Thank you.
I might take the opportunity, then, to speak to the substance of the amendment and await your ruling on whether it'll be in order or not.
I do think it's an important amendment that has surfaced in a couple of different ways so far. When I had inquired about a similar intent, the legislative drafters produced an identical amendment. It's something I'm very happy to support here at this table. It's something that I think is worth doing, and I think it is a down payment on some larger reform to the disability tax credit eligibility, which has by no means been a problem for only people with type 1 diabetes. It has been problematic in a number of different ways. As Mr. Beech has highlighted, it matters for all sorts of reasons, including people's eligibility for other programs.
On the question of whether it's in order or not, I think it's important to note that if legislators can't have input on the eligibility criteria for a program, then I really don't know what we can do or what purpose we serve. It seems to me that it makes a lot of sense that legislators would be able to weigh in on the program criteria or the eligibility criteria for something like a disability tax credit.
I also note that, typically, private members are only prevented from being able to have a direct spend or a direct appropriation of funds. I think this is one step removed from something that we wouldn't be able to touch.
Here you have the disability tax credit—its own program. It operates by actually forgoing taxes. As a private member, I can't impose a new tax. I can't try to appropriate specific funding, but I should be able to weigh in on the eligibility for a tax deduction, and that's really what we're talking about.
If other programs choose to tie their eligibility to this eligibility, then that's a decision that's been made either by legislators or by government itself, and is incidental to the subject matter we're dealing with now, which is what you have to do in order to get access to the disability tax credit.
Those other programs have said that whatever the eligibility criteria are, that's what we're hitching our wagon to. I don't think the fact that government has decided elsewhere to proxy in eligibility for the disability tax credit should mean that legislators no longer have any right to weigh in on the eligibility for the disability tax credit. I think that would be a strange and perverse outcome that governments could certainly abuse in order to lock in eligibility criteria for all sorts of things.
There's a private member's motion that has actually been incorporated in this bill to establish a new tax credit for tradespeople who are moving around for work. You could argue in a similar way, as has been argued here today, that it's a government expenditure in the sense that the government will now be forgoing tax revenue, but in fact, those kinds of expenditures—tax expenditures—are something that private members are clearly able to establish. All you have to do is survey the private member bill landscape over the last number of Parliaments to see how many members of Parliament bring forward tax deduction schemes as part of their private member's business.
There isn't usually a ruling that says that those would require a royal recommendation, so the fact of government having tied access to other programs to this, I don't think should stand as an argument for legislators not to be able to weigh in on the eligibility for the program overall.
That's what I have to say on the procedural matter, but on the substance of the matter, I don't think there's any doubt. There has been a lot of good work from members across party lines, and my impression, anyway, is that certainly at some tables.... I believe HUMA had this discussion, and there was support from all parties to try to do this.
I've heard positive expressions of support from members of all parties at various times for this proposal, I believe, at this committee. If I'm misspeaking, anyone can jump in to correct me that this isn't something they support. I've seen what I would call an emerging consensus on this, so I think it would be unfortunate if a procedural ruling, which I'm not sure holds up, were to interfere with a cross-party emerging consensus that this is something that's important to do, that would be, as I say—and members can agree or disagree with this part of it—a down payment on larger DTC reforms that are very much needed in a case where it's very clear that people have a condition that requires time, energy and resources to monitor it. That should, in my view, obviously be part of the disability tax credit universe.
Let's please allow us to proceed with making this change, both on the procedural side and on the substantive side.
Thank you.