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 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]