Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Hello, colleagues. I wanted to wish everybody a happy Monday. Thanks for all the work the members and their teams have done over the weekend after receiving the amendments on Friday. I'm looking forward to a thorough, thoughtful analysis of the BIA by all parties, and I would also like to start my initial remarks on this particular amendment by saying I really appreciated what Jake just had to say.
I would also like to salute the advocacy of Mr. Blaikie on this issue, as well as other opposition members, and especially many of my Liberal caucus colleagues, both on this committee and in caucus generally, who have been passionately supporting this type of amendment on behalf of the diabetes community. I have had meetings over the years with children and their families affected by type 1 diabetes, but we have to make sure that we follow the proper processes and not just good intentions, so I want to ask the legislative clerk and the officials present for clarification on this with regard to a procedural matter.
I understand that the proposed amendment would be to the eligibility criteria for a non-refundable tax credit, but I'm also concerned that it would have the direct effect of automatically increasing spending on certain spending measures that base their eligibility on the criteria established for the disability tax credit. Programs such as the Canada workers benefit disability supplement and Canada disability savings grants and bonds pay into registered disability savings plans, which would create a new draw on the consolidated revenue fund that Parliament has not approved. I believe in light of this, NDP-1 and CPC-1—this amendment—require a royal recommendation.
Could we ask officials to confirm if my understanding is correct? Could they provide their analysis on the admissibility of the amendment as it is currently drafted and presented?