HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 27, 2003

¹

1530

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.))

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

¹

1535

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. Serge Nadeau (Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance)

¹

1540

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Lise Potvin (Senior Chief, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance)

¹

1545

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Chuck Strahl

¹

1550

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. Serge Nadeau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.)

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Serge Nadeau

¹

1555

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Serge Nadeau

º

1600

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

º

1605

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

º

1610

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Serge Nadeau

º

1615

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Serge Nadeau

º

1620

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Serge Nadeau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. John Finlay

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

º

1625

Mr. John Finlay

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. John Finlay

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. John Finlay

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Serge Nadeau

º

1630

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Serge Nadeau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Wendy Lill

º

1635

Mr. Serge Nadeau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Lise Potvin

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Serge Nadeau

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Ms. Wendy Lill

º

1640

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Wendy Lill

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Mr. Serge Nadeau

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques)

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Serge Nadeau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Mr. Serge Nadeau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

º

1645

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Serge Nadeau

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 016

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)): It's Thursday, February 27, 2003. The order of the day is, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), to review the changes to the eligibility for the disability tax credit. The witnesses today are Serge Nadeau,

[Translation]

    Department of Finance, Director, Personal Income Tax Division; Lise Potvin, Senior Chief, Personal Income Tax Division.

[English]

    We have the chair of the Subcommittee--sous-comité--on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, Dr. Carolyn Bennett. I believe Dr. Bennett would appreciate leading off, and we'll all have approximately five minutes to begin, but I'm a very kind soul and it's such a nice topic that we'll be flexible.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't think I will take five minutes, but I'd like to have time for a couple of questions later.

    I thank the main committee for agreeing to do this, and we usually appreciate the role of main committee has had in helping push this file in terms of fair tax treatment for persons with disabilities.

    In the documentation for today's meeting--I won't go over the chronology--mainly what we have done is raise some of the questions around what the committee wanted in the report, what the response from the finance department was and what happened in the House with the unanimous vote. I think we wanted today to know a little bit around the--

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Carolyn, can you hold for a second. I believe we have translation problems.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): We have a problem with the interpretation. I don't need it, but...

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: It's the principle of the thing.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: One can die for principles; that is what is about to happen for persons with disabilities.

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Everything is A-OK.

    Continue, Carolyn.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: There's no question that the witnesses and the main committee know we've been sort of struggling with this issue around fair tax treatment of persons with disabilities. Again, as you know, we had some concerns in the summer, and then there was the unanimous vote in the House of Commons that called on the government to respond to the subcommittee report. Then on December 3 this committee tabled a complementary report.

    We need some interpretation as to how the finance department views the upcoming--we hope--response to all the recommendations that were in the committee's report. But also, how did the 2003 budget announcements deal with the committee recommendations? How do you feel they deal with those recommendations? How do they deal with the unanimous motion in the House of Commons? Will we be able to expect a full report from the committee, the complementary report from this committee?

    As we discussed last week at subcommittee, there are a number of issues. We were hugely grateful to hear in the finance minister's speech that there would indeed be an independent advisory committee to the minister dealing with the issue of persons with disabilities.

    In the budget plan there was a notation about a technical committee. We believe that usually a technical committee is meant to advise the department, so we sort of welcome the idea that there must therefore be two committees that are being struck. This was our subcommittee's interpretation of that.

    Then, in terms of the departmental review we've asked for concerning the all-over treatment of persons with disabilities, we note that in the ways and means motion the gluten-free diet piece went into the medical expense tax credit. You have redefined feeding and dressing in the ways and means motion.

    Our real parliamentary concern has been, when you're about to strike an advisory committee, why are you tabling the answer to the question we wanted the advisory committee to examine at the same time you are announcing the committee will be struck? Just in terms of parliamentary process, this was our number one concern. We also want to know how this overarching review is going on with the department in terms of the tax treatment of persons with disabilities.

    That was our little overview, and I think the Library of Parliament brief in terms of the chronology is here for anybody who wants to be brought up to speed.

    Mr. Chair, we're sure that the witnesses will now address all my questions, and if not, they can wing it. I'm sure our faithful members of the subcommittee as well as the parent committee have tons of questions.

    Thanks very much.

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you very much, Ms. Bennett.

[English]

    I am quite sure that they will wing it with great knowledge and expertise.

[Translation]

    Mr. Serge Nadeau and Ms. Lise Potvin are our witnesses. You may begin, Mr. Nadeau.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau (Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few opening remarks to make. I think that many of those remarks will deal with your questions, but if they do not cover them all I am certain you will ask me those that I have not answered, and it will be a pleasure to answer them.

    Good afternoon. On behalf of the Department of Finance, I would like to thank you for inviting us today. We appreciate having the opportunity to present to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities the tax measures for persons with disabilities that were proposed in the budget tabled last week. The standing committee plays an important role in helping to ensure that Canada makes meaningful progress in fully integrating persons with disabilities into Canadian society. I would like to start out by briefly outlining these budget measures.

    First, the budget proposes a new, $1,600 child disability benefit for low and modest-income families caring for a child qualifying for the disability tax credit. The new benefit will provide $50 million annually in assistance to families with a disabled child and will be delivered through the Canada Child Tax Benefit. This measure will benefit 40,000 low and modest-income families.

    Second, the budget proposes to increase the threshold used to determine financial dependence of an infirm child for the purpose of receiving a tax-free rollover from the proceeds of the parents' or grandparents' Registered Retirement Savings plan or Registered Retirement Income Fund. This measure sounds technical and could be overlooked, but it has been well received by the community of persons with disabilities because it recognizes the special need for the ongoing care of financially dependent infirm children.

    Third, the budget proposes to expand the list of expenses eligible for the medical expense tax credit to include real-time captioning and other similar services used by persons with an impairment, as well as the incremental cost of gluten-free food products for individuals with celiac disease who require a gluten-free diet.

    Fourth, the government is establishing a technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities to advise the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue. I would add that there will only be one committee. The budget only mentions one committee, a technical committee that will report to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue. Therefore, the committee will not give its advice and opinions to the department, but rather to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue. In fact, Finance Department and agency officials sitting on the committee will have no decision-making authority. It will be entirely an arm's length committee.

    Fifth, the budget sets aside $25 million in 2003-2004 and $80 million annually beginning in 2004-2005 to improve assistance for persons with disabilities, drawing on a forthcoming evaluation of the disability tax credit and on the advice of the technical advisory committee.

    Finally, the budget contains proposals to clarify the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit to ensure that it continues to be provided to those most in need.

    Once fully implemented, these changes will provide an additional $160 million per year in tax relief to persons with disabilities. As a result, tax relief for persons with disabilities or medical expenses and those who care for them will have more than doubled since 1996 from $600 million to about $1.3 billion per year.

¹  (1540)  

[English]

     I would now like to expand on some of the measures just mentioned.

    As I indicated, the government is establishing a technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities. The committee will comprise members of organizations representing persons with disabilities, medical practitioners, and private sector tax experts. Issues that can be examined by the committee include, for example, eligibility for the disability tax credit, particularly for persons who suffer from episodic and mental conditions, the list of activities of daily living used to determine eligibility for the credit, the identification of professionals allowed to certify eligibility, and administrative policy and procedures surrounding the determination of eligibility for the disability tax credit.

    Let me turn now to the measures clarifying the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit proposed in the budget. As you know, in March 2002 the Federal Court of Appeal rendered a decision that has been interpreted as expanding eligibility for DTC to individuals who, because of food allergies or other similar conditions, must spend an inordinate amount of time to shop for and prepare suitable food. Such an expansion of eligibility could go far beyond the intent of the DTC and could increase the fiscal costs very significantly.

    Draft amendments to clarify the DTC eligibility criteria were released on August 30, 2002. On November 29, 2002, the Minister of Finance announced that the Department of Finance would consult further to develop revised proposals to deal with the issues arising from the court decision and that these proposals would be considered for inclusion in the 2003 budget. Consultations were held in December and January.

    As a follow-up to this announcement and these consultations, the budget proposed three amendments relating to the DTC eligibility criteria.

    The first amendment ensures that individuals who are markedly restricted in either feeding or dressing themselves will continue to qualify for the DTC. This measure was originally put forward in the proposed changes released last August in response to one of the recommendations in the most recent report of this committee.

    The second amendment specifies that the activity of feeding oneself does not include any of the activities of identifying, finding, shopping for, or otherwise preparing food or the activities of preparing food to the extent that the time associated with that activity would not have been necessary in the absence of a dietary restriction or regime.

    The third amendment specifies that the activity of dressing oneself doesn't include the activities of finding, shopping for, and otherwise procuring clothes.

    These amendments are less restrictive than those proposed last August. In particular, these amendments ensure that individuals who are currently eligible for the disability tax credit because they are markedly restricted in their ability to prepare a meal for reasons other than a dietary restriction, such as severe arthritis, will continue to be eligible for the DTC.

    I would like to add that the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities has been supportive of these amendments.

    Following upon the consultations with the community of persons with disabilities, the budget proposes to expand the list of expenses eligible for the medical expenses tax credit to include the incremental costs of gluten-free food products for individuals with celiac disease who require a gluten-free diet. I would note that, as with all proposed income tax changes in the budget, these measures require parliamentary approval in order to be implemented.

    Before closing, I would like to emphasize that the government will still be providing a formal response to this committee's December 2002 report within the 150-day deadline as set out in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

    In closing, I would like to reiterate our appreciation for the standing committee's and in particular the subcommittee's contribution to our knowledge and understanding of disability issues. I hope that this review of the budget measures has been useful.

    Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

    Ms. Potvin, do you have any remarks to make?

    Ms. Lise Potvin (Senior Chief, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance): No.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): As usual, we will have seven minutes for the first round and five minutes for the second round.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl will lead the parade.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    I just have a couple of questions for clarification, just so we're clear on this. The money the budget sets aside for assistance for persons with disabilities is in addition to or separate from the money that's allocated in the budget for increased home care; is that right?

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: That's right.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I do wonder, though, how you can know how much money is required in advance of the recommendations by this advisory committee about the magnitude of the need. We don't know how much the need is, how many changes are going to be required, or what they're going to recommend, but we have a kind of dollar figure plucked from somewhere. How would you know how much is required?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: The committee is going to provide advice to the finance and national revenue ministers, and some of the recommendations will have a fiscal cost. The budget does not say their advice will be limited to this amount, or it may not be used for all the recommendations either. Of course, we don't know in advance what the cost could be to implement the recommendations of the committee.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, so these are ballpark figures.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Well, yes, they are ballpark figures. This is, to some extent, what has been set aside to fund some of the recommendations of this committee.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, but I'm just trying to establish that if the technical committee comes back with a set of recommendations that are somewhat different from the amount that's earmarked, what will happen? If they just say this amount of money is inadequate for this particular thing, what would be the next step? Otherwise you're boxing them in to saying, give us recommendations that fit this budget parameter, no more, no less.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: I don't think it's no more, no less. There's some fiscal room that has been available. There is a fiscal framework over the next few years, and that fiscal framework is very tight.

    The recommendations from this committee will come over the next few years, so it was at least to give them some freedom in being able to make recommendations and these recommendations being implemented. So I would put it more as a buffer than a constraint.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think that will be useful advice to them as they sit down to discuss that.

    When will this advisory committee be up and running?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: We hope that the co-chairs will be announced in the very near future, so we hope it's going to be running as soon as possible.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: When will they report back to the committee?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: The committee will decide the way they want to transmit their advice to the ministers. They may decide to provide advice on an ongoing basis. This committee will have an 18-month mandate; however, we do not expect them to wait until the end of the 18 months before making recommendations or providing their advice. In fact, some amounts have been projected for the next fiscal year in the hope that they will be able to come forward with recommendations in advance of the next budget.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

    These disability tax credits are some of the most difficult things for members of Parliament to handle in their own ridings. They're some of the most emotional cases that we ever deal with. In my opinion, the establishment of this committee can't come too soon.

    It's one of those things where an example will come into our office that would bring tears to anyone's eyes, yet somehow we have difficulty, at a government level, getting people to fit someone's preordained, pigeon-holed ideas of what is truly disabled. I could give you horror stories on it just from my own office. But if it reports back to the committee, I think we can have our input at that time.

    Hopefully, the group of people who are selected, both the co-chairs and the people who will be on the committee, will include organizations and groups with experience on this. But there also may even be some value in getting people who have had to try to help, who've helped people with disabilities jump through the hoops as much as they have.

    It's not a game, it's a serious business, but in my experience, the advice I've had to give to people is to actually coach them through in order to say, for instance, don't ever say you would like to go back to work, because if you say that, then someone puts you in another category of “might like to work again one day, therefore...”; you just have say you're beat. These people are trying their best.

    In other words, it might be worthwhile, I'd suggest, to find someone who actually is in the business of helping these people make the applications. They've seen the horror stories of people who made mistakes and are forever put into a sideline, never to get out of it, it seems. Those cases are very sad and very difficult for us, as MPs, to deal with in our ridings.

    So for what that's worth, in addition to organizations that maybe have that expertise, there are other people, including MPs, who have become trained, unfortunately, in trying to figure out how the bureaucrat thinks, far away, in order to get help for someone who truly needs it.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: We'll forward your advice to the co-chairs, and also to the minister's office, so that they can take that into consideration.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

[Translation]

    Before giving the floor to Mr. Malhi, I would like to come back to an answer you gave Mr. Strahl. You said that the committee would soon be struck. You didn't give a specific date, but does “soon” mean before Christmas, before the summer or before Easter?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Mr. Chairman, we hope that the names of the committee co-chairs will be announced over the next few days, or the next week. The co-chairs, with the ministers, will then decide on the makeup of the committee. We hope that it will be functional in April.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Bravo!

    It is now Mr. Malhi's turn.

[English]

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    In our budget plan 2003, $80 million will be allocated to improving the tax system for a person with disabilities. How much is budgeted for persons with HIV/AIDS?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: The $80 million has been set aside to draw on, for the committee to make recommendations on tax issues. It will be up to the committee, and also to the finance and national revenue ministers, to decide on what specific issue relating to persons with disabilities the ministers will fund.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Do people with HIV/AIDS qualify for the disability tax credit, and if so, to what extent?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: It's unfortunate that our colleagues from CCRA are not here, but they are in a much better position to discuss the administration of the tax credit than I am. Persons with AIDS and HIV will qualify if they meet the general requirement for the disability tax credit, which is to be physically impaired.

    I'm not going to repeat the general requirements. You know them as well as I do.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Is there any proposal to extend to or compensate individuals suffering from this chronic disease, with medical expenses, tax credits to meet the high cost of drugs? I also want to add, as my colleague mentioned, I believe dealing with the disability tax credit is not a game but a serious business.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Yes, people with AIDS and HIV can benefit from the medical expense tax credit for their drugs already.

    Again, the Department of Finance is not going to dictate what the committee can look at. The committee will decide on its work plan. Maybe this is one issue that they will want to look at. I cannot prejudge or pre-decide what they will want to do.

¹  (1555)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Malhi.

[Translation]

    Ms. Dalphond-Guiral now has the floor.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you for coming. You have probably noted that amongst the people sitting around the table there are people who sat on the Sub-committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I probably don't need to tell you that we were quite upset by the government's first response to our report. You will understand that our questions today may be rather hard-hitting.

    The report included a certain number of the subcommittee's recommendations. You mentioned that the technical advisory committee will be completely independent. Does that mean that they will be able to ignore the report or does that mean that they will have to take note of certain findings, based on the report?

     I will ask you several questions at once and that will give you time to get a general picture. When the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency decided to screen the eligibility of persons with disabilities, many of these people lost their right to claim the tax credit.

    Can you tell me if the saga continues, in other words are they still sending forms and are they still screening? If so, why? It seems to me that if the government has decided to seriously consider the issue, it is absolutely improper to continue to ask people to prove that they are still disabled.

    Third, I can't remember if the report raises the possibility of the non-refundable tax credit becoming refundable. Would that be under the purview of the advisory committee? I think you have to be very rich to not appreciate what the right to a tax credit for persons with a disability means, and by the way, we're not talking about a large sum. When one hardly has any income, at least not enough to pay $1,600 in taxes, then this tax credit reflects a mindset.

    I think it is high time for a government that one could say is very rich—this may not last for ever, but right now it is very rich—to think of measures that will help those living in a situation that is not of their choosing, and who are entirely alone in taking responsibility for it, whether that be as a parent or as a citizen.

    You now have the floor.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Those are three good questions. In answer to the first question, as I said in my opening remarks and as Mr. Malhi also mentioned, the committee will be responsible for its work plan. I would hope that it will examine the recommendations made by the subcommittee. Moreover, in the opening statement, I think that reference was made to some things that are very familiar to you, in terms of suggestions, things that the committee could look at.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Is that because there are still others? Is that the case?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: There are still others, but we all agree that we have a lot of questions with respect to the disability tax credit. The budget lists these possibilities, and several of these possibilities flow from your recommendations. Moreover, I think that all of the possibilities listed flow from your recommendations.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: And we held back.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: However, as I was saying, we want the committee to be independent. So it will be the committee that will decide which issues are to be given a priority, and then it will take action and make the requisite decisions.

    Now, with respect to your second question about the agency...

º  (1600)  

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I called that a saga.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: I do not think that I can use that term.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, that is not what [Editor's Note: Inaudible].

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Unfortunately, let's say that it will be up to the officials from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to answer questions about the review of certain cases, certain applications.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We will invite them to appear.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: We in the Finance Department look after legislation, whereas they look after the administration. Unfortunately, they are not here this afternoon.

    Now, as to your question about the refundable tax credit, I would like to clarify my comments by saying that this committee will be responsible for its work plan. However, if the tax credit were refundable, that would mean that every eligible disabled person in Canada would receive $1,000 from the federal government. Now, if every disabled person were to receive this amount, this would no longer be a tax credit, this would be a program. A tax credit is supposed to be linked to taxes.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It's supposed to be linked to income.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Yes. But if everyone were to receive this amount, this would become a program and, at that point, it would no longer be a tax measure. In technical terms, this is something that could be discussed, but as I was saying, it is no longer a tax measure.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That would no longer be deemed to be a tax measure, per se.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: That would no longer be deemed to be a tax measure, per se, but once again ...

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We will refer that to Human Resources Development Canada; they are good at managing a lot of money!

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you very much. We will now give the floor to Ms. Bennett.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Ms. Diane St-Jacques will speak first.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): I therefore recognize Ms. St-Jacques.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Bennett.

    Mr. Nadeau, I have a short question. In your opening statement, you spoke about the new benefit for disabled children that will be available only for children who are eligible for the tax credit, and we all know it is not easy to qualify for it.

    Although I did not attend all the meetings of the subcommittee, I do know that not everyone is entitled to that tax credit; you nearly have to be hooked up to a respirator to get it.

    So will the benefit be useful? There may not be many parents who can get it since not all children will be eligible for the tax credit. What will happen then?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Well, 40,000 families will benefit.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Yes, but they must be eligible for the tax credit.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Yes. But there are well over 40,000 families whose children are eligible for the tax credit. As you know, this supplement will benefit only low and middle-income families. So all in all we expect 40,000 families to receive the benefit.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: But since the tax credit criteria are so restrictive and you nearly have to be...

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: We expect that 40,000 will qualify.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Yes, I know that. What I mean is that there are a lot of parents who will not get the benefit because their child will not be eligible for the tax credit since the criteria are so strict. Right?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: The criteria are... It is indeed a problem; the eligibility criteria will in fact be reviewed by the committee.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: So if the criteria are changed, the number of families getting the national benefit could increase.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Yes.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: You spoke about medical expenses for people with gluten problems. There is no reference to those with severe allergies. There is a case in my riding of parents with two children who were allergic to nearly everything, probably even gluten, but maybe not. In any case, the parents had to appeal because the problem was not recognized. The children could not eat any food bought at a grocery store.

    Could you expand on the amendments made to...?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: The list of medical expenses eligible for the tax credit has been extended so that sufferers of celiac disease could claim the difference in cost for gluten-free products.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: But that applies only to people with that problem?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Yes.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: So other very severe allergies are not included in that?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: No.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Is that something else the interim committee can...?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: It is something else the committee could also review.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Those are all my questions, Mr. Chairman.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Ms. St-Jacques. We will now give the floor to Ms. Lill.

[English]

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

    Starting off the initial round were Ms. Bennett's comments, and I still don't see how you have answered the central question. Why are these amendments to the disability tax credit being put forward again, before the review of the disability tax credit has been done yet? That's the central question that I haven't heard an answer to.

    I would like to follow up on Ms. St-Jacques comments about the child disability benefit. When you look at it closely, you think, okay, maybe 40,000 families--low-income families--will benefit from this. We know it's very difficult to get the disability tax credit. For example, for a child with, say, muscular dystrophy, who is able to walk 50 metres but still has significant disabilities, their family incurs significant cost to care for that child. Your questions about thinking, perceiving, and remembering become even more complicated. It's like the eye of the needle when you're dealing with children. Suddenly you're putting children through this incredibly rigorous screen that doesn't make any sense to begin with. I find it very problematic.

    I would like you to comment on the issue of eligibility for this tax credit, of children having to go through first the disability tax credit.

    I want to know how many provinces claw back the national child benefit for social assistance recipients, and whether the same thing is going to happen here. We have low-income families that may, under very complex conditions, be able to get this child disability tax benefit. Will this get clawed back as well, and do you have any sense of that? If it does get clawed back, what percentage of that money is being reinvested into disability supports?

    I would also like to know about the technical advisory committee. It's interesting that you are saying that the committee co-chairs are going to be announced in a couple of days. I've been in constant contact with the major disability groups in the country and they don't seem to know about this. I'm nervous about who these co-chairs are, unless they are just keeping it under their hats.

    What is this beast, this technical advisory committee? What is it? What is it supposed to do? I distrust it, given the fact that we've asked for one thing in terms of a comprehensive review of the DTC and we haven't got it. Now we're getting this technical advisory committee, and we don't know really who these co-chairs are. They are able to select their own members. You think, okay, who are these members? Do they represent the communities? Do they represent the disability advocacy groups? I'm throwing out a bunch of things as I listen to you, but there are questions embedded in that.

    The final question is, if this committee advises that the DTC becomes a refundable tax credit, are you willing to go for that?

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: You have several questions. I picked up three. I'll answer the first one, which is why we didn't wait for a complete review before introducing new amendments.

    As directed by the Minister of Finance in the November 29 press release, consultations on the eligibility criteria for the DTC were held in December and January. These consultations, by the way, involved representatives from the community of persons with disabilities and medical practitioners. In fact, we used the list of witnesses who appeared here to have in our consultations. Following these consultations, new proposals were developed. The issue was that our analysis confirmed that postponing the announcement of the proposals would have entailed a very significant fiscal cost. Therefore it was appropriate to deal with the issue in the context of the budget.

    It is also worth noting here that the budget also proposes one of the amendments that the committee, in its December report, recommended that we implement immediately. That's the reason the government decided new amendments had to be introduced at the earliest opportunity--the fiscal cost.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: I have to say, though, regarding the unanimous vote that occurred in the House of Commons in November of all members, all of that material was known at the time. There was a consensus that we wanted a review done.

    You say you consulted widely with the disability groups. Well, did they know they were being consulted for the purposes of amendments to be included in the budget? As far as I know, and I've talked to lots of disability groups, this is their question. Why are these amendments being reintroduced now? There's a disconnect here. You say you consulted, and I'm sure you did, but I'm asking, did they know the nature of the consultation, that it was in fact to reintroduce material in the budget? There's not a consensus on that at all.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Well, they were informed that the objective of the consultations was about the proposals that had been withdrawn. They knew that.

    Again, what I want to stress is the fiscal cost of not having done anything. By the way, before talking about the cost further, I think I would like to stress that the amendments introduced in the budget--proposed in the budget--are very different from those that were withdrawn. They are much less restrictive.

    Going back to the cost, it's very difficult to put any exact figure on the possible fiscal cost of not having responded to the court decision, but let me give you an idea of the factors that enter into the equation.

    First, let's talk about the number of people with dietary restrictions in Canada who potentially could have qualified for the disability tax credit. In Canada there are about 150,000 people with celiac, 1 million people with diabetes, 2 million people with food allergies. I could go on and on, but in total it is estimated there are between 8.5 million and 10.5 million people with dietary restrictions who could have potentially qualified for the disability tax credit under this ruling.

    The second element is, of course, that not all of these would have qualified. A small proportion would have qualified. Well, let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that 20% of them would have qualified. Let us also be conservative in terms of the number of potential qualifiers, so let's take 1.5 million. Therefore 20% of 8.5 million is 1.7 million people who could potentially have qualified.

º  (1615)  

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you very much, Ms. Lill.

[English]

    It has been nine minutes.

[Translation]

We will now give the floor to Ms. Bennett.

[English]

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Thank you very much.

    Because the committee does have an ongoing relationship with the disability community, I think we would just like to know who you talked to and when. In terms of a consultation, who were talked to and what did they say, and as my colleague has said, did they actually know this was about potential amendments being readmitted into this budget document?

    I think one of the primary criteria for a good consultation is people need to know what they're being asked and for what. It isn't fair to have a conversation with somebody and then read from that a set of recommendations. I just hope you will be able to give the clerk the chronology of what consultations did take place.

    As we move forward, in using an advisory committee, I understood when it said “independent advisory committee” in the minister's speech, that would mean they were giving independent and transparent advice to the minister, as we have on the AIDS committee. Obviously if we move forward, it means then it's at the minister's political peril to not do what the committee said. They do need to know what that is.

    I guess I need to know this today. You've clarified that this isn't two different committees. This is one committee that will be giving independent advice to the minister, and I presume transparent. What support will that committee get from the department? How will it be supported such that it actually is able to work? I think that for those of us who are working really hard on effective consultation, it cannot be something in the nature of nod, tick, we've consulted and move on. They have to be able to do some work, and that takes resources. How will that be supported?

    Secondly, will they have access to the finance committee's data and documents? Again, one of the other key factors in real consultation is that you have to give people the numbers. You have to give them the fact-check about what will affect the ability to give practical decent recommendations in terms of.... There's no sense in consulting and then having people with some pie-in-the-sky idea of giving it to everybody and all of that.

    Those are the two things. Will you be able to say today you will support this committee properly, and secondly, will they have all of the finance documentation data available to them so they can give proper advice?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Our instructions are that we should help this committee as much as we can. In fact, a number of people from both CCRA and Finance will be dedicated to provide technical support to the committee. The committee in turn will provide support in terms of research--whatever is needed. At this time there is--

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: A commitment.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: --a commitment that they will be properly supported.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: From what we learned from the Romanow experience and what we learned from Judy Maxwell's consultations with Canadians, I think Canadians actually do know there are going to have to be some trade-offs. They're grownups about this stuff. I guess I hope they will be treated as grownups such that they will get the information they need to give decent advice to the minister. Is that fair?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: It's very fair. Again, we're committed to provide as much help as is needed. It's the co-chairs who will decide on their work plan, and the co-chairs who, once they're in the House, will start working.

    I don't know what I can add, except to assure you on behalf of the department that everything is going to work and it's not going to be a resource problem.

º  (1620)  

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: So the co-chairs will be picked, but then how will it be determined who else is on the committee?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: It would be the ministers, under the advice of the co-chairs, who would decide.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: The co-chairs would be able to come back and say they need somebody with expertise in this, can they add somebody to the committee. They would have the flexibility to recruit the people.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Exactly.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: They would have the ability to hire independent consultants and do whatever.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Funds would be available to hire outside consultants. The only guidance given to the chairs at this time is what's written in the budget. We would like, if possible, for the committee to be composed of medical practitioners and, of course, representatives of the community of persons with disabilities, as well as tax experts, because they are going to look at tax issues. But otherwise it's open. I think the minister wants the committee to operate as independently as possible.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thanks, Madame Bennett.

    Mr. Finlay, première ronde.

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm new on the committee, as you are aware, but I'm delighted to be here because it deals with issues that, as Mr. Strahl said, are very much at the front of my mind with respect to people in the constituency, people in need of some sensible help. You get funny little things, as Mr. Strahl said, and we have a whole pocket of them.

    I've gone through this fairly carefully. I do want to ask a question with respect to the information that you provided, that the clerk can provide from the Library of Parliament. I'm looking at this document and the comparison of the 2003 budget measures with the recommendations in the subcommittee report, “Getting it Right for Canadians: The Disability Tax Credit March 2002”, and the HRDC standing committee report, which I hadn't seen before.

    On page 4, dealing with tax fairness for people with disabilities...a comprehensive report. I don't know whether it's a typo or if you can explain this to me, but it says:

The Committee recommends that the government:

(b) as part of this examination, prepare and release a public discussion paper by 31 December 2003 outlining possible options for reform. This paper should specifically include a discussion of combining tax measures (e.g. the Disability Tax Credit and the Medical Expenses Tax Credit), refundability and a registered savings plan (with a grant component like the RESP) for children with disabilities who may not be able to benefit from higher education but who require financial support to live;

(c) use the consultation paper as the basis for public consultations to be conducted in a transparent manner with the participation of all stakeholders and;

(d) report the outcome of these discussions and present an action plan for legislative and administrative changes to this Committee by 1 September 2003.

    I can't understand preparing a public discussion paper by December 31, 2003, and reporting the outcome of these discussions by September 1, 2003. So I just want to ask the chair--

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Mr. Finlay, it's a typographical mistake.

    Mr. John Finlay: Which is right? Which goes where?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Could you answer that?

º  (1625)  

    Mr. John Finlay: Did we want, as part of the examination, to prepare and release a public discussion paper by December 31, 2002, which has just passed?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): The answer is yes.

    Mr. John Finlay: Okay, thank you very much.

    You mentioned children. I think the people who suffer so much, too, are the parents of the children. Sometimes the children are disabled to the point--

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): And the other children.

    Mr. John Finlay: That's right, and that's where we should be concentrating our money and our support.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

[Translation]

    We are still on the first round and Mr. Raymond Simard is the last person...

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: But I am starting to get worried. Will other Liberals be coming?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): It would seem that there are more Liberals interested in this matter than members from other parties.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'm delighted to see that, because that is not always the case, is it?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Mr. Simard.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be quite brief. It is always tempting to turn the floor over to people who are more familiar with this issue than I am, as Ms. Bennett is, but I do feel compelled to ask a few questions.

    I know that we have talked about the definition of criteria in the past, for example, in order to determine who is eligible for the tax credit, and this is always a very subjective issue. I have one person in my riding who feels that she would certainly be eligible for it, according to her description, but in actual fact this person is not eligible.

    Will the committee have something to say about that? Will it be able to define with greater accuracy the eligibility criteria for the tax credit?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: I would imagine that this will certainly be one of the things that committee members will want to look at closely. Moreover, reviewing the eligibility criteria is one of the suggestions contained in the budget. Obviously that would involve the legislation.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: So you would be open to that?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: As I said, it must be made very clear that the committee will be responsible for its work plan. This is an independent committee of the Department of Finance. Obviously, it will be reporting to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue, but we are not the ones who...

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Fine. If a committee is struck, we want to make sure that it is not subject to too many restrictions.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: I fully appreciate your point of view.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: So it's to clarify whether indeed this mandate will be included.

[English]

    The second thing is there's a person in my riding, for instance, who qualified for the tax credit for 12 years. This year he was asked to fill in a second form, which made it even more stringent, made the conditions even more difficult, and he doesn't qualify anymore. So for 12 years he qualified; it was determined that he was, in fact, handicapped and should qualify for the thing, and now he doesn't.

    Has that changed at all? He asked me if we were going to keep on with the more stringent conditions.

[Translation]

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Once again, the answer has to come from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, but the rules have not changed per se; it is the administration that has changed.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: The forms are more difficult or more restrictive.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: I do not think that this is about the forms. Once again, I am to some extent speaking on behalf of the agency, but the agency is trying to ensure that the forms reflect the legislation. The legislation has not changed. The forms always try to reflect the legislation, but eligibility used to be a matter decided by the Department of Human Resources, and now this decision is made by the CCRA.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: I have a third question. Once again, I have someone in my riding who has mental health problems. She's living on $400 a month. Obviously, she must not be paying much tax. What are we doing for these people? Giving such an individual a tax credit is useless. Can we do something for these people?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: No, not at the taxation level, because...

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Raymond Simard: It is not related to your program.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: No it is not related because, in order to be eligible for a tax credit, you have to pay taxes. However, I would imagine that many provinces provide income support programs to top up the basic program.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: So this individual receives income from the province. At the federal level, you have to have an income in order to be eligible for a tax credit. That is what you are telling us, right? Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you, Mr. Simard.

    Ms. Dalphond-Guiral, you will be pleased to learn that we are now on the second round and you have all of five minutes.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, thank you for being so generous with me.

    I have a question, but before I ask it, I will share with you something which, to my mind, is desirable. A little earlier you talked about medical practitioners. I hold physicians in high regard. Well, of course, that varies, it depends on the physician, but generally speaking, I respect the medical profession. I would be extremely concerned, however, if physicians were the only people providing care to handicapped people. I'm not talking about community organizations. I'm referring to many health care professionals who have expertise and understanding, and I think we need both. Take, for instance, occupational therapists, speech therapists and teachers, because when it comes to children, increasing efforts are being made to have these professionals work in schools. There is no question we need people who are in the school system, such as psychiatric nurses and social workers. These are mostly women, but male nurses and social workers are also welcome.

    I would like you to take note of this idea and pass it along. I won't monitor the situation, but I will look at who sits on that committee.

    Now to my question. This committee has not yet begun its work, but there is talk of an 18-month deadline. Therefore, the odds are good that its recommendations would be implemented at the earliest when the 2005 budget is tabled, in the best of circumstances. But since we are dealing with people who have difficult lives, people living with a chronic condition which was hellish before and which will become even more hellish as time goes by, will the measures, which, I hope, will not be wider in scope but fairer, be retroactive?

    I think that the more people are in need, the more visionary we must be. I don't want to hear that the measures cannot be retroactive.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: No, but that's very visionary, very daring. First, with regard to the makeup of the committee—I've noticed that Lise is taking notes—we will pass your suggestion along and ensure that the co-chairs are apprised of it. Now, to show our good faith, we have established a budget of $80 million for 2004-2005. We have even established a budget of $25 million for this fiscal year, namely 2003-2004. We hope that the committee will make recommendations before next year's budget is tabled. Again, I repeat, proof of this lies in the fact that we have set aside money from this fiscal year and from the next one as well.

    Therefore, we don't expect the committee to wait 18 months to make recommendations. We expect, we hope, that it will make recommendations along the way.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That is always difficult, isn't it?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: It's not easy, but, at this stage, I think it's possible.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Mr. Nadeau, I have high hopes.

    We will now, finally, move on to Ms. Lill.

[English]

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

    You didn't have a chance to answer the question about the clawback. How many provinces claw back the national child benefit from social assistance recipients, and have discussions been held with the provinces to determine if they will similarly claw back the child disability benefit? That's one question.

    The second one has to do with how the Department of Finance proposes to administer the new disability child benefit, given the existing problems around eligibility for the DTC, for example, defining “markedly restricted”, “severe” and “prolonged”.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, can I finish answering the previous question? We were talking about the fiscal costs.

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Yes.

[English]

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: There could be an additional 1.7 million people who qualify for the DTC. Now, let's realize that for each person who qualifies it would be $1,000, so it could cost an additional $1.7 billion per year, which would mean a fivefold increase in the cost of the DTC. If you think that 20% is too much, assume it's 5%. Then it would be $425 million per year.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Excuse me for one second. I don't want this to be taken out of the timing for the question around the clawback.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: I think that concludes my answer. Whatever numbers you take and assumptions you make, it would be very expensive to not respond to the court ruling.

    Now I will let Lise answer the clawback question.

    Ms. Lise Potvin: On the clawback of the NCB supplement, with the changes announced in the last budget we expect that the increase will be sufficient for the vast majority of children for the clawback to end, to start with. That's for the NCB supplement. Some provinces are still clawing back, but we're going to work with them so the clawback can end.

    On the child disability benefit, we're going to work with the provinces because we want that money to go to low-income families. Clawbacks are not acceptable, from our perspective.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Of course, we're working very closely with HRDC to ensure that this money is not clawed back. We have a good hope that won't happen.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: How do you propose to administer the new disability child benefit, given the existing problems around eligibility for the DTC--for instance, in the muscular dystrophy example I gave?

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: If a child currently qualifies for or is eligible for the DTC, they will qualify for the child disability benefit. Then it will be income-tested, and the amount the parents receive will depend on the income of the family. The rules will be the same for adults and for children in qualifying for the DTC.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: But the DTC at this time is for adults; it's not exclusive for persons with low incomes. In fact, it's the other way around. You're saying here, unless I'm misunderstanding, that the child disability credit will be available for people eligible for the DTC--low- and medium-income families. I'm having a hard time figuring out who that group is and why, if a family has a child with a disability and they incur enormous costs, they wouldn't be eligible. I find it complicated.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: As you probably know, there's a DTC supplement for kids, so a child would benefit from both the DTC and the DTC supplement.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: So you could still get the DTC, but you would not necessarily get the child disability credit.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: No. You'd get both.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Certain people would get both. Some people would continue to get just one if they met the criteria.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: That's right. One is a supplement. In some cases it's a supplement to the disability tax credit, which achieves a different objective.

    The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): You still have a minute.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: All right. Will the technical advisory committee to the minister be asked to make recommendations on the application of eligibility criteria for the new child disability benefit?

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: That is something the committee could look at. The committee will be responsible for its work plan.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: How many members are on this committee? What percentage of them are from the disability community? How many of them are tax experts?

    The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): A short answer.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: The short answer is that at this time we don't know the composition of the committee. I just mentioned that the ministers will decide on the terms of the composition of the committee and who is going to be on it, in consultation with the co-chairs.

[Translation]

    The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane St-Jacques): We will now give the floor to Ms. Bennett.

[English]

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I was wondering where we get the 10 million number from in terms of people who might have dietary restrictions. It seems very high. I was in family practice for 25 years and I just find that's high, and it's certainly high if you consider the people who actually.... I don't think that's being allergic to nutmeg. It has to be very high when you think we are putting the whole treasury at risk by having to move so fast.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: These estimates come from studies at Statistics Canada, and as well—

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Could you give the clerk that study that would say—

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Well, no, there is no study from Statistics Canada that says there are that many. It's an adding-on of estimates; for example, 150,000 individuals with celiac. And you'll—

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Mr. Nadeau, you got that information somewhere. And when you did, I imagine you jotted it down somewhere.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: The source, yes.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Could you send a copy of that information to the clerk?

    Ms. Bennett.

[English]

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Just in that there must be research on this and Stats Canada must have something, yes. What are the various estimates and what is the source of them? What research is this being based on? This is a very significant number. I would imagine the advisory committee would want these kinds of numbers in order to be able to properly advise. If you could just give us whatever you have, that would be great. There's a big difference between 150,000 celiacs and 10 million Canadians.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: I agree. But there are people with allergies as well, about 1 million; and diabetes, 2 million; and high-cholesterol diets; and 10.5 million that.... I said between 8.5 million and 10.5 million. Of course, not all of them are going to qualify; that would be $10.5 billion a year.

    To be conservative in our estimates, we are putting proportion into them; 20% would mean $1.7 billion. If you think 20% is too high, then take a proportion of 5% of these 8.5 million; that's 425,000 people.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: But even if we were to go to the technical definition, I think I can go to Loblaws to shop and learn to pick out the stuff without peanuts. I can actually shop at Loblaws for my low-cholesterol diet and not think I'm going to get a tax credit for it.

    So the premise in which we're making these estimates doesn't seem quite right as to the difficulty some people have had with babies with a certain horrible dietary thing, where they have to have a lamb-based formula, or some of the gluten stuff. I guess I just find it hard to start that.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: But just the 150,000 people with celiac amounts to $150 million a year—just them. We're talking about huge numbers.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: But in my remarks in the House of Commons.... We cannot do this any more by categories. An individual person who happens to have celiac disease as well may be disabled because of the person and the place they are. Ticking off a box as to one diagnosis is not the way we should be treating people. It's where we got into trouble. Somebody may be a little bit blind, a little bit deaf, a little bit limp, a little bit whatever, and they're disabled. They cannot do these things. But they don't tick off on one box enough, and if you add gluten-free diet to it, it may just push it straight over the tilt bar. That's what we're talking about in a patient-centred, citizen-centred approach. It can't be done category by category.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Dr. Bennett, you raised a very important issue, and I think that's something that maybe the committee will want to look at. But the fact is that following the Hamilton court decision, lawyers at CCRA and Justice said that they should grant the credit to whoever comes with a form that says, I have a dietary restriction, I spend an inordinate amount of time procuring and preparing food. And it's signed by a physician. The wording of the ruling was such that it was really very easy to qualify. That's why I'm saying that even if we apply a very low plurality to the potential number, we are still talking about a huge figure.

    That being said, I understand your point of view, and we discussed that at the last--

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I'm a physician who used to sign these frigging forms. I realize that in the review there was some trouble. If somebody came to me and said they had a cholesterol diet, I would look at them and say, that isn't what this tax credit is intended for, and I would say no. So the potential is not a potential at all, because some physician actually has to sign their name.

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Dr. Bennett, that's why in our estimates I was talking about only 5% of them. Even if you say one person, you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I just hope that your fantastic new advisory committee is going to find a better way through this than--

    Mr. Serge Nadeau: Given the current form, this is what would have happened. Maybe with some other eligibility criteria there would not have been such a problem.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I can't wait.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Eugène Bellemare): Thank you very much, Madame Bennett.

[Translation]

    Mr. Nadeau, Ms. Potvin, thank you very much for having presented the committee with the tax measures and for having answered our questions about the tax measures for the disabled which are contained in last week's estimates. You surely noticed that every member, irrespective of party affiliation, is interested in this issue. We appreciate the work you do. Thank you very much.

    The meeting is adjourned.