Chapter 5: Future Directions

In the course of our work, the Committee acknowledged that many issues which were brought to our attention and discussed went beyond our direct mandate. Yet these issues, such as the conceptualization of disability, the concept and practice of accommodation, and the various forms of social assistance for offsetting disability costs, are all relevant to the tax issues we were considering. While we do not review in detail areas that fall outside the scope of our mandate, we feel that it is important to share some observations that may contribute to future work on disability and, more specifically, the achievement of equity.

Going Forward: How Best to Assist Persons with Disabilities

Limits of the Tax System

The Committee recognizes that the purpose of the disability-related tax measures is to ensure fairness and equity among all taxpayers. Tax measures in general are not intended to redress income inequalities or compensate for low income. It is therefore essential not to distort their basic purposes.

The previous chapters focused upon specific tax measures and proposed possible remedies to improve fairness within the tax system. As we reviewed these issues, however, we felt compelled to ask questions about fairness from the perspective of public expenditure and relatively scarce dollars.

In our view, limited public funds should be directed toward those who most need the assistance. Unfortunately, there are two groups that will not benefit from many tax measures because most do not pay income tax: those with very low incomes and Aboriginal Canadians on reserve. Moreover, the tax system is ill equipped to deal with the pressures that invariably will arise from the growing support needs of an aging population.

a. Low-income Canadians

Most of the tax provisions the Committee was asked to review are of little or no value to persons with disabilities who are too poor to pay income tax and who have no supporting relatives who have taxable income. Individuals must first have a taxable income in order to derive any benefit from the current measures.

As explained in the chapter on employment- and education-related tax measures, a substantial proportion of persons with disabilities experience difficulty participating in the paid labour market. They face a range of barriers that make it impossible to find or maintain employment.

Even those who are fortunate enough to work often earn very low wages. They get little or no benefit from various tax provisions even though they may be employed. Still others will never be able to sustain themselves fully, or at all, through paid work.

b. Aboriginal Canadians

Aboriginal Canadians living on reserve are another major group that does not benefit from most disability-related tax measures. Most do not pay income tax and many do not even file a tax return. This issue is described in a research paper commissioned by the Committee.¹

Our interest arises from the fact that the incidence of disability among Aboriginal Canadians is much higher than among the non-Aboriginal population — the most recent data available from the Canadian Community Health Survey puts the incidence of disability among Aboriginal Canadians at 31 percent.² Fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect among Aboriginal children and adults are of particular concern. These conditions are linked to a wide range of impairments in physical and mental functions.

Aboriginal Canadians who live in the northern regions of the country face unique problems. The basic costs of living ‘north of 60’ are higher than other parts of Canada. In addition, Aboriginal Canadians with disabilities face considerable barriers to participation. Most buildings, including homes, schools, band offices, churches, arenas and meeting halls are inaccessible. There is a lack of recreational facilities, accessible transportation and services, such as attendant care, homemaker services or respite for caregivers.

Many individuals face the choice of staying in their community or leaving their home and family to seek supports and services in urban centres — in Yellowknife, Whitehorse or the south. But Aboriginal persons with disabilities who live in urban centres or off reserve also face significant barriers. They run into jurisdictional complexities, related both to their Aboriginal status and place of residence, which often prevent them from gaining access to the disability supports they require.

The Committee recognizes that neither the Department of Finance nor the Canada Revenue Agency has the mandate to address concerns related to the supply and delivery of disability supports. Nor does this issue fall within the purview of the Technical Advisory Committee. But it does relate to our work in the following way.

Those who have access to disability supports through various provincial and territorial programs typically pay only a small amount, or nothing, for those goods and services. In effect, their costs of disability are partially or fully offset by virtue of the fact that the required supports are provided through such programs. Once again, limited public funds may be better spent, in our view, on bolstering the supply of disability supports rather than enhancing tax measures.

c. Seniors

The trends in data that the Committee examined as part of our review of the disability tax credit, in particular, found that 60 percent of those claiming the credit are elderly. Their share is expected to rise over the next few years with an aging population.

The number of Canadians age 65 and over will double from nearly 4 million in 2001 to almost 8 million by 2026.3 Seniors will account for 21 percent of the population by 2026, compared with 13 percent in 2001.

While seniors are healthier and living longer than ever before, the fact remains that the incidence of disability rises with age. Data from the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey indicate that nearly half of older Canadians experience some form of functional limitation. The disability rate for Canadians age 65 and older is 41 percent; it jumps to 53 percent for those age 75 or older.⁴

These figures represent more than just a cost pressure for the disability tax credit. In our view, they speak more broadly to the need for governments to tackle more strategically and comprehensively the fact that growing numbers of the population will require assistance with the activities of daily living. Many will need some help in offsetting the costs they incur both directly and indirectly in respect of their marked restriction.

Given these limits of the tax system in assisting persons with disabilities and addressing the needs of an aging population, the Committee felt it was important to note that there are other forms of assistance to enable the participation of persons with disabilities. While it was not our task to examine in depth alternative mechanisms for public investment, we spent considerable time generally reviewing these options. Frequently, providing tax recognition is not the right way to go unless there is no alternative.

Other Forms of Assistance

a. Building inclusive communities

Inclusion is a key goal of the disability community. This goal involves making more people aware of the benefits of including all members of the community, enabling persons with disabilities and their families to best represent their own interests and ensuring that persons with disabilities receive the resources in an environment that best meets their individual needs in order to maximize their potential. Building inclusive communities requires investments to reduce barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from full participation in all aspects of society. One way to address disability-related needs is through a concerted focus on and investment in accommodation, as we discussed in Chapter 1. Funds could be directed toward a range of organizations including schools, training centres, post-secondary educational institutions, small and medium-sized enterprises, and municipalities to enable them to introduce various measures of accommodation.

This type of investment would open up opportunities to persons with disabilities. It would also enable the sharing of the costs of disability among various levels of government, organizations and communities. In fact, in its report Advancing the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, the federal government acknowledges that "governments, communities, families, volunteer organizations, learning institutions, the private sector and labour are all important partners in making progress on disability issues."⁵

b. Labour market initiatives

As discussed in Chapter 3, the low participation rate and the high unemployment rate of people with disabilities continue to be major issues.

This problem of substantially low activity in the labour market for people with disabilities has been highlighted for well over 20 years as a key issue that needs to be addressed. The community of persons with disabilities, as recently as March 2004 at the national meeting "Connecting People to Policy," strongly reinforced the need for a comprehensive labour market strategy for Canadians with disabilities.

As detailed in Chapter 3, there are some important tax provisions to support this participation. We recommend additional measures to facilitate the participation of people with disabilities into the work force. However, these measures will be fully effective only if there are significant supplementary delivery and support mechanisms that, when combined within an integrated package, result in the required comprehensive labour market strategy.

Key components of such a strategy would include policies and programs that provide long-term, targeted support to ensure: access to additional skills development; the elimination of economic disincentives; proactive involvement and investment from employers; an appropriate supply of employment-related disability supports; mainstream employment programs that are fully accessible to persons with disabilities; a climate which encourages individuals to take work-related risks and to experiment; flexibility in the various services and supports; and active consumer control and coordination of the major elements.

The Committee recognizes the critical need for a comprehensive, pan-Canadian labour market strategy that integrates the efforts of the Labour Market Development Agreements, the Multilateral Agreements on Employment Assistance for People with Disabilities and the Opportunities Fund, along with significant additional resources to fill gaps not covered by the coordination of these existing initiatives.

c. Disability supports

Perhaps the most important action that the government can take to assist persons with disabilities is to invest in the supply of disability supports. There is currently a bewildering array of programs involving disability supports and assistance provided through direct programs and services, which are generally the responsibility of provinces and territories. The federal government is responsible for the delivery of these supports to First Nations and Inuit communities.

Some provinces operate special programs for the provision of technical aids and equipment. Other jurisdictions do not have broad-based programs but provide assistive devices and equipment for certain conditions, such as cancer, kidney ailments or cystic fibrosis.

All provinces and territories make available services for care at home including attendant care, home nursing care, homemaker services and respite. Some jurisdictions operate separate programs for each service while others combine the delivery of home supports under one ‘umbrella’ that offers the entire range. Overall, the result is a patchwork of programs that delivers substantial assistance but still leaves major gaps in coverage.

For years, the disability community has identified problems with respect to the availability and cost of disability supports under these programs. The community has named disability supports as its primary concern and recently confirmed this priority in March 2004 at a national meeting "Connecting People to Policy." One mechanism that has been proposed by several national organizations to address this issue involves the creation of a federal-provincial-territorial disability supports initiative that could operate in a fashion similar to recent agreements on early childhood development. The proposed initiative would consolidate existing programs and promote the development of a comprehensive network of goods and services throughout the country. It would seek to expand the quantity of existing supports, reduce their cost to consumers, improve their quality and ensure their portability across sectors and regions.

There is precedent for this kind of collaborative initiative. For example, in September 2000, all governments supported the federal-provincial-territorial Agreement on Early Childhood Development Initiatives.⁶ Provinces and territories agreed to make investments in four streams of early childhood development programs, levered by a federal contribution of $2.2 billion over five years. It is therefore possible to envisage a national collaboration program that would see all levels of government working together to commit more resources toward supports for persons with disabilities.

A variation of this broader option is to focus upon specific supports or populations, such as caregivers. In this case, expenditure could be directed, for example, toward respite supports for families caring for relatives with severe disabilities or day programs for young children with special needs.

d. Disability supports allowance

A third form of assistance is to modify the disability tax credit to enable it to provide assistance to those too poor to pay tax. This objective could be achieved by making the credit refundable for low-income Canadians so that persons with disabilities and with little or no net federal tax would be able to take advantage of the current disability tax credit. A refundable disability tax credit has been suggested by a number of groups in their submissions to the Committee, including the Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, the Canadian Association of the Deaf, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, the Canadian Hearing Society and the Canadian Paraplegic Association.

"It is apparent that making the Disability Tax Credit refundable as opposed to non-refundable would better enable persons with disabilities to be reimbursed for their out of pocket expenses regardless of where their income comes from." — Canadian Paraplegic Association

However, a refundable disability tax credit would deliver only a very modest level of assistance to those with incomes below the taxpaying threshold. This approach would change the objective of the disability tax credit, shifting it from a mechanism that promotes fairness among those who pay income tax to a measure that provides some assistance to offset the additional costs of disability.

At the same time, we recognize that there is a significant portion of low-income Canadians for whom the current disability tax credit is of no benefit because they pay no income tax and have no supporting relatives who can claim the credit, live in institutional settings or receive social assistance. Under current social assistance rules, there is a possibility that a refundable disability tax credit would simply be recovered by the provinces and territories, with little benefit accruing to the individual. If the credit were made refundable, it would therefore be essential to ensure that recipients would be permitted to keep the refundable disability tax credit.

Alternatively, the disability tax credit could be redesigned as an allowance or benefit paid to all persons with severe disabilities. They would still qualify on the basis of a screen, such as the one currently used to establish eligibility for the disability tax credit. This option has been proposed in a recent study of the disability income and tax systems in Quebec conducted by researchers at Laval University.⁷

The authors of that study have recommended a flat-rate, non-taxable benefit of $250 a month for all persons up to age 65 who qualify on the basis of a severe and prolonged disability. (The amount is equivalent to the special needs allowance currently paid in Quebec to persons with disabilities on long-term social assistance.)

The proposed benefit would begin to taper off when the recipient’s net income (as opposed to family income) reached $53,500 (in 2003 dollars), the level at which several other income security payments in Quebec begin to decline. The benefit would be funded largely through the elimination of the provincial disability tax credit and benefits currently provided to different categories of persons with disabilities (e.g., Allowance for Handicapped Children and the Allowance for a Severely Limited Capacity for Employment).

The Committee recognizes that there are several possible ways to better address the needs of persons with disabilities through programs that provide a range of goods and services or through benefits that pay cash to enable the purchase of disability supports rather than through tax measures. We believe that the effective delivery of supports is at the heart of advancing the inclusion of persons with disabilities and that a good balance between tax policy measures and social policy measures is required.

RECOMMENDATION 5.1

Our previous recommendations represent priority actions to improve tax fairness for persons with disabilities. Going forward, the Committee recommends that:

Priority should be given to expenditure programs rather than tax measures to target new funding where the need is greatest. The Committee recognizes that the development of such programs would involve consultations with provincial and territorial governments and the disability community.

In order for existing and future tax relief and programs to be effective and reach their target populations, several steps are required. First, the government must begin to shift the design of programs toward a social model of disability. It is essential as well to improve the knowledge base with respect to the needs of persons with disabilities. Productive two-way communication must also take place between the government and the disability community. We now turn our attention to these important areas.

Rethinking the Disability Tax Credit

Regardless of the specific route the government pursues in future, we believe that its work should be strongly influenced by a social model of disability. Even with our specific focus on disability tax measures, we found ourselves rethinking the conceptual base of these provisions. In fact, we tried to apply a social model of disability to one measure — the disability tax credit — that the Committee was asked to examine.

As noted in Chapter 1, a social model views disability largely as a problem of how well (or not) society accommodates impairment in function. When environments are adapted to individual need, a disability can change in severity or even disappear.

In our discussions of the disability tax credit, the past influence of the medical model became increasingly apparent. Eligibility is based on the effects of impairment on ‘basic activities of daily living’, which, at a general level, derives from the ‘functional limitations’ approach to disability that was current when the eligibility criteria were designed. However, the present criteria do not reflect accommodation of the person’s disability except in a narrow medical context — taking into account how the effects can be mitigated by the use of appropriate devices, medication and therapy.

A social model of disability, on the other hand, recognizes that the impact of impairment is determined not only by the impaired function but also by other important individual and societal factors. A large body of research consistently documents the significance of these factors — e.g., how living circumstances can prolong a hospital stay, how environmental conditions can exacerbate a physical condition, and how family and community supports can substantially enhance recovery or the capacity to carry out activities of daily living.

Moreover, social models of disability do not discriminate against — or advantage — one type of impairment over another because they focus upon the restriction imposed not simply by the impairment alone but rather by the impairment within its context. For example, individuals who are blind are much less restricted in activities of daily living if they have ready access to information printed in Braille, traffic light standards with auditory walk signals and elevators with Braille panels than they would be without these resources. Persons with paraplegia might be far more mobile in an urban centre with ready access to para-transportation than in a remote community with few sidewalks and no accessible transportation.

The proposition that disability results from the interaction of three factors — human functions, daily activities and social context — is consistent with work under way throughout the world. In 2001, for example, the World Health Organization released the latest version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, in which disability was seen to arise from the interaction between impairments and externally imposed limitations on activity.

In our view, if we were to apply a social model framework to the disability tax credit, the eligibility criteria could incorporate the following components: (i) an impairment in function, (ii) the effects of the impairment on the individual’s activities, and (iii) biological, psychological, social and environmental factors necessary to assessing impairment in function and its impact on activity.

In our discussions, we recognized how practitioners might be confused by the inconsistent classification of functions and activities. As mentioned in Chapter 2, some ‘activities’ are really functions (e.g., seeing and eliminating) and some are really activities (e.g., dressing). We considered a broader list of functions for the disability tax credit that would reflect impairments in both mental and physical functions. These functions would include:

• neurological functions — diseases and conditions affecting the brain and spinal cord;

• mental functions — diseases and conditions affecting memory, problem solving, judgment, perception, learning, attention, concentration, verbal and non-verbal comprehension and expression, and the regulation of behaviour and emotions;

• motor functions — diseases and conditions affecting the movement and coordinated use of limbs;

• sensory functions — diseases and conditions affecting sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch;

• comprehension and expressive functions — diseases and conditions affecting the processing and production of language; and

• structure, organ and other physiological systems — diseases and conditions affecting bodily organs such as heart, lungs, liver, pancreas, bone and other structures, and endocrine and other regulatory systems.

Impairments in these functions then must result in a marked restriction in certain designated activities. In the case of a measure designed around a marked restriction in activities of daily living, such as the disability tax credit, the list of activities might include the following:

• self-care, such as eating, bathing or dressing;

• health and safety, such as managing necessary medications and risks to personal safety; and

• essential life management skills, such as paying bills, using public transportation, purchasing groceries, communicating and getting along with others.

It should be noted that the Committee discussed the use of the term ‘basic’ to modify activities of daily living for the purposes of the disability tax credit. While we did not recommend any changes to the Income Tax Act in this regard, the qualifier ‘basic’, in the view of some, can be considered unnecessarily limiting. This is why we decided not to use it in the context of our broader work on the conceptualization of disability.

No doubt, there would be debate around this list of activities of daily living. Some would argue, for example, that the list we developed in relation to the disability tax credit should include basic academic skills, such as reading and writing, or social skills such as getting along with others.

The identification of essential academic skills as an activity of daily living, for example, would help ensure the potential eligibility of persons with severe learning disabilities, who typically have difficulty qualifying for the disability tax credit. Others would argue that the inclusion of basic academic skills inadvertently would include persons who are illiterate or who may have difficulty reading the fine print of a newspaper.

Indeed, in our own deliberations regarding the disability tax credit in particular, we debated extensively the types of activities that should be considered ‘activities of daily living’ and their potential role in determining eligibility for the credit. It is clear that additional work would be required to identify possible indicators of marked restriction in activities of daily living.

One dimension in the development of such indicators involves the combination of type of activity and how much of the time the individual either cannot engage in the activity or requires an inordinate amount of time to engage in that activity. A qualified practitioner using specialized measures of assessment can determine clearly the significance of how an activity is performed. For example, certain behaviour may be slower than, less than or more present than a given norm.

Some activities might be restricted almost all the time but, depending on the circumstances, their restriction may be far less significant than an activity that is restricted some of the time. A person with Crohn’s disease who spends an inordinate amount of time eliminating bodily waste three days a week, for instance, is arguably far more restricted than a person whose early stage neurological impairment makes it impossible for him or her to ride a bicycle.

We also noted in our discussions of the disability tax credit a number of concerns with the current use of the term ‘all or substantially all’ with respect to a marked restriction. Specifically, the term ‘significant’ could be viewed as fairer by persons with disabilities and it would be more meaningful to the health practitioners who certify the presence of marked restriction. However, the use of ‘significant’ could extend eligibility for the disability tax credit, at some fiscal cost.

We recognize that legislation is not necessarily framed in words that have a clear technical meaning to health practitioners or other specialists: the issue of how legislation should be drafted would have to be addressed. That being said, it would be helpful if the language used by the Canada Revenue Agency on its forms and explanatory material accords with the terminology normally used by health practitioners who complete the forms or deal with the material. Going forward, the Committee feels that the use of the term ‘significant’ in eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit might be given further consideration.

The Committee also acknowledges that a conceptualization of disability along these lines would create administrative challenges, particularly if applied within the tax system. Tax measures are blunt instruments that do not easily adjust for changes in personal capacity. The eligibility framework discussed above, by contrast, would be based on observations of individual behaviour within a set of social circumstances, and would be difficult to translate into criteria to be used for administering tax measures.

Despite the need for the further development of these ideas, we believe that our discussion of these issues puts in place a strong foundation for future work. It is a framework that takes into account the significance of context — which is continually evolving as new therapies, medications, assistive devices and other supports come on stream.

A social model of disability also helps ensure that the determination of disability keeps pace with changes in individual and social circumstances. While additional individuals may become eligible for various programs as their circumstances evolve, it is equally likely that others will go off these programs as their abilities are modified through the provision of supports, therapy or treatment. Perhaps the key dimension of a social model — the factor that distinguishes it from current tax measures and programs — is the recognition of the significant role of accommodation and its influence upon the real-life impact of the impairment. Marked restriction in activity is determined by the amount and effectiveness of accommodation in place in a given environment. Understanding and applying the concept of accommodation would move a long way toward putting into practice a social model of disability.

Knowledge Base

The federal government already has identified the development of the knowledge base on disability as a major objective. Advancing the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities 2002 pointed out that the development of policies to promote the inclusion of Canadians with disabilities requires knowledge of their current situations, the issues they face, and the successes and limitations of existing policy. The report notes that, in recent years, the limitations of current information have hampered progress in this area.⁸

The Committee supports selective investment in the collection and analysis of data that will help develop the knowledge base on disability. We were pleased that the 2004 federal budget included funding for the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey to be conducted in 2006.

The Committee suggests that the federal government build on this commitment by adding questions on disability, where feasible and appropriate, to new and existing surveys in order to improve the knowledge base in this area. Obtaining data through such surveys on a regular basis would provide a clearer picture of ongoing issues faced by persons with disabilities, including labour force attachment and changes in disability status over time.

Improved Communications

Throughout our deliberations, the Committee was struck by obvious weaknesses in the communication process between the members of the disability community and the government and its agencies. The processes for claiming eligibility for tax credits are generally not well understood. Many individuals whose application for the disability tax credit was denied did not know why their applications had been rejected and were not fully informed about the appeal process.

Shortcomings in the way in which information and concerns about programs are communicated are so serious as to imperil their proper and fair functioning. No matter how supportive the existing programs, Canadians will not be able to take full advantage of them unless they know of and understand these programs and their associated benefits.

Persons with disabilities need to be aware of the steps to claim eligibility for various measures, such as the disability tax credit. Improved access also requires that they have confidence in the fairness and openness of the way in which programs are administered.

The government, in turn, must create the means to receive input from the disability community and take every opportunity to involve it in decisions relating to the administration of existing programs and the design of new ones. There must be a strong, continued effort to improve communication if persons with disabilities are to receive equitable treatment.

For example, the Committee discussed whether, and under what conditions, family members or friends should be permitted to file income tax returns for persons with severe impairments in mental function. What makes this issue significant for persons with disabilities is the increasing importance of filing an income tax return in order to claim refundable credits or to document financial eligibility for benefits and services. It is to the advantage of virtually all low-income persons with disabilities to file an income tax and benefit return, even if they pay or owe no income tax for the year in question.

The Committee suggests that the Canada Revenue Agency emphasize in its communication strategy the importance to low-income persons with disabilities of filing tax returns. It is also essential to ensure that legal representatives are aware of their responsibility to file an income tax return on behalf of persons with disabilities who are not capable of doing so themselves.

We do note the positive signs of progress in the last two years. For example, the revisions to the T2201 form, which were introduced by the Canada Revenue Agency after extensive consultation with community groups and health practitioners, have resulted in a much-improved form. There is an urgent need to continue the progress achieved in recent years. We recommended in Chapter 2 on the disability tax credit that this consultation process continue and be applied to other areas as well.

The Committee has called for changes to legislation and forms to ensure clarity of interpretation and consistency with application of the disability tax credit. We have proposed various mechanisms for improved communication with respect to tax measures, from providing more information in Canada Revenue Agency publications to renaming the medical expense tax credit to indicate that it also recognizes disability-related expenses.

We have recommended the training of appropriate Canada Revenue Agency staff in all tax provisions related to persons with disabilities, and of qualified practitioners in eligibility issues relating to the disability tax credit, in particular. The Committee also recommended that the Canada Revenue Agency create an advisory committee to monitor the administration of various disability tax measures.

Persons with disabilities and their organizations have talked for many years about effective consultation mechanisms within government to ensure that disability issues are adequately addressed. At the national meeting in March 2004 on "Connecting People to Policy," the disability community identified the need for genuine engagement on policy issues. In their view, genuine engagement requires:

• broad representation of the disability community;

• resources for community participation;

• reporting to key decision makers (officials and politicians);

• the ability to look at issues from a cross-disability consumer perspective; and

• recognition of the need for horizontal (i.e., cross-departmental) collaboration.

The community has also proposed structures within government to respond to the range of concerns pertaining to disability. It has called for the appointment of a senior Minister responsible for disability issues across the Government of Canada. It sought — and achieved with the Office for Disability Issues — the creation of a coordinating body at a senior level with the capacity to engage in community and research issues. The disability community continues to press for the establishment of a grants and contributions program to enhance the capacity of disability organizations to participate in public policy debates.

Final Thoughts

We conclude this report with a few thoughts about the structure of our own Committee. Members of the Committee represented very diverse levels of knowledge and views on disability-related issues, and remarkably different backgrounds and experiences. While it was not easy to proceed from such a wide-ranging base, we believe that this diversity actually worked to our advantage.

Our Committee represented, in effect, the differing perceptions and views of Canadians on disability, on taxes and on government programs more generally. We knew that if we could reach consensus around some of the difficult issues with which we were grappling, we would have achieved an essential ‘pre-testing’ of ideas for the government. Our recommendations were subject to rigorous screening, given the diverse perspectives brought to the table.

We were clearly aided in our discussions by the rich legacy of work that other commissions and task forces have produced over the years. The Committee wishes to recognize, in particular, the value and the efforts of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

We support the continued need for such a committee of Parliament. As explained in the introductory chapter, we took explicit steps to build on the review of tax measures initiated by the parliamentary committee, using the submissions it had received and responding in this report to its numerous recommendations. We can only hope that our own work has made an equally valuable contribution to the lives of persons with disabilities and to Canadian society as a whole.

¹ Valentine, Exploring the Relationship Between the Tax System and Aboriginal Peoples with Disabilities, 2003.

² The Canadian Community Health Survey data do not include information on Aboriginal people living on First Nations reserves and are not directly comparable to the data from the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey. For more information, see Government of Canada, Advancing the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, 2002, pp. 6—7.

³ Statistics Canada, Projected Population, By Age Group and Sex, Canada, Provinces and Territories, July 1, 2000—2026, Annual (Persons), CANSIM table 052-0001, 2004.

⁴ Human Resources Development Canada, Disability in Canada: A 2001 Profile, 2003, p. 51.

⁵ Government of Canada, Advancing the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, 2002, p. 3.

⁶ Although the province of Quebec did not sign this agreement, it receives federal funding for this purpose.

⁷ Blais, Gardner and Lareau, Un système de compensation plus équitable pour les personnes handicapées, Office des personnes handicapées du Québec, 2004.

⁸ Government of Canada, Advancing the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, 2002, p. 9.