Supporting the Current Dual Definition as a Necessary Distinction

Defenders of the current approach argue that separate definitions serve different policy goals and that merging them could undermine the integrity of benefit programs. The strict definition for the disability tax credit ensures that limited public funds go to those with the most significant needs. Expanding it to cover intermittent conditions, some analysts say, could make the program unsustainable or require higher eligibility thresholds elsewhere. The broader human-rights definition, by contrast, is meant to prevent discrimination and promote accessibility, goals that justify a wider net. Keeping them distinct allows each program to target its objective precisely. The government has pointed out during consultations that a single definition might not work across all contexts—what qualifies for a tax break may not be appropriate for employment accommodation. Until a practical alternative emerges, maintaining two definitions prevents unintended consequences such as benefit dilution or legal conflicts.