts, the people who know about this? Could we design in this first experiment, as parliamentarians, a simply set of questions that people could answer on-line? We're a little bit nervous about the yes-no after this experience. How could we develop it? That's what I would like to explore. How can we get legitimate testimony from Canadians in the system, now that 70% of Canadians have access to being on-line, either at work or at home? Obviously, we're worried that people on CPP disability might be more predominant in that 30%, but is there even a way that members of Parliament's offices, which do deal with such problems, would be able to help their constituents deal with the committee?

• 1705

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I don't know about your constituency offices, but I have someone who works for me who probably takes that information on a daily basis, because she's the front-line worker who's gained some expertise and knows what questions to ask as somebody who works for a member of Parliament. I don't know if there's any way of tapping that resource, because it might be different office to office, but if you were to go in and sit for an hour with the person who works for me in my constituency offices, you'd get exactly that type of information, the types of comments people have. Let's face it, those workers have to operate on an individual-by-individual basis. Conversely, they'd be of no use in a situation like this, because they are so much there. It's already there in my case anyway.

If you were to prepare a—

The Chair: A questionnaire—

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: —questionnaire—

The Chair: —for member's assistants—

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: —she'd be able to give tremendous input.

The Chair: I think this study could be done at all different layers, and what we as a committee need is.... I don't think we're going to be able to design a Rolls-Royce academic study and the whole thing, but I think it would be exciting to try a small pilot, some little Volkswagen, that actually would be an attempt to get citizens to feel that they had the ear of a parliamentary committee on an issue they feel so strongly about.

The digital divide is very clear, but I think there are ways around it through the community access centres and members' offices. And I think we would want to be very careful about the legitimacy of such a study. We would see it as supplementary to doing the study with the officials and the experts and the usual suspects from the advocacy groups.

I think I did tell the committee, but the positive experience Wendy is talking about is that Stephen Coleman, through the Hansard Society, dealt with victims of domestic violence in England in an e-consultation from Westminster, where they looked at a draft green paper dealing with the issue of domestic violence. They got responses from the women in the hostels and in safe houses in a very specific way, and I think they felt it was hugely valuable testimony that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Ms. Wendy Lill: So we're talking about a parliamentary committee directed polling, almost, for information.

The Chair: Or a qualitative survey, or—

Ms. Wendy Lill: I guess we should try to think of what places in the community would be the centres where we want people to give their input. Would they be MPs' offices? I don't know. Would they be community access sites? Or is it possible to get a letter sent out to everybody who is getting CPP? CPP has nothing to do with it. They don't get any of the information that comes from that letter, but we get it. And I guess that's all about—

The Chair: That was one of the things we needed some support for. I think we are not getting nos to those questions as to whether we could put an insert in the cheque. A lot of people, it seems, get direct deposit or those things, and those are practical things. But we might be able to put it on notice that people were getting it.

• 1710

We also might be able to get some camera-ready art for members' newsletters to say that there will be a study done by the parliamentary committee, this is the e-mail address and the clerk's name; let him know if you'd like to participate.

I have this big front page of my website, but inside I have all the community access libraries, everybody that has access to the Internet in my riding, as a little box. I think that we could try to collect that information for members, if they don't already have it. So we could actually help the members do this, if they would be prepared to put this notice in their newsletter, or give a 10 per-center to the community organizations that might post it for us, or that kind of thing.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I'm sorry, Carolyn, but I'm just maybe a little lost as to what our objective is. Is it to get an understanding of what the issues are as seen from the end stakeholders?

The Chair: Right. We looked as a committee at the numbers: 60% or 65% of people are turned down the first time they apply, and it gets down to about 50% by the time they've finished appealing. There are some people who have been through the whole appeal process and won at the end. The Multiple Sclerosis Society has some very strong views about that. All of their people eventually win, it's just a matter of how much trouble they have to go through to do so. Why are there two different levels of appeal? Why do we have the tribunal and then the Canada Pension appeal board? How does that feel to people? Do they need to have huge lawyers in order to go that far? It really is a study on what's working and what's not. In some ways it's a small study, but in some ways it's a big study. If we were going to design it again, would it look like this? I'm not sure. I'm probably just making it even foggier.

We may want to call some witnesses before we know what questions we want to be asking the citizens. We may want to hear some of the usual suspects before we put the questions out to individuals.

What Mike's suggesting is that we could next week have a motion for the clerk and the researchers to come up with a concrete plan for an e-consultation, which would just begin opening doors. It's not a green light for the whole works, but it's just to look at feasibility or something like that.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I just want to emphasize the point I made about keeping in mind the importance of staff. We make the political decisions, but I think when you're dealing with assistance programs, they are the front-line workers, and I'm sure it's the same in all of your offices. I'd hate to think that they're excluded, because I think they're our biggest asset in gathering this type of information.

• 1715

The Chair: There's another thing we wanted to decide. Seeing that next week is our last meeting before the break, would we.... I think there's been some interest in the media picking up the plight of this DTC form and whether that would help move the department faster. So there was some interest expressed by some of my colleagues that there be a press release saying that we are undertaking this study and they can check Hansard for what people have said. It seems quiet for something that should, I think, have got more attention.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have asked a couple of questions in the House on this. The fact is that these letters have gone out, 90,000 of them. They're causing untold misery in people's lives. We know that, and yet they're still out there and people are either trundling to the doctor or putting them in their filing cabinets or whatever. The impact is being felt. We're doing this study, and I think it's very important that we are, but when are we going to be finished? Tax time is rolling along. I've asked in my questions for an immediate apology letter to go out to all these people and that a consultation occur with advocacy groups before any changes in the form are made or any more of this kind of activity happens.

So I guess the question is, what are we going to end with here, and when? Because it seems we're not going to be of any use to anybody this tax year, which is quite unacceptable. I think we should be asking for emergency action right now.

The Chair: How do others feel about that? We weren't going to have a full report until we came back, right?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Can we have something in the interim as to what progress we have made? I agree, we do not have a—

The Chair: Sometimes we've not done badly with just a letter to the minister saying, so far this testimony is quite alarming, is there anything you can do? Can we do that? Long before we've heard the officials, we've heard a lot of that.

Mr. Kevin Kerr (Research Officer, Library of Parliament): I doubt if for the coming tax year the committee could do all that much, even if it reported today.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have had in my own experience letters that have come out from the federal government, and a week later a letter saying, disregard the prior letter. I have had that happen. So it's not impossible that those kinds of things can occur, in my understanding.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Some damage has been done, but a lot more damage is going to be done unless we demand immediate action. And the immediate action would be to say, disregard that letter; the status quo remains until there is an adequate assessment done, and we are in the process of doing that.

Mr. Bill Young (Research Officer, Library of Parliament): Next week the medical professionals are scheduled to come to talk about their view of this particular issue, but there's no reason you couldn't change the order of the hearings, if you wanted to make your views known to the department.

As an interim measure, Dr. Bennett, you suggested that a letter be sent to the minister. The committee could indicate in a letter the flaws associated with this exercise and request that apology letters be sent out and that this recertification process stop right now, until improvements are made to this review process, which apparently is conducted every once in a while. And then the committee could table a report early in the new year recommending—

The Chair: With the recommendations for future work or progress.

• 1720

How about if we do two things? It's up to you. Why don't we see if we could get the minister here next week? If we can't get the minister here next week, then we'll pass a motion to send the letter to the minister. That's our second choice, right?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Next week?

The Chair: If we could get Minister Cauchon here next Tuesday afternoon, we will tell him to his face what we've heard so far. If he can't come, then next week, Tuesday, before we hear the doctors, we will approve a letter, which they will draft for us, to send to the minister to see if he can fix this problem before we come back in January.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I think that we could of course talk to Martin, except that nothing makes ministers move as fast as things that come out. We have to hold a press conference. If we find that the letter received by individuals who were entitled to the tax credit is unacceptable, since this is not at all a partisan issue, at least not in my mind, we should say so. We should say so very clearly and make the letter public. We can inform Martin of what we're going to do. That's fine, but I think we do have to go that far because we heard many things here, didn't we?

[English]

The Chair: Well, we could also, in inviting the minister next week, explain that if he can come, that's great, and if he can't come, we'll send the letter and hold a press conference. It will be an open letter to the minister with a press conference, or he can come, whichever he prefers. Is that okay?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Why not?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Absolutely.

The Chair: Okay.

The second matter, speaking of press conferences, is that as you know, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities had a press conference today on the VIA Rail cars. In a scrum after question period the minister said it was before the Canadian transport association and he couldn't say anything, but I think I would also like a letter from the committee asking the minister what he can tell us about the status of these VIA Rail cars, in that they were supposed to have been refurbished, as far as I have been assured. It is something this committee has asked about, and so we will have a letter for that minister too, if that's okay with all of you.

We seem to have some work to do. I think we've heard enough on this DTC stuff.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I agree. I feel it's time to move, so let's do it.

The Chair: I'm not sure the doctors are of any huge additional value. We need them to help with a new form, to ask whether they think they should be the only ones. There's a whole bunch of stuff they can add, but in the meantime we can.... They were the group that apparently were consulted on this form.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I know them well.

[English]

The Chair: So if we have to move the doctors to later, we will, otherwise, we would be thrilled to hear from them next week. Is that correct?

Ms. Wendy Lill: No, we're not going to hear from the doctors next week. We're going to hear from the minister.

The Chair: Right. If we can't hear from the minister for some reason, then we'll go ahead with the doctors.

Ms. Wendy Lill: But the key issue is that we do not want this thing to drag on any further, and we have to get a retraction of that letter. That seems to me to be our goal. We have to get the wheels in motion for that retraction.

The Chair: So we're either getting the minister next week or we're getting a letter to the minister and a press conference.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Yes, that's right, and if we can get the doctors in, fine, but I don't want the doctors.... As you've already said, they are part of the process, which is an on-going process, and we're not denying that a process needs to take place. It needs to be a democratic process including disability groups. That's what they've all asked for. They want to be part of any evaluation of an income support program and are really eager to be involved.

• 1725

The Chair: So there are two goals. One is the call-to-action letter, and the other puts the problem in the report, right? Our full report will be our recommendations on how this problem gets fixed, but at the moment we are calling upon the minister for action—we actually want action from the department right away.

Ms. Wendy Lill: That action being to retract the letters.

The Chair: Yes. Until they've responded to our recommendations, we want a status quo, cease and desist kind of memo coming out from the department.

Ms. Wendy Lill: The agency.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Great, and if we get all that done?

The Chair: Hey, we can go home for Christmas.

The meeting is adjourned.