Debates of Oct. 24th, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for sharing his story. Maybe he could confirm by a nod whether the town was really called Holderville. It is excellent that the town was really called Holderville.

It sounds as if my friend and colleague understands small businesses too; for example, what a great advantage the hiring tax credit is to 500,000 businesses in Canada. We are talking about people who need a job, want a job, want to work hard and want to put food on the table and be able to do their fair share in their communities.

Our policies, initiatives and budget and this economic action plan allow them to do that. That is why I am so proud. It fits in nicely with what I did when I was growing up. It fits in with the kinds of values I learned through hard work and the fact that my father ran his own business for almost 40 years.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also grew up in a family business and I appreciate some of the points overall. I have been listening to speeches all day and the references to job creators, to businesses. Right now we have very low corporate tax rates, lower than other countries in the OECD. As a result, the corporate profits from any company in the U.S., they now have transferred those corporations paying taxes to Canada to paying taxes to the United States.

Economists, everyone from Mark Carney, our former bank governor, to the RBC economist looks at what has happened. Corporations are not reinvesting that money in hiring Canadians. They are not job creators. These deep tax cuts are where jobs go to die. It is now called dead money. Over $600 billion in dead money, an astonishing 32% of GDP, is not being used by those corporations to create jobs to invest in Canada to modernize.

I wonder when the Conservative Party is going to recognize that this is a failed strategy and that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that its strategies are creating jobs.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree that there is no empirical evidence. The evidence is in the numbers, over one million net new jobs created. We talk about it a lot because it is really important. We are talking about lowering taxes for small business. We are talking about lowering taxes 160 times for ordinary average Canadians.

If my friend and colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands does not believe that lowering corporate taxes for businesses creates jobs, then we do have a fundamental disagreement. I think that when government takes away from the bottom line of corporations or businesses, they are going to look into reinvesting that and expanding. When they expand and reinvest, they need to hire more people. That is how it works, and that is why we lower the taxes.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto to speak to Bill C-4, the budget implementation act.

This is another example of a missed opportunity for the current Conservative government in terms of job creation and in terms of accountability and transparency. It really underlines the mean-spiritedness in which the government participates in the process of bills and law-making in this House.

I have been listening very carefully to some of the debates and comments from my hon. colleagues on the government side, and it is almost as though they live in this fantasy world where they give the greatest gifts to the wealthiest corporations and keep saying over and over what neo-conservatives have been saying for 30 years, that these wealthy corporations will just trickle that money down like manna from heaven and we will all just be fine.

I listened with particular interest to my colleague from Mississauga who talked about her father's small business. I also listened to the member across the way, who grew up in the town named after him, talk about his family and small business.

Where I come from in Toronto, small businesses are one- and two-person operations. Small businesses are operated out of people's kitchens and basements. Small businesses are a mother and father working 12 or 13 hours a day running a store on Bloor Street. They are looking for some relief and what they are hearing is that the government has been doling out these wonderfully handsome tax breaks to the wealthiest corporations in Canada, who are not investing back into the economy but are sitting on the money. There is nothing in this bill that deals with one of the most significant issues of our time, and that is how we deal with the explosion of precarious work in our society.

In Toronto, in the GTA right now, in the member's riding of Mississauga South no doubt, almost 50% of workers cannot access a full-time, stable job. That is an outrageous statistic, which should engage this entire House, not just because it is my city but because it is an outrageous statistic. We are letting down and failing workers, and in particular we are failing young workers.

This budget implementation act, which would again throw in more than 70 law changes with everything but the kitchen sink in here, has not a single thing to address precarious work in our society. We listen to the rhetoric of job creation on one hand and we see the stats on the other hand where 15%, 16% or 17% of young people are unemployed, and that is the official rate that does not include those who have given up and those who are working very marginal, part-time jobs. This is the reality for so many urban workers: precarious work. People cannot find a full-time job. We are talking about folks who are now working as independent contractors.

The Conservatives are so consumed, almost obsessed, with their attack on organized labour that they cannot understand that people who run a small business want customers to come in. Those customers actually have to make a living wage in order to spend some of their money in the store. This is what the Conservatives do not understand. They do not understand the realities of urban workers today. They do not understand the reality of small business today.

We proposed many measures that would make it easier for small business owners to deal with their business.

We have a consumer program this government has borrowed some ideas from. They should actually take the whole thing. We would be willing to give it to them, because there are some excellent ideas, and they would actually deal with some of the main problems small businesses face with things like transfer fees for credit cards at point of sale, and that sort of thing. These are the issues many small businesses bring to us, which is why we have brought our proposals to the Canadian public on some of the very important issues for small business.

This is a government that, along with the Liberals, pillaged the employment insurance fund to the tune of about $57 billion and that is making it harder for Canadian workers to access the program to which they contributed. This is not the government's money. It is workers' money. We have legions of workers who cannot access basic employment insurance, basic income security, in times of need. Those times of need for many people are right now.

The Conservatives talk about job creation. They never talk about the kinds of jobs they are creating. In the GTA, we have a preponderance of $10.50 an hour jobs. I do not know, and I would be interested to find out from the member from Mississauga, if people in her riding could live on $10 an hour. Could they pay their rent? Could they raise a family? Can people raise a family on minimum wage in Toronto or in this country? The answer is absolutely not. It is very difficult. That is why people are working multiple jobs. It is why the fabric of our society is in such turmoil. It is because people in our large cities are working day in and day out just to survive. It is impacting on people's health.

We now know that precarious work adds incredible stress to the body. We have not calculated the health care costs of ripping the support from under workers today. I do not see that calculation in this.

We have not seen the government actually focus any attention on youth employment. The other day, the minister said, in answer to a question on precarious work, that if young workers have a problem in their workplaces, they should complain to the various tribunals out there. They are putting the onus on young people who, right now in Ontario, for example, are graduating, on average, with about $37,000 of debt. Then they are being welcomed into a workforce where they are either offered jobs that do not pay any money, as interns, or piecemeal jobs. They cannot get into the fields they studied for. The other day the minister said that they could blow the whistle on their companies if they feel that they are being treated poorly.

We are failing young workers. The government has utterly failed to address some of the key issues that affect urban workers. The fact is that too many people cannot access a workplace pension. Too many of us cannot access any kind of workplace benefit, and there is absolutely no job security for urban workers. All the bill does is make it worse.

The member from Mississauga talked about key tax cuts that would reap benefits for all Canadians, but what we are seeing in reality is that the tools the government uses to deal with the economic issues have just made things worse.

Bill C-4 is the fourth attempt in two years by the Conservatives to evade scrutiny by parliamentarians and the public. Canadians are watching. They want to see the government and this place function the way it is supposed to, which is with proper scrutiny. This side of the House, the official opposition, is doing its job. We would like to see the Conservatives start to do theirs.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Davenport specifically about jobs.

Does the member know that of those million jobs, roughly 90% are full time and that these are jobs created not by government but by individuals who run their own businesses and understand the importance of creating jobs?

I understand that good wages are important, but I also understand that at some point, you have to have that job and be able to move up. It is about having a job and then supporting your family. I want to know what the member's plan is to make it better that we are not doing. What would he do differently?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the first priority of our plan is to get rid of the Conservative government. That is the first step.

To the member's point, people come into my office who are working full time through a temp agency. Do you know how much they are making? They are bringing home $8.00 an hour. One cannot live on that.

If you want to talk about full-time jobs, come to Davenport and talk to people who are working in temp agencies and find out whether you can live on $8.00 an hour. Come to Davenport.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members to direct their comments and questions through the chair.

The hon. member for Davenport, should he wish it, will have two minutes remaining in the period for questions and comments when the House next resumes debate on the question.

It being 6:04 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-462, An Act restricting the fees charged by promoters of the disability tax credit and making consequential amendments to the Tax Court of Canada Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to once again outline the necessity and the benefits of the disability tax credit promoters restrictions act, a crucial step toward ensuring the fair treatment of all Canadian taxpayers. It is vitally important that we see Bill C-462 through to completion as quickly as possible so that we can better protect disabled Canadians from the predatory practices of some disability tax credit promoters.

I also wanted to say how extremely proud I am that this act has achieved such widespread support from parliamentarians and from the many Canadians who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, which held public hearings regarding this legislation.

The fact that my bill has the support of all parties reinforces something that all members of Parliament recognize. We must take action to solve the problems caused by those individuals who seem willing to take advantage of Canadians with disabilities. Whatever our political affiliation, we realize that Canadians living with disabilities face exceptional challenges. We understand that the last thing they need is to see an important source of additional income reduced by tax promoters who would profit from these very challenges.

Of course, I am not suggesting that all of these businesses deserve such hard criticism. This legislation is not directed toward legitimate tax practitioners who provide a valuable service. Make no mistake; this bill is all about going after those whose intentions are not so honourable.

Before highlighting the important improvements we propose to make, let me remind the House of the purpose of the disability tax credit. It is meant to assist Canadians if they are unable to perform one or more of the basic activities of daily living, not occasionally, but all of the time or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of devices and medication. The restriction must be expected to last continuously for at least 12 months and must be present at least 90% of the time. The kind of basic activities of daily living I am referring to include things like speaking, hearing, and feeding oneself.

The disability tax credit is meant to help offset some of the additional costs people incur to enable them to perform these everyday functions. Based on 2012 numbers, the federal tax savings for someone eligible for the disability tax credit was up to $1,132 for adults and as much $1,792 for children under the age of 18 or for a family member supporting the person.

It is important that Canadians living with a disability have access to all the support they need. When taxpayers apply and qualify retroactively, they can receive anywhere from $10,000 to $15,000. This represents a significant amount of money. It is important to ensure that these funds remain exactly where they belong, in the pockets of Canadians living with severe disabilities.

The significant sums of money involved created an incentive for a new class of third-party promoters to assist Canadians with disabilities with their claims. These higher numbers spawned a whole new industry of disability tax promoters. These businesses help people fill out just the first part of the tax form to qualify for the disability tax credit, often at a very steep price. We have seen some inordinately high fees charged to people who use tax promoters' help to qualify for the tax credit.

There have been cases of Canadians with disabilities being charged as much as 35% to 40% of the total amount they were due. That can add up to thousands of dollars for something that is really quite simple to do. Let us remember that these businesses generally just complete part A of the disability tax credit application form, a fairly straightforward process; the more important section of the application form, part B, must be completed by medical practitioners before a claim can be processed.

I first became suspicious about all of this a few years ago when I came across a tax credit promoter who told me he had spent $25,000 booking space, a hotel, and media coverage in my riding. Obviously, with an investment like that he was expecting to make a very healthy profit.

The high cost of completing just the initial step in an application is one that Canadians living with disabilities can ill afford. People who face extra costs for the supports and services they require for daily living sometimes end up with as little as 60% of the total amount of the disability tax credit that they are entitled to receive; the rest goes into the promoter's pockets.

Until now promoters have been able to get away with an unreasonable share of this money, as there are currently no regulations or restrictions to stop them, but I am proud to say that will stop with the passage of the disability tax credit promoters restriction act. As its name implies, its purpose is to put restrictions in place to make sure that the money stays in the pockets of Canadians who really need it, not tax promoters.

This legislation earned the praise and support of many who appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, most notably members from the medical community. We have been told by medical professionals that they at times have felt pressure from promoters to fill out forms fraudulently . We even heard that some promoters employ in-house medical practitioners to sign the medical portion of the disability tax credit application, perhaps having met only once with the applicant and having no prior knowledge of the person's medical history.

Dr. Gail Beck, a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Medical Association, told committee that:

...the Canadian Medical Association is pleased that this bill is being prioritized by the House of Commons. This is an important step toward addressing the unintended consequences that have emerged with the disability tax credit....

Dr. Beck went on to say that the Canadian Medical Association has been concerned for some time about the unintended consequences of the changes that were made to the disability tax credit in 2005. She said:

These consequences include fraudulent claims and tampering of forms by third parties, and they have resulted in an increase in the quantity of forms, which, to quote one of my colleagues, contributes to an avalanche of forms in physicians' offices like their own. In some cases, these third parties have even placed physicians in an adversarial position with their patients.

We are pleased that this bill attempts to address the concerns that we have raised.

Dr. Beck was not alone. Dr. Karen Cohen, chief executive officer of the Canadian Psychological Association, told the committee that:

The Canadian Psychological Association supports this bill because excessive fees charged by promoters should be restricted, especially when they too may involve any misunderstanding of eligibility.

Particularly important to me was the testimony of Carmela Hutchison, president of the DisAbled Women's Network of Canada and a member-at-large of the executive committee of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. She is someone who knows far better than most of us just how much this legislation is needed.

Ms. Hutchison said:

[Both organizations] support the intent of Bill C-462 and agree that people with disabilities should have their rightful entitlement protected from unfair fees charged by financial promoters. Disability tax credit eligibility is a critical issue for people with disabilities, as it has become the gate for determining eligibility for a variety of benefits. Thus, we must ensure unencumbered and fair access.

That message applies to all parliamentarians, who need to lend their support to this legislation. When Bill C-462 becomes law, Canadians with disabilities who choose to use a promoter's services to apply for the disability tax credit will pay a reasonable fee for those services.

The proposed bill would restrict the fees that can be charged or accepted by businesses that request a determination of eligibility for Canadians with disabilities to receive the tax credit. Public consultations would be carried out to assess just what appropriate maximum fees should be, given the value of the services provided.

Once that fee is determined, the legislation would prohibit charging more than the established amount. The disability tax credit promoters restrictions bill would also require promoters to notify the Canada Revenue Agency if more than the maximum fee were charged. A penalty of $1,000 would apply if that limit were exceeded. A promoter failing to notify the CRA when an excess fee was charged would be guilty of an offence and liable to an additional $1,000 to $25,000 fine.

Another important element of this bill is its benefit for caregivers of people living with severe disabilities. The bill would decrease the cost of applying for the disability tax credit, freeing up more money for better care for their loved ones.

Clearly there are numerous compelling reasons to support the swift passage of this legislation. Bill C-462 would allow us to set new and necessary limits on the fees promoters can charge Canadians with disabilities, and it would provide better oversight of the industry. Let us get on with it.

I am calling on all parties to lend their stamp of approval to the disability tax credit promoters restrictions bill. Canadians with disabilities all across the country are counting on us to do exactly that.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have already discussed the matter in the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member. We did in fact hear interesting evidence from people in the medical field, particularly some who work with persons with disabilities. We also heard evidence from someone who represented the consultants on the tax credit for persons with disabilities.

A number of amendments were proposed by the Conservative Party, and we supported them. The NDP is in fact going to support the bill and the amendments that were proposed.

However, we do have a number of concerns, which we raised in committee. I would like to take this opportunity to present them once more. There is the question of the ability to complete these forms oneself. The complexity of the process means that such consultants are needed or that some persons with disabilities feel a need to consult experts.

Clearly, the Conservative cutbacks at the Canada Revenue Agency, particularly the closing of its service counters, will make it difficult or impossible for people to obtain information and manage without help from such consultants.

I would like to hear the reaction of the member who introduced the bill, to know if it would be possible for the government to make changes within the Canada Revenue Agency to make things easier for those who apply for the tax credit on their own.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with this bill we recognize that some Canadians living with disabilities do need assistance in completing these forms, which is why we are trying to implement some restrictions so that those who genuinely need the help will get it and the promoters will receive a reasonable fee.

For those more complicated cases that involve more time, it would be a graduated system. That is why the consultations will occur: to ensure that the more intensive applications and the time-consuming applications will provide for appropriate compensation.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for introducing this bill. The reason why I will personally support it is that it will enable us to crack down on certain abuses.

Unfortunately, what my colleague does not mention—and she supports this—is the radical service cuts at the Canada Revenue Agency, cuts that we have seen in Quebec City, where people are now facing closed doors and are unable to obtain services from a public servant. This turns people toward professional services, which they unfortunately have to pay for.

I would like my colleague to tell me why she supports these radical service cuts and this complete lack of customer service at the Canada Revenue Agency.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank both colleagues who have asked me questions for stating their intention to support this bill.

In terms of helping people fill out forms, the medical profession has to fill out part B. In some instances, part A is difficult, especially depending on the specific disability that a person may have. I know that through their constituency offices, many members in this House assist people in filling out the first part of the form and assist in having it processed through CRA. Just as there are constituency workers doing this, there are also volunteers in the community, and the first step, which is making people aware that this disability tax credit is available to them, is the most important step of all.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and to note the good intentions and the gesture of the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

It is indeed very important to combat abuses by sleazy promoters who try to take advantage of vulnerable people in our society.

However, further to the question I asked the member, I must condemn in this House the radical measures the Conservative government has taken. Those measures strip vulnerable and disadvantaged people of all the resources that would enable them to do their duty as taxpayers. This is something quite basic.

As a member and a Canadian citizen, I believe that my duty as a taxpayer should be as easy to do as my duty as a voter. This is a civic action. It is an action that the Canadian government must actively support. In the case of our fiscal duty, it is also an action that is being impeded, denied and even flouted. In fact, it is being flouted and suppressed. This discourages a lot of people and leaves them at a loss with respect to the government and to their place in society and the contribution they can make to it.

I am going to talk about a personal case. In fact, I am going to recall a childhood memory. I am going to talk about my father, Étienne Côté, who was a carpenter and cabinetmaker and a union activist for more than 10 years. He also filed his tax returns and maintained his own car. He liked to do mechanical work and solve all kinds of problems.

I must say that I inherited some of my father's character traits. He taught me a lot of things. I started completing my own tax returns as a teenager, and I have continued to exercise that discipline. Somehow or other, I have always completed my own federal and provincial income tax returns—Quebec is a special case in that regard—despite the increasingly complex nature of the forms people have to fill out.

Consequently, for nearly 30 years, I have been a privileged witness to this growing complexity and the fact that people are increasingly at a loss with regard to it all. This year, I am completing income tax returns for other people who feel completely overwhelmed. That is not right.

I want to talk about what the bill does not address, without taking anything away from my colleague's very positive gesture.

Completely cutting all the services that the Canada Revenue Agency provides to taxpayers is a radical action.

This summer, while I was going door to door, I talked to some Canada Revenue Agency employees who told me that people are needlessly going to the federal building on Rue d'Estimauville, where they are told that there is no service counter on site. Then they have to go back home and surf the Internet or, at worst, try to reach a public servant by telephone, which is virtually impossible, from what they told me.

I do not use those services. I have the good fortune and great privilege to understand a number of the finer points of taxation, although I admit I have been stumped in the past by its absolutely incredible complexity, which is intolerable in our society.

This is a very serious problem. When we talk about the disability tax credit, we are talking about a tax credit that grants very large amounts of money every year.

Like my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, who has been doing this for several years, I organized an information session on those credits.

Some people were able to collect thousands of dollars in arrears, going back as many as 10 years. Some of my colleagues told me there had been refunds of $13,000 to $14,000 going back 10 years, because people had unfortunately been unable to declare their own incomes and fully exercise a right granted by law. That right is being denied them because filing an income tax return has become a virtually impenetrable exercise.

We are not just talking about personal returns, but about corporate returns as well. Corporate taxation is also an enormous challenge because there are a lot of loopholes and vote-getting measures. Those measures add an incredible number of lines to the income tax return form, not to mention the additional pages needed so that you can use a specific line.

It is not surprising, after what I have recently learned, that fewer than 40% of Canadian taxpayers successfully navigate their income tax return, do their duty and get the credits to which they are entitled.

Let us imagine someone who is already debilitated by illness, by physical disability following an accident or by advanced age and who can benefit from this fabulous disability tax credit. Then let us imagine him trying to find information in that thick document that explains the multi-page return. You could very easily miss it, especially since people do not readily understand the scope and the limits of the tax credit, or which field covers the whole thing.

The tax credit is remarkable, as it affects a great number of people. However, many people simply do not know whether they qualify for it.

While I welcome my colleague’s attempt to curb the frankly criminal abuses of the situation by certain people in our society, the government is systematically refusing to deal with the growing complexity of the federal tax system and the basic need for simplification. In fact, the reverse is true; in the past eight years, the government has contributed significantly to this increased complexity by bringing in many different tax credits that are designed to win votes.

I am thinking for instance of the transit tax credit, which every week gives back less than a handful of quarters and makes absolutely no contribution to improving public transit in our cities and municipalities. I can attest to this myself, as a resident of Quebec City.

I am going to repeat what is probably the most shocking aspect of this debate: very quickly and very dramatically, the Canada Revenue Agency’s client services have been slashed. I will never be able to say often enough that these cuts are weakening the social fabric and impeding people’s right to do their duty in the right conditions, without making errors in good faith and possibly being criticized for it. We must continue paying particular attention to this.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to Bill C-462. The purpose, obviously, is to restrict the level of fees that can be charged by promoters of the disability tax credit.

Since 2005, disabled Canadians have been able to claim this credit retroactively for up to 10 years, which can result in significant lump sum payments. Reports of consultants exploiting disabled Canadians and charging exorbitant and in some cases extortionate contingency fees in connection with these large, retroactive claims provide some of the reasoning behind the bill. Disabled Canadians ought to be protected from exploitation, clearly. Consultants who abuse the system and commit fraud ought to be punished under the law, so I support the intent of the bill.

I do have some reservations. My biggest concern is that the legislation may have identified the wrong problem, because while the bill establishes the need for introducing penalties against fraudulent consultants and protection for those exploited, a key question ought to be asked. Why do these consultants exist in the first place? It could be argued that the reason they exist is that there is a need created by an application process that is too complex, and that governments have failed to provide disabled Canadians with the resources they need to fill out the forms themselves. This is also in the context of times when we are cutting government and front-line services, which could actually help disabled Canadians complete these forms.

If the government is serious about helping disabled Canadians and stopping the alleged proliferation of these consultants, it ought to simplify the disability tax credit application process, and hire and train government workers in sufficient quantity and with sufficient expertise to help Canadians who have questions and need help with this process. This way more disabled Canadians who are entitled to these benefits would be able to fill out the forms themselves, and that would eradicate the need for these consultants in the first place.

The legislation in its current format does not address this central point, so I emphasize that I support the intent of Bill C-462 and recognize the importance of protecting innocent Canadian citizens from exploitation by consultants who abuse the system and charge usurious fees for their services.

I will outline a few of my reservations. First and foremost, there is a lack of information and detail within Bill C-462, and that is quite often the situation with private members' bills. Private members do not have the same kind of legislative or research capacity in working to develop legislation that, for instance, governments have.

However, the legislation in its current format does not specify what the maximum fees would be or how they would be set. That would be defined, perhaps, in the other place or perhaps in the regulatory process. Surely this ought to be a key element of the legislation as the aim is to restrict fees.

This vacuum of information leaves a number of questions unanswered and potential unintended consequences. For instance, how does the government propose to measure the fees? What services would be covered? What services would fall outside of the maximum fee structure? Would the maximum fee be set as a percentage of the tax credit or as a percentage of the tax refund, or would the maximum be set in absolute terms? Is the maximum to be set as a percentage of the tax benefit? How many years would be factored in or count towards that maximum? Would it be just the year of the application or would the government consider the value of the benefit over a number of years, for instance, the net present value of that future revenue stream? In setting the maximum fee, would the government differentiate between different applications, such as whether they are complicated, time-consuming or taken to appeals? If so, how would the government make that differentiation?

With some applicants claiming retroactively for up to 10 years, there could be complications within their application. The maximum fees set out in the regulations ought to reflect the complexity of the case in hand. The industry may be too complicated for a one-size-fits-all policy and the maximum fee structure ought to be set in an open and transparent process with a broad range of stakeholders.

Second, qualifying for the disability tax credit also qualifies people for other programs such as the registered disability savings program. Once they receive a disability tax credit certificate, they can remain eligible for the tax credit for several years. Therefore, the maximum fee structure that only considers the value of the refund for one year may not reflect the actual value that the applicant places on qualifying for the additional disability tax credit certificate.

For this point, let me illustrate with one potential example. Let us consider the amount of a disability tax credit in 2013 for an adult. That would be 15% of $7,546, which would be $1,131.90. Therefore, if the government is not willing to simplify the complex application process for disabled Canadians, some will continue to depend on the expertise of consultants. If the 5% fee cap is introduced, as has been suggested, the maximum amount a disabled Canadian could pay for expertise in applying for the tax credit could be as little as $56.60. However, the real reason the applicant may want to qualify for the disability tax credit is to be eligible for tens of thousands of dollars in RDSP bonds and matching grants from the government. Regardless of the amount people are likely to receive from just this one disability tax refund, some will take their claim to the appeals process in order to gain access to all these other programs and benefits.

Poor regulations that could flow potentially from Bill C-462, regulations that would have a narrow view of the tax credit, could have some unintended consequences, for instance, of preventing disabled Canadians the help they need to access government programs. We should acknowledge that there are businesses which provide very legitimate and valuable services to help disabled Canadians access these programs. I have heard from some of these types of operators who have certainly convinced me that what they are doing is legitimate and they are concerned that potential unintended consequences could render their businesses unprofitable if we did not consider some of their concerns in the design of this legislation. Again, I believe these are legitimate businesses.

The regulations under Bill C-462 must ensure that these legitimate businesses remain financially viable under this model. We must not punish these legitimate businesses because of the exploitative actions of some of the other operators who are taking advantage of this system.

One of the key reasons for the hiring of consultants, again, is the complex application process, which leads me to a point that right now the process is so complex that some Canadians feel like the only option available to them is to hire a consultant to guide them through. Therefore, we ought to make it easier for legitimate applicants to access the program themselves. After all, it is a program to which they ought to be entitled and, as such, why should they need an outside consultant simply to deal with their own government and access a program for which they qualify? The government should streamline the application process. It should hire and train more government workers who can answer the questions and help disabled Canadians apply for these credits themselves.

This is not just an issue of disabled Canadians and their interface with government. We have gone toward more automation, less personal interaction, less individually tailored services for Canadians dealing with their government and this is something we have to consider for seniors and for disabled Canadians.

In summary, we agree that disabled Canadians need to be protected from exploitation, but we also believe that there are other things the government could do through simplifying the process and ensuring that we have front line public servants who are providing these services and helping disabled Canadians interface with the government and access the programs not only to which they are entitled, but the programs they need.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening. I welcome the chance to add my voice in support of this commendable legislation. Bill C-462 builds on our government's strong record of supporting the full and equal involvement of those with disabilities in every aspect of Canadian society.

As the House knows, we work to ensure that our legislation, policies, programs and services are inclusive of people with disabilities and that they fully respect their rights and interests. The Government of Canada provides a variety of services and financial benefits to assist people with disabilities and their families to make this goal a reality.

For example, our government offers a range of generous tax credits and benefits for Canadians with disabilities. These important measures are among the many ways we are advancing our government's plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity that is working for Canadians, even as they face challenging times. We also strive to promote positive attitudes and raise awareness of the needs of Canadians with disabilities in order to prevent unintended negative outcomes. The House need look no further than Bill C-462 for the evidence of that.

When the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke discovered that some of her constituents with disabilities were being charged excessive fees by tax promoters to apply for the disability tax credit, she took action to put a stop to this abusive practice. It is thanks to her perseverance and diligence that we have this legislation before us today.

As parliamentarians know, the disability tax credit is a non-refundable tax credit. It reduces the amount of income tax that either individuals with disabilities or those who support them have to pay. It may help compensate for the cost of additional expenses, such as special equipment, medications and treatments. Eligibility is not based on the diagnosis of any specific medical condition, but is based on the effects of the conditions on an individual over a prolonged period of time.

To be eligible for the tax credit, the person must have a severe and prolonged impairment in physical or mental functions. It must restrict the person in one or more of the basic activities of daily life or cause the person to take an inordinate amount of time to perform the activity, even with the appropriate therapy, medication and devices. This needs to be verified by a qualified practitioner, medical doctor, optometrist, audiologist, occupational therapist, psychologist, physiotherapist or speech-language pathologist.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadians with disabilities and their family members who care for them count on the disability tax credit to help them improve their standard of living and quality of life. The CRA receives an average of 200,000 new disability tax credit applications each year. It is estimated that approximately 9,000 of these requests are received from taxpayers who use the service of a disability tax credit promoter.

In too many cases, the people who really need this tax credit do not get their fair share of the eventual tax refund. The problem is not with the tax credit, as others have explained. The issue is that there are some private sector companies that appear to have no compunction about cashing in on this tax benefit, which is intended for Canadians with disabilities, for their own benefit. There have been numerous cases brought to our attention in which promoters have charged 30% to 40% of the amount of the person's income tax refund. We are talking about thousands of dollars in fees for something that is very simple to do.

These businesses generally just complete part A of the disability tax credit application form, a straightforward process that usually takes little time. Aside from being reprehensible, this is first and foremost unnecessary. If someone with a disability or a family member providing care needs extra help completing the forms, the Canada Revenue Agency has agents who specialize in this disability tax credit. We have heard from others that this is not the case but, in fact, it is. They are just a phone call away and can assist both taxpayers and qualified practitioners by providing information on both the criteria and the application process.

There is simply no reason for people who really need and rely on the tax credit to give up a large percentage of it to a third party tax promoter who expects a large of the eventual tax return. With this bill, we are sending a clear signal that the price Canadians with disabilities pay for this service should reflect the real value of the services they receive.

Once it receives royal assent, Bill C-462 would restrict the amount of fees that can be charged or accepted by businesses that request a determination of disability tax credit eligibility on behalf of someone with a disability. This legislation would prohibit firms from charging or accepting more than an established maximum fee.

What that fee would be would only be determined following consultations. To discourage companies from overcharging their clients, the bill would also require businesses to notify the CRA of any fee charged in excess of the maximum amount permitted. If they persisted, they would face fines of $1,000 to $25,000 for not notifying the CRA or for any false or deceptive statements. A separate fine equal to 100% or 200% of the excess fees could also be applied in addition to the penalty. Such fines would be applied in serious cases, such as repeat offenders.

Members should not get me wrong: we are not trying to interfere with the free market and we have no intention of hurting legitimate businesses that charge reasonable amounts consistent with the value of the services that they provide. Our goal is simply to ensure that when Canadians with disabilities are eligible for the tax credit, especially if their claims go back many years, they receive the maximum amount that is due to them. This is consistent with our government's approach to ensuring that Canadians with disabilities are treated fairly, equitably, and with the dignity they deserve.

This legislation is a clear demonstration of our determination to support the full and equal involvement of those with disabilities in every aspect of Canadian life. I am sure no member of the House would argue with that aspiration.

Therefore, I urge all parties to lend their support to Bill C-462 so that we can take this legislation through its final stage and make it the law of the land. Members can be sure that people with disabilities in their ridings will thank them if they do.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-462. From the outset, I would say that I support the bill put forward by my hon. colleague, which aims to cap the amount of fees an individual, an organization, or a company can charge people who are claiming or using the instrument of the disability tax credit.

The tax codes, the fiscal pages that govern this country, are large and many. One cannot blame individuals who feel that they need a hand in deciphering some of that information in order to use the various instruments and tools available to them to maximize their tax dollars and maximize their ability to make ends meet, especially in the case of people who are living with disabilities and the families that care for them.

The disability tax credit works for Canadians. It is something that, unfortunately, too many Canadians do not know enough about.

The only issue I have with Bill C-462 is that it does not go far enough in identifying and fixing some of the problems that lead to this need for disability tax credit promoters or agents. We need to take a look at that.

We all try to do the best we can for families. The people who stand in this House and work every day for their constituents are here because they believe in working for their constituents. In February, for example, I held a forum in my riding to give my constituents the information and tools necessary to apply for the disability tax credit. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster came and lent his expertise to the discussion. I had a very good turnout for that forum. As a result, I received word that a number of individuals who attended were able to apply for the disability tax credit and were eligible for some sizeable amounts of money retroactively due to that information.

That takes me to the crux of my discussion, which is that we, as the government and members of this House, need to put more emphasis and more energy into informing individuals about the need for promoters and agents who claim to be there to help individuals navigate the pages of the disability tax credit. I am sure that many are legitimate and are there to legitimately help individuals. However, as in every situation, a few bad apples give the practice a bad name. The need for these agents is the question I have. Why is it that the government, we as members of Parliament, are not giving our constituents the information they need to apply for those disability tax credits?

During the course of the months following the forum I gave, individuals would call my office, and my staff were able to help them fill out some of the forms or point them in the right direction as to what they should be doing. This is something I think is lacking with respect to this bill. It is one thing to say that we will cap the fees and that agents or promoters who violate those caps would be in trouble. It is another to provide the means, the opportunity, and the information Canadians need to not have to avail themselves of promoters and/or agents in this area of disability tax credits.

The other side of that is the cuts. Even though the government is claiming that the cuts to the CRA services available to Canadians to get the help they need are not affecting Canadians, is not true. Canadians are having a harder time getting in touch with the agencies to be able to get the information that they need, to navigate the pages, be it the tax act, employment insurance, Service Canada, Canada Revenue Agency. Canadians are having a harder time getting that type of information. It creates a false need for these promoters and agents, particularly in the disability tax area.

This opens the door to people charging exorbitant amounts for their services, as was said in the House previously. Some 30% to 40% of the moneys that are due end up going to certain types of promoters and certain types of agents. It behooves us as members of the House and as the government to make sure that Canadians have the information that they need in terms of instruments such as the disability tax credit, so they do not have to lean on outside or private interests to help them.

I stand in support of the heart and soul of the bill, but I take issue with the fact that the maximum amounts were not identified at committee. Will the government let the legitimate members of the community who are out there trying to help people make the best of the disability tax credits know? How will they know what those caps are? How will they know if they are crossing the line? On the other side of that coin, how will people who are claiming disability tax credits and looking for the help of these agents and promoters know what their rights are in terms of what can be charged to them?

Again, I stand in support of the bill and it is a step in the right direction in regard to protecting consumers from opportunistic individuals or organizations, but it can go a little further. It begs the question, what more can we do as the government? What more can we do as members of Parliament to make sure that our constituents and Canadians know what their rights are and know how to access instruments such as the disability tax credit?

I will use my last 30 seconds to thank the Speaker for his ear. It is a pleasure to stand in the House and speak to a bill such as this.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. member for Mississauga South know that there are about four minutes remaining in the time provided for private members' business. Of course, she will have the remaining time when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand behind my hon. colleague's private member's bill.

The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has performed a valuable public service by drawing attention to the dubious business practices of some tax promoters, people who would take anywhere from 20% to 40% of the disability tax credit for which someone with a severe disability, individuals facing serious health challenges who need our financial support, has qualified.

The legislation is not only a tribute to her but to all parliamentarians who have recognized its merits and enabled the legislation to move quickly through the approval process. We must now take it to the next step and make sure that Bill C-462 becomes law, because all Canadians, including those with disabilities, expect us as their duly elected representatives to defend their interests. As the disability tax credit promoters restrictions bill makes clear, Canadians with disabilities applying for the tax credit are not always treated fairly at the moment.

In recent years, the Canada Revenue Agency has witnessed a growing number of businesses promoting their services to individuals with disabilities and their families who want to apply for the disability tax credit. Some of these businesses are focused almost solely on completing the application form. These companies normally provide their services on a contingency fee basis, and those fees can run up to 40% of the amount of the individual's income tax refund.

Parliament brought in this tax credit, recognizing that Canadians with disabilities can face serious challenges and exceptional expenses for which they should receive tax relief. The tax savings can make a meaningful difference in their quality of life. It is appalling that roughly $20 million a year, earmarked for people with disabilities, instead ends up in the pockets of the private sector tax promoters who helped them to prepare these claims.

By any calculation that is a lot of money to complete part A of an application form to obtain the disability tax credit certificate, something that the person applying for the credit or someone in his or her family can generally do without assistance. The CRA has put all of the forms and instructions on how to complete them on its website. They have a call centre that will help, and similarly constituency offices such as mine are only too happy to help guide people to the right resources, free of charge.

I would love to say more because I know this is a great bill. We are all very concerned about it. It is clear why it has been unanimously supported in the House. It is just simply a good bill.

Let me be clear, the legislation is not an attempt to crack down on people who are legitimately claiming the credit nor is it an attempt to deny anyone's claims. Let me be equally clear that our goal is not to hinder legitimate businesses. Most do good tax preparation work and are charging reasonable fees. Bill C-462 would apply only to those who try to take advantage of Canadians with disabilities by taking an unreasonable cut. With Parliament's endorsement, we can ensure that the disability tax credit goes to the person for whom it was intended.

I trust that we can count on all parties' support to pass this necessary legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Mississauga South will have six and a half minutes remaining in the time for her remarks when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.