Debates of Feb. 5th, 2013

Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his indication that he will be supporting my bill.

The reason I did not set a specific fee is that we wanted to have consultations with the tax credit promoters and people with disabilities. Some people do want that extra help apart from the regular tax preparers. We want input from tax preparers, as well as accountants and medical professionals. We will be doing the consultations and announcing what the allowable fees will be at that time.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member sitting nearby has just said that swindlers were putting hundreds of millions of dollars in their pockets.

What is the percentage of persons with disabilities who are entitled to a tax credit and are thus being defrauded?

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

Mr. Speaker, I made reference to the promoter who said that he had spent $25,000 on promoting.

In reference to the question on what number of people are eligible, CRA says that 200,000 new applications are received on a yearly basis. Insofar as what number of people are swindled or how much goes to the tax preparers, we do not know because it is totally unregulated. That is why we are putting these provisions into place so we can keep track and ensure that the tax promoters are being fair to Canadians living with disabilities.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend my colleague for introducing this bill.

Many of the people in Parliament have spent a lot of time with persons with disabilities. We quickly realize they are the most vulnerable. This bill drives at protecting and ensuring the most vulnerable are not taken advantage of, and I commend her that.

My question has to do with the services she provides in her constituency offices, without, I would think, any additional staff than would normally be in an office. How many constituents avail themselves of that service?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Brant for seconding my bill and for all the work he has done throughout his lifetime in helping people with disabilities.

In terms of my office, we keep statistics. Now that the disability tax credit profile has been raised, we receive more people. On a weekly basis, we would probably see anywhere from 80 to 100 people and of those, there are maybe 20% on taxes. Again, it depends on the season.

On a number of occasions, we help people get their disability tax credit. It can amount to the tens of thousands of dollars if it is on a retroactive basis.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-462, and I acknowledge that the bill was sponsored by the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. I thank her for her work on this important issue.

I will be supporting the bill because, like the member, I believe it is necessary to establish limits on the maximum fees charged by promoters of the disability tax credit. However, it is my view that a study is needed to clarify certain sections of the bill and to provide insights on how certain shortcomings of the bill might be best addressed.

In my community of Victoria, and across the country, many of our fellow citizens are living with disabilities and many simply do not have access to the supports that they need. I would like to stress that for people living with disabilities, some of the biggest issues relating to the disability tax credit are simply not addressed in the bill.

The application process for the tax credit is not transparent and people with disabilities have trouble obtaining it. I would also like to see more information in advance on the way in which the bill would be implemented and how the public would be informed as to its existence and to the protections it would create.

I would like to see a simplification of the application process for the disability tax credit to make it more accessible for people with disabilities. I would like to see better protection against financial abuse and restrictions on fees charged by promoters of a disability tax credit.

Disability organizations, such as the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Canadian Association for Community Living and the myriad of organizations that represent specific disabilities, share our concerns about access to the disability tax credit.

It is my sincere hope that the Conservative members on the other side of the House will consider carefully the concerns that I and my NDP colleagues on this side of the House are bringing forward. I hope the necessary changes can be made to fill in some of the gaps in the legislation as it is currently drafted.

In this context it would be most appropriate for me to talk a little about my concern about the Conservative government's cuts to the Canada Revenue Agency, which have had a real impact on the services offered to all Canadians. Cuts to jobs and duties of regional program advisers, for example, put information sessions on disability tax credits at risk. These sessions facilitate the understanding of how to obtain the disability tax credit. Of course closures of CRA offices across the country have had a significant and ongoing impact on persons with disabilities who need access to the services provided by those centres.

Following major Conservative cuts to the federal headquarters, I understand that some 28 Canadian Revenue Agency counters were closed last fall. There is a fundamental issue to speak to on this point and a very serious question to ask.

If the CRA services were readily available for people with disabilities and if the process for accessing the disability tax credits were not so onerous in the first place, would the need have been created, which certain unscrupulous advisers have been induced to meet? In other words, if the forms and the statute were less opaque, the bill may not have been necessary, which is regrettable.

Ultimately, this should be approached as an issue of accessibility for people with disabilities. Ensuring accessibility is the work of so many incredible groups across the country. For example, in my riding of Victoria, I would particularly salute Inclusion Works, a family, grassroots-oriented group that recently won an award from the B.C. Ideas competition for social innovation and also won both the People's Choice Investments and Supporting People with Developmental Disabilities Investments awards.

In our view, the priority in order to ensure that persons with disability have equal access to disability tax credits should be to ensure that promoters cannot abuse the system. On this, I agree with my hon. colleague.

Persons with disabilities must receive the support they need. Unfortunately, the bill does not address the problem of accessibility. The CRA administrative process remains complicated and the tax credit difficult to obtain, especially when a person is not familiar with the application process. It is necessary, we agree, to establish limits on fees charged by promoters of this tax credit.

A “promoter” is defined as a person who, directly or indirectly, accepts or charges a fee in respect of a disability tax credit. I have concerns about this broad definition. It may be over-inclusive. For example, people accepting nominal gifts for their assistance would be caught by this definition.

We are not against all promoters. Some act as consultants to help people with disabilities obtain services and tax credits from the government, which they may otherwise not know how to obtain. However, we have serious concerns about a trend among less scrupulous consultants who seek to profit from a change in eligibility criteria. Following the 2005 changes to the criteria and specifically when the government started to offer retroactive tax refunds, promoters started to offer their services to taxpayers to help them maximize their refunds. There have been problems. An article on February 9, 2011 by the CBC exposed some of the abuses that people are suffering and to which my hon. colleague alluded quite clearly. Therefore, I have serious concerns about this situation as well.

It is my understanding that the bill prohibits promoters from accepting or charging a fee that exceeds the so-called maximum fee. It is important to clarify at committee just how and when maximum fees will be established and how the public is going to be informed about them. I would like to know how the Governor in Council will determine the maximum fee.

Unless otherwise exempted, promoters charging more than that fee will have to inform the minister of the fees charged. How will promoters know what the maximum fee is and how will they be made aware of the changes? What kind of promoter will benefit from an exemption? What are the criteria for such exemptions? Is there a danger of too broad a discretion being conferred on officials by this form of drafting? Similarly, does the formula for calculating the promoters' fee, as set out in section 3(2) of the bill, square with the fines set out in section 7?

I would like to know if the government has thought of clarifying the application process for the disability tax credit in order to address the real issue of accessibility and unnecessary complications associated with the current process.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I will vote to support the bill and hope that the necessary changes I have alluded to will be made to fix the problems with it. I will work to encourage those changes, but I return to my initial point. It appears to me that in conjunction with these legislative changes, government cuts to the CRA are creating a need for greater assistance and refusing to address the fundamental problem of the accessibility of the disability tax credit.

I would like to state again that we are not against all promoters. We recognize some act as consultants and help people with disabilities to obtain the services and tax credits from the government they would otherwise not know how to obtain and to which they are entitled. However, we do need to fix some of the fundamental problems that are creating this situation and I believe that the bill in its current form fails to do that.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read the summary of the bill because it is important to put the debate in context. It says:

This enactment restricts the amount of fees that can be charged or accepted by persons who, on behalf of a person with a disability, request a determination of disability tax credit eligibility under the Income Tax Act. It establishes a prohibition against charging or accepting more than an established maximum fee and establishes offences and penalties for failure to comply.

Based on that, I do not see how anyone can be opposed. I am comfortable with it and I will support sending the bill to committee. The Liberal Party has always supported cracking down on fraudulent consultants who take advantage of disabled Canadians or any type of Canadians, but especially disabled Canadians. However, we think Bill C-462 requires careful study at committee to ensure that it achieves the stated objectives and avoids unintended consequences.

We support the idea of a ceiling on costs to help protect those eligible to apply for the tax credit for persons with disabilities, but the maximum for such costs should be determined through an open and transparent process of consultation with those concerned, such as organizations for persons with disabilities and members of the medical community. The question is a complex and, above all, an important one. We should therefore adopt a rigorous approach to ensure that Canadians with disabilities receive as much help as possible from Canada.

We are also supporting Bill C-462 at second reading, in order to have it referred to committee for study to ensure that there are no unforeseen consequences, such as a reduction in eligibility for the tax credit for persons with disabilities. We also hope that the government will show good faith, listen to opposition members and make the required amendments to the bill, if necessary, in accordance with what we learn in committee. The only way of avoiding unfortunate consequences for those with disabilities will be to do a thorough job in committee. I trust the Conservatives will be able to set aside partisanship for such an important issue.

Despite the good intentions in the bill, I believe that the government could be more helpful to Canadians with disabilities by simplifying the application process through which they receive their tax credit. For example, the documents to be completed and the process itself are complicated—doctors have many responsibilities in this area— which means that many Canadians are not able to complete them without assistance.

If everything was simplified, many Canadians with disabilities could complete the forms themselves, which would avoid their having to rely on someone else to help them do so. Reducing the red tape and the processing time in this manner could also generate savings for the government. It would therefore be useful both for the government and for persons with disabilities to look into this aspect at the committee stage.

The Liberal Party also supports the idea that fraudulent consultants should be prosecuted to the letter of the law.

I just want to quickly highlight some of the concerns I found in looking at the bill. In the bill it states that the definition of a promoter is “a person who, directly or indirectly, accepts or charges a fee in respect of a disability tax credit request”. Would that mean a doctor or an accountant? I asked the question to the sponsor of the bill, and she seems to think it would not be, but that is not how the bill reads. I just want to make sure the bill will be corrected so that doctors, accountants or other professionals would not be included as being promoters.

I was looking at the requirement to fill out the disability form. Seven out of the eight pages of the form to request or to determine if one is eligible to claim the disability tax credit must be completed by a qualified practitioner, which means a medical doctor, physiotherapist, optometrist, psychologist, occupational therapist, special language therapist or audiologist. I do not think any of these should be considered promoters.

Again, are the doctors consultants or are they promoters? Should doctors not charge for their time, as some doctors do, or is it part of the medical services they provide through the health care system? I think this is one of the questions that should be asked at committee. I understand there are going to be some medical professionals, associations and representatives at committee, and that would be one my questions.

In my former life as an accountant, I found that the forms are more lengthy than complex. Usually doctors feel responsible for any inaccuracies on these forms and so they take a little more time. As I mentioned before, maybe we should just consider changing the way the disability credit is administered, instead of introducing more regulations and making the forms more complex. Perhaps we could have a simple one-pager and have a doctor's letter attached. This would be something the committee could study, to find a way to make it easier and perhaps less cumbersome to administer.

In my experience as an accountant, especially when the government introduced retroactively requesting a change as far back as ten years to the income tax form for a disability tax credit, the first year is normally the most complex time. Even though one may be using software, one has to determine which credits and deductions a client is eligible for and which are more advantageous. If one is claiming the disability tax credit, one may not be eligible for some other credits. As well, one's dependents would be a consideration. It is complex and one wants to make sure that the professional involved in preparing the tax return or giving advice is not being penalized because he or she has said to go and get the disability tax credit certificate.

The other problem I found as a professional accountant was not filling out the form but having the form filled out on a timely basis. Normally the form is given to the client or to the person who is representing a handicapped person eligible for the disability tax credit. The form is given to the doctor, who may not have time and puts it on his or her desk, and it takes forever to get it back. The tax return is either already filed or waiting for the form before being filed. Also, a lot of times the tax return is filed, but the revenue department may come back asking for more information. Therefore, it is a time issue more than a complex issue. This may be another area that needs to be addressed in committee.

When the committee addresses the promoter fees, who should be paid for their time and how would that be calculated? I saw that there was a formula, which is a little complex, in the private member's bill. However, a professional, and I will use the example of an accountant, would not necessarily charge based on a percentage because he or she is not allowed to do so. How do we avoid an accountant charging based on the fact that a person would get a $20,000 or $30,000 refund if he or she is eligible to go back and amend their tax returns for the last 10 or 15 years?

Personally, I agree with the bill. I do not believe that promoters should be taking advantage of the disabled. I do not believe that promoters should be paid at all, but I guess there has to be a way to promote this initiative. The government spends enough money on advertising, I do not see why we also have to pay promoters. I am totally against this and I am hoping other members will also be against this in committee. However, I am totally shocked that the Conservative government is introducing more regulations.

There is another reason that disability tax credits are very important. People may be eligible for the disability tax credit, but they may not get money back on their tax return. However, they can open up a disability savings account. That is very important and works for a lot of people in my constituency.

Again, I am in favour of the bill, but as I said before, the Liberal Party is not necessarily in favour of these tax credits. We prefer having these tax credits refundable so that the people who actually need the money, get the money.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to stand today to speak to this private members' bill that the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has brought forward. It is very important legislation.

Perhaps before starting, I would point out that I was very surprised to hear some of the comments by the hon. member for Victoria and the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. If one actually looks at the application form, there is a small part that has to be done by the promoters. Actually, as someone who has experience in the health care field, as I go through the section that the medical practitioners fill in, it is very logical. It is quite a simple form, in terms of the areas that are non-applicable and that one can really target. Thus I find their comments about the application process surprising.

I have heard from many people about the responsiveness of the CRA when they have called it, and how willing, able and quickly helpful CRA is when dealing with any of these issues. I do not know if the hon. members were trying to find areas of disagreement for disagreement's sake. I think sometimes it would be nice to just look at what is a really good piece of private members' business, not government business, and to look at it in the spirit with which it was brought forward.

Certainly our government understands that Canadians have a difficult time making ends meet. As a result we offer a very generous range of tax credits. In fact, the tax credits are key to our economic action plan, a plan for jobs and growth that is working for Canadians as we face the global economic downturn. I could go on at length about some of those very important measures, whether the universal child care tax benefit or the home buyers' tax credit. These have been very helpful, as I hear every day in my office.

Since forming government, we have continued to lower taxes for hard-working Canadians. The average family now pays $3,000 less in taxes each year.

We are certainly committed to enhancing the participation of people with disabilities. Through our policies and programs we support the full and equal involvement of those with disabilities in every aspect of Canadian life.

A key component of our strategy to assist the estimated 4 million Canadians with disabilities is the use of tax measures, particularly personal income tax provisions. As the House is aware, the Department of Finance is responsible for developing federal tax legislation in the areas of personal and corporate income tax. The Canada Revenue Agency administers this legislation and the various social and economic incentives delivered through the tax system.

One of the most important measures to help Canadians with disabilities is the disability tax credit. It recognizes that the cost of some disability related expenses can affect a person's ability to pay tax, and provides a tax reduction to people with a severe and prolonged impairment in physical or mental function. Their disability must be severe enough to restrict them in their basic activities of daily living or cause a person to take an inordinate amount of time to perform such activities, even with appropriate therapy, medication and devices. The restriction must be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months and must be present at least 90% of the time.

People may also be eligible under the cumulative effect of two or more restrictions, which in combination are present 90% of the time. To claim this fund, the affected person or family members caring for him or her need to complete the disability tax credit certificate.

Members have talked about the process and the form, and how it certainly is a very sensible form. There is a section for a medical practitioner to fill out information on the impairment. Again, contrary to what the opposition members say, I think it is very sensible and well laid out. The first page is also very simple.

Once that step is complete and the CRA confirms that the person is eligible for the credit, the disability amount can be claimed on their income tax return. If for any reason someone with a disability or family member providing care needs assistance, there are agents who specialize in the disability tax credit. They are available to assist taxpayers and qualified practitioners by providing information on both the criteria and the application process. They are readily available and very helpful.

As Bill C-462 underscores, however, Canadians with disabilities applying for the credit are not always treated fairly. In recent years the Canada Revenue Agency has witnessed an increase in the number of businesses promoting their services to people with disabilities and their families who want to apply for the disability tax credit, or the DTC. Often, these businesses are focused primarily on completing the application form. Again, it is that early section, part A, I referred to. They are charging up to 40% of the amount of the person's income tax refund, often amounting to thousands of dollars, for something that is very simple to do. That can hardly be called fair. People with disabilities receive as little as 60% of the amount they are entitled to receive.

In 2012, the federal tax savings for someone eligible for the DTC will be up to $1,132 for adults, and can be as much as $1,792 for a child under the age of 18 and/or the family member supporting them. Of course, as we have mentioned already, these can be claimed retroactively, so thousands of dollars are at stake. For the one in five 5 Canadians with disabilities, living on lower incomes, this can be a tremendous amount of money. We should not forget that disabilities are also frequently an issue with seniors.

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that all Canadians are treated fairly by the tax system. The disability tax credit should be given to the person for whom it was intended. To make sure that happens, Bill C-462 would restrict the fees that can be charged or accepted by businesses that request a determination of DTC eligibility on behalf of someone with a disability. That is the key point, which also speaks to some members' concerns about whom this is targeting. It is not targeting practitioners but the person who has submitted the eligibility form on behalf of someone with a disability.

The legislation would prohibit firms from charging or accepting more than an established maximum fee. That would be determined following consultations. We certainly do not want to interfere with a fair and free market and inadvertently hurt businesses that charge reasonable amounts consistent with the value of the services they provide. Our goal is simply to ensure that when Canadians with disabilities are eligible for the tax credit, especially if their claim goes back many years, they receive the maximum amount due to them.

To discourage those companies that charge their clients more than a reasonable fee, Bill C-462 would require businesses to notify the CRA of any fee charged in excess of the maximum amount permitted. If they fail to do so 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% to 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.

There is very little to fault in the legislation, which is why it earns my endorsement, with several small caveats. To enhance the bill's effectiveness, our government proposes three amendments. First, we want to strengthen the monetary value of the penalty so that it will represent more than just a return of profits. Without this amendment the penalty as written could be perceived as an unacceptable business risk. We also want to make sure that the provisions of the bill apply to all types of DTC promoters and preparers, regardless of how their businesses are structured. Finally, we want to ensure that the CRA is allowed to make full use of the information at its disposal to identify non-compliance and to enforce the provisions of the bill.

With these improvements, Bill C-462 earns my wholehearted support. I trust I can count on all members of Parliament to give their stamp of approval to this very worthy legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Montcalm has eight minutes remaining this evening.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it will prevent abuse by disability tax credit promoters by restricting the fees they can charge for requesting a determination of disability tax credit eligibility on behalf of a person with a disability.

This is an entirely reasonable initiative because certain rather unscrupulous individuals are preying on less fortunate people. This is a major problem, and the growing number of promoters has resulted in cases of fraud, as evidenced by a 2011 CBC report.

I agree that a study is needed to shed light on certain issues and answer some questions. More information is needed on how the bill’s provisions will be implemented. I will get into that a little more later.

Promoters must be stopped from abusing the system, but we must also realize that not all promoters are guilty of abuse.

Two things need to be considered. On the one hand, some promoters genuinely want to and can provide top-notch service to Canadians with a disability who would not be able to request a disability tax credit without their assistance.

A distinction must therefore be drawn between promoters who abuse the system and those who act as consultants and truly help persons with a disability to obtain a disability tax credit, which they undoubtedly would not have been able to secure on their own.

On the other hand, many promoters are swindlers who promise people that they will qualify for the disability tax credit, even though their eligibility is questionable, and charge fees amounting to as much as 40% of the benefits. It is truly disgraceful.

Nothing can justify their charging fees of this nature, especially given that tax refunds are retroactive and can result in payments totalling thousands of dollars.

Therefore, restricting the fees that can be charged by promoters is a positive move to prevent the abuse of persons with a disability.

This bill will prohibit promoters from charging more than an established maximum fee set by the Governor in Council.

Of course, this raises questions like knowing how and when the public and promoters will be informed.

The fact that there could be exemptions for some promoters leads to the question of which promoters will be exempt.

The other important issue concerning the disability tax credit is the fact that those applying will also need to have government support. This support is being jeopardized by the government’s cuts to the Canada Revenue Agency. Owing to the lack of resources at the agency, it cannot properly inform the public and make those concerned aware of the tax credit or deal with the demand by providing information sessions on the disability tax credit.

Staffing cuts, particularly for regional program officers, have led to the closing of CRA offices where Canadians are accustomed to meeting an advisor who can give them more information and direct them to the proper resources.

It is important to ensure that people with a disability have equal access to the tax credit, which is not currently the case. The bill does not solve any of the many problems with the tax credit, including accessibility.

The application process is still complex, and the tax credit is difficult to obtain. The application process therefore needs to be simplified.

Unscrupulous consultants focus on these people precisely because they know that the process is complex. The terminology and definitions used in the certificate are restrictive and unfair and lead to inconsistency and discrimination.

Participants have described the process of obtaining a tax credit as difficult, lengthy and exhausting. They have a great deal of difficulty understanding the form and in some instances, never complete it.

Some do not even take the trouble to apply because they feel that it is a waste of time. Under such circumstances, many turn to consultants.

Eligibility for the tax credit requires a significant impairment that prevents a person from taking part in everyday activities. This means that people with episodic disabilities or mental illness are often excluded. Indeed, it is difficult for them to prove that their everyday activities have been significantly altered, either because this is the case on some days and not others, or because they are physically capable of engaging in these activities, but incapable of doing so mentally or emotionally.

This determination based on the patient's basic activities of daily living is a real problem. The definition is restrictive and contradictory. It is contradictory because it differs from the provincial and territorial definitions to which practitioners refer and from definitions used by other programs, such as Canada pension plan disability benefits.

The other problem is that it depends on the understanding and good will of medical practitioners to fill in the required forms. Qualified practitioners have great difficulty filling in the certificate, especially in view of the complexity of certain disabilities and their evaluation according to the definition of the patient's basic activities of daily living.

Some people have been rejected simply because their doctor gave them poor advice, based on a mistaken understanding of the eligibility criteria. Even when the forms are filled in correctly, the decision about who is accepted and who is rejected can appear arbitrary and unpredictable. Any kind of family support may make a person ineligible for the disability tax credit because such support allows that person to function at a higher level. Many participants and practitioners question the reliability of the certificate on which the eligibility determination is based.

The tax credit was established to recognize some of the extra expenses that persons with disabilities have. It has become the prerequisite for almost all federal programs related to disability, such as the registered disability savings plan.

Thus, many people with disabilities are excluded from these income security programs that could help them attain a modest but sufficient level of income, to save for their future and reduce their stress levels. What we need, as soon as possible, is a plan to provide income security for all individuals with disabilities, including those with low incomes.

The programs now in place do not work together harmoniously to provide income security for people with recurring health problems. They include Canada pension plan disability benefits, employment insurance sickness benefits and registered disability savings plans. This all leads me to say that income support measures must work together to ensure real financial security for persons with disabilities.

Returning to the disability tax credit, the certificate specifies that to be eligible, a person must have a severe and prolonged impairment in physical or mental functions for a continuous period of at least 12 months. That effectively excludes people with recurring illnesses. The question is not new. It was raised by the Liberal government in 2002.

That said, I think the bill is essential in order to deal with the problem of abusive fees charged by promoters, and it is a good start. Still, a thorough study will be very useful.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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.

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, January 31, 2013, the House in committee of the whole will now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 16 under government business.

I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 16, Mr. Barry Devolin in the chair)

Conflict in Mali

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That this Committee take note of the conflict in Mali.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to rise to participate in today's take note debate on the situation in Mali.

As members of this House will know, this debate is only one part of our government's commitment to engage parliamentarians in Canada's reaction to the conflict in Mali, following on the footsteps of last week's meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

It is also in addition to previous briefings by senior officials held for members of both the NDP and Liberal Parties following a direct offer from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is our hope that we will find consensus on this important matter.

Late last March, a coup was undertaken by junior officers of the Malian armed forces, which brought an end to two decades of democratic government in that country. The junta, led by Captain Sanogo, deposed President Amadou Toumani Toure and took place despite the fact that presidential elections, in which President Toure was not a candidate, were scheduled to take place a month later, on April 29, 2012.

The coup in Mali was a major setback to the country's development plans and damaged its ability to protect an already weak northern Mali. It was a serious blow to that country.

Canada reacted quickly and strongly to condemn the coup and to demand the return of constitutional rule. On March 21, as soon as the first news of the coup was received, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs) expressed deep concern about the attacks by members of some elements of the armed forces on the presidential palace. They called on the perpetrators of these attacks to immediately withdraw and to respect democracy. They insisted that differences must be resolved by dialogue and democratic process to restore security and stability for the long term.

Two days later, to underscore Canada's insistence that Mali again find its way back to democratic and representative governance, both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Cooperation took decisive and strong action to suspend direct bilateral aid transfers.

As one of the poorest countries in the world, Mali's government has had little ability to control the northern part of the country, and in the past decade, terrorist groups have been able to work freely in the region. In January, the main rebel Malian group, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, or MNLA, following the return of armed Tuareg rebels from the Libyan army, attacked Malian forces and started to advance from the north.

The MNLA was supported by foreign terrorist troops, such as Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, as well as by the Salafist movement Ansar Dine, comprising both Malian and foreigners. Following these attacks, the Malian army collapsed.

The March 2012 coup that toppled the government led to political disorder, which permitted various groups of Islamists and extremist militants to drive out Malian government forces and capture the northern two-thirds of the country. For the first time in history, terrorist groups were in control of a large geographic area that could have served as a base for destabilizing southern Mali and neighbouring countries in the absence of a constitutional government that could serve as a legitimate interlocutor with the international community.

The occupation of the north worsened the already precarious humanitarian situation in Mali, where approximately 4.23 million people have been affected by the humanitarian crisis. The terrorists imposed a harsh form of Sharia law and destroyed many protected cultural sites in the town of Timbuktu.

The UN Security Council, on December 20, 2012, adopted resolution 2085, which wisely places emphasis on both the political track and the security track to resolve the situation in Mali. To that end, our government has been actively exploring ways to support resolution 2085 and the efforts of the Economic Community of West African States and the African Union in finding a sustainable solution to this crisis.

In response to an invitation from Mali for support in stopping a terrorist advance into the south, France started air strikes in Mali on January 11, 2013. Canada supports the French initiative. We believe that the establishment of a safe haven for terrorist groups in this region is a threat to Mali, to its neighbours and to the broader international community.

At France's direct request, Canada was pleased to extend, after an initial one-week period, a CC-177 Globemaster aircraft until February 15, 2013, for a total of one month, to move French equipment and personnel to Mali's capital of Bamako. It is important to note that this aircraft is only available to France and that this aircraft and Canadian armed forces personnel have not been and will not be part of combat operations.

Throughout this process, we share with our partners and those in the AU and ECOWAS the objective of Mali's return to fully democratic and constitutional rule.

Our government strongly believes that there can be no progress on a political track without security in Mali. There cannot be long-term security in Mali without the political stability brought by a democratic government. We must support the return of a government in Mali whose political legitimacy is achieved through free and fair elections.

On January 17, 2013, Canada's ambassador in Bamako, together with the ambassadors of the U.S., U.K., France, Denmark and Sweden, urged interim President Traore and his government to present a road map to restore democratic governance. We are pleased that 12 days later, the Mali National Assembly unanimously adopted the road map to elections. These polls are to be held at the end of this July.

Last week, at a specially convened African Union meeting to raise funds for the African-led international force in Mali, or AFISMA, which was created under United Nations Security Council Resolution 2085, and for the Malian security forces, the international community pledged $455 million to support international efforts against terrorists and extremists in the Mali and Sahel regions. Canada announced an additional $13 million in humanitarian assistance for Mali. This new funding will be channelled through NGOs and international organizations.

Canada stands ready to help a democratic Mali build a better, brighter future for all Malians, as they hope to maintain their country's territorial integrity. While we are hopeful that the actions being taken by the interim government to restore democratic governance in Mali will result in positive steps for that country, we remain vigilant and want to ensure that words are not only words but are followed up by real action.

Canada will be monitoring the implementation of this road map to confirm that it is implemented in a manner in which civilian authority is reinforced and fully restored in the lead-up to and during the presidential and legislative elections. We need to be clear on where we hope Mali will be one year from now and two years from now. We want a stable and peaceful partner to address the real needs of the Malian people and the security threats that straddle man-made borders.

Canada will work diplomatically and with our allies on how to address the many complex facets of the situation in Mali. We look forward to today's debate.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, there is an analysis I think is important when it comes to the situation in Mali right now. It is that this is a regional situation; it is not just about Mali. I think the parliamentary secretary mentioned that.

There has been some concern on our side in that, unfortunately, the government is actually retreating from Africa, particularly this part of Africa. I note that this year, there will be $377 million in cuts. Disproportionately, 62% of those cuts will come out of Africa. We have shut four embassies in Africa. The countries of focus we had have been reduced by eight.

My colleague said that we supported the road map, which is great. I support that as well. The EU was instrumental in that and supported it. The problem, though, is that we have not put our money on the table when it comes to the road map, separate from the $13 million. We have about $18 million or more for the C-17.

I would ask my colleague if the government intends to financially support the road map, and if so, when and with how much.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his participation in the foreign affairs committee hearings on this very important matter.

As the member would know, in addition to the $13 million of new money for humanitarian assistance directly related to the internally displaced persons in Mali as a result of this crisis, Canada has been one of the largest donors to Mali in the international community for more than 20 years. In fact, Mali is one of Canada's top 20 countries of focus. Since 2007, the Canadian government, through various CIDA projects, has been spending, on average, over $110 million each and every year in Mali.

It is certainly not the case that Canada is abandoning Mali or any other part of Africa. In fact, we are putting in more money than ever, and we are one of the largest donor countries in the world in that region.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I noted with interest his statement that Canada will be willing to support a democratic Mali in the future.

Could my hon. colleague tell us what Canada should do, not only to support a future democratic Mali, but to help that country create a democracy and democratic institutions?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as the hon. member will know, of the $110 million Canada has been spending each and every year for several years now in Mali, some of that programming was in fact for the building of democratic institutions in Mali.

Mali was, prior to the unfortunate coup in March 2012, one of the most successful democratic countries in Africa. We hope that, after this short crisis, it will return to being that very successful democratic country.

Canada will continue to support Mali, as it has in the past. Of course, the government is always open to suggestions. We are negotiating and speaking frequently with our allies in the region and with the Malian government about how we can best support the return to democracy in Mali.

I will be clear that Canada will hold the current government of Mali to that road map to ensure those democratic reforms actually occur and those free and fair elections take place this July.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Chair, members have been encouraged by the initial success of the French forces. I am sure the hon. member agrees with me on that point. It is fairly clear that the French wish, as do we, to hand off the military part of the security as soon as possible to African-led initiatives.

It is therefore curious that the government has not participated in the $450 million funding of AFISMA, which is the main African-led security entity, which will be the entity that steps in to deal with the Islamist threat.

My question to the hon. member is fairly simple. Why is it that Canada has not helped with the funding of AFISMA?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, as the hon. member will know, and I think he made it very clear in his question, the key word is that it is African-led. Canada thinks that is important. Most of the international community thinks it is important that, in fact, the solution in Mali is an African-led one.

Canada is contributing more than $18.7 million through the supply of the CC-177 Globemaster III aircraft and the crew involved. We are also addressing the humanitarian needs. Through our CIDA programs, we will continue to fund and work on the development of the democratic institutions in that country.

I should also point out, in terms of humanitarian aid, that Canada has supplied food and nutrition assistance to some 1.3 million people in Mali, as well as to 142,000 refugees in Niger, Mauritania and Burkina Faso. It has supplied lifesaving water and sanitation assistance to more than 49,000 people in that country and the surrounding region, as well as vaccination of more than 58,000 children in that country, who are being displaced because of both the humanitarian and drought crises in the region.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am worried that the debate has started off on the wrong foot. The hon. member was asked two very specific questions, but he danced around them instead of responding. I will repeat them, and hopefully this time he will answer.

Our colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie asked him what the government is willing to do to help the Malian government on its journey toward democracy. The Government of Mali has had its funding cut. It will be very difficult to be effective in Mali if we are not working with the government.

The Government of Canada asked for a road map. That was the right thing to do. Since we are working towards a road map and an election, why not cautiously restore direct relations with the Malian government as much as possible? That was the first question that did not get answered.

Second, the member was asked why we are not involved in the UN initiative to help train African troops to be effective and disciplined so that the locals are treated decently and so that missions are effective. Why is the Canadian government not taking part in this initiative when so many of our allies are? It is easy to say that Africans must take charge, but it is our role to help them take charge. I hope that this time, we will get some answers to these specific questions.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I guess it is the position of the member's party, the Liberal Party, that Canada would give money directly to a government that is not democratically elected today. This is a government that came about as a result of a military coup. Perhaps that is the Liberals' position. It is not a position that this government would take, and I do not think it is a position that Canadian voters and taxpayers would want us to take.

However, we will be assisting the democratically elected government that will emerge from the free and fair elections in July, we hope. We will continue to support the democratically elected government of Mali in the future through the democratic development programs that we have done in the past.

With respect to the member's question about support for training or putting soldiers on the ground, it is certainly not our government's position that Canadians should be involved directly in any combat mission in harm's way in Mali, but I hope he would know that Canada has participated in training ECOWAS troops in surrounding countries over the last several years, and they have been quite successful. Soldiers from some of those countries are participating in the African-led force that is fighting against the rebels in Mali.

Canada has made a fairly significant contribution there, but if it is the position of the Liberal Party that Canadian soldiers should be involved in combat operations in Mali at the front lines, that is not something this government is going to support or promote.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take part in this important debate on Canada's role in the conflict in Mali.

This debate helps us provide much-needed oversight of Canada's actions with regard to Mali. From the outset, the government's position on this situation has been inconsistent. Ministers have sent mixed messages. One said there would be military trainers on the ground in Mali, and then another said there would not be.

The Prime Minister announced the contribution of a C-17 aircraft for a week, and then it was a month. The government said it was giving additional aid, and then it said it was not, and then it said it was. This is a government whose foreign policy is guided by drift.

This approach of deny and delay is not good policy, nor is it strong leadership. The government must be clear about both the purpose and the level of our commitment. Canadians deserve to learn about Canadian foreign policy from their own government, not from the Twitter feeds of foreign leaders.

That is why the official opposition New Democrats decided that parliamentary oversight of the Mali mission was urgently needed through debate in the House and study at the foreign affairs committee.

The Government of Canada needs to be honest with Canadians. It is as simple as that.

When we take part in a conflict, when we put our people and resources on the line, we must take every step with our eyes wide open. From the beginning, on this side of the House, we were taking the advice of the United Nations. On October 12, 2012, the UN Security Council, which has the primary responsibility for international peace and security, adopted resolution 2070 on Mali.

The resolution talks about a humanitarian crisis that is rapidly deteriorating.

It talks of widespread and serious human rights abuses against civilians: killing, rape, hostage taking, pillaging, theft, destruction of cultural and religious sites, recruitment of child soldiers, the very worst of crimes.

The situation in Mali poses a threat to international peace and security.

For that reason, New Democrats were steadfast in our support for an international coordinated response to the crisis in Mali. While the Conservatives were dithering, we called on the government to support these international efforts. The role of the international community in Mali is evolving and Canada needs to be engaged and involved.

Most immediately, Canada needs to support the ongoing transfer of command to the African-led AFISMA force. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been raised internationally to help AFISMA. Not a single dollar of it was Canadian.

Canada must also monitor and engage with the growing possibility of a substantial UN peacekeeping force in Mali. Sadly, Canada will not be at the table when the subject comes before the Security Council. The government's alternation between disengagement and divisiveness has weakened Canada's voice on the world stage, but that should not stop us from engaging in peacekeeping and peace-building.

The political situation in Mali is complex and constantly developing. We are encouraged that the interim government agreed to a road map for political renormalization, but long-term peace and development in Mali will require negotiation and peace-building with the groups and individuals holding local power in the rural north.

This is the fourth time the Tuareg minority has rebelled against the central government. Peace cannot be maintained if the minority's grievances are not addressed.

When we take a look at the situation on the ground, it is important that we differentiate between the diverse groups involved.

Tenuous links last year between the main Tuareg rebel group, the MNLA, and the radical Islamic group, the Ansar Dine, have long since dissolved. The two groups do not share ideological or political goals. The Tuareg population has been campaigning for an independent territory in northern Mali ever since Malian independence in 1960. Radical Islamist groups are a more recent phenomenon. For instance, the group known as Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb was first developed in response to the Algerian military's secularization of the country in the 1990s. It is an example of how events in one country can easily spill over into another, just as weapons from Gadhafi's Libya spilled into Mali, enabling the rebellion that sent this country into crisis. Small arms that were unleashed before and during the Libya conflict have played a significant role in fuelling this conflict.

I call upon the Conservatives to stop playing a spoiler role in negotiations for arms trade treaties so that we can prevent future crises.

Despite the MNLA's support for the international intervention and its rejection of terrorism, there are worrying reports of continued vengeance attacks against Tuaregs by Malian soldiers and civilians.

Social reconciliation in Mali will be a long-term challenge. Any action taken in that regard cannot be effective without the development of democracy.

In 2007, the government supported the creation of a new agency tasked with promoting international democratic development. What a great contribution that agency would have made, at this time, in the Middle East and Africa. However, the promise was not kept.

Then the government promised it in 2008. The promise was not kept. Then it promised it in 2009. The promise was not kept. Then the government stopped talking about it.

In the years that followed, Rights and Democracy, the closest thing we had to a democratic development institute, was systematically dismantled and destroyed—an obvious mistake at the time, a historic blunder in retrospect.

While the radical Islamists controlled the northern part of Mali, they committed numerous and egregious human rights abuses, including amputations and killings under Sharia law.

At the same time, we are all concerned by recent allegations by human rights groups of abuses by the Malian army, including summary executions and tortures. These allegations demand investigations.

Canada must be standing against all violations of human rights, and we must build capacity in countries like Mali to end human rights violations committed by armed forces.

In addition to serious abuses, chronic problems persist. The Sahel region is facing a huge food crisis. Half of Mali's population is living on $1.25 a day. The need for humanitarian assistance is urgent.

Some 390,000 people have been displaced from northern Mali.

The UNHCR has reported that displaced people are already beginning to return to some parts of the country previously controlled by the extremists. Swift action is needed to monitor and secure the flow of people and ensure that everyone can return home safely, soon.

However, we cannot confine ourselves just to Mali's borders. Weak governance throughout much of West Africa creates a serious risk that conflict and crises could spill over. A whole of region approach is needed to achieve long-term peace and security and development.

Canada has the experience and the ability to take a leading role in this capacity-building effort. Unfortunately, this is made far more difficult by the government's political and financial withdrawal from the region. By closing our embassy in Niger and by disproportionately cutting development assistance to Africa, the government has weakened Canada's ability to lead.

Canada should be a leader in resolving the current crisis and in helping the Malian people build a better future. We are not doing that yet. We have not come up with what the world expects of us, and we have not come up with what Malians need.

We can do better. We must do better.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chair, the member is unfortunately factually incorrect about something very important he mentioned both in his speech and in his earlier questions and it is incumbent upon me to correct him. Canada did not close its diplomatic mission in Niger. In fact, it did not have a diplomatic mission there. It had a CIDA office in Niger and the Canadian ambassador to Niger then, as now, is accredited from Bamako, Mali. Perhaps he should look into the history and correct himself on that. That would answer a lot of the questions he was asking himself in his speech.

In addition, the member should know that despite the CIDA office in Niger being closed, Canada continues to have significant diplomatic missions in Bamako, Dakar, Abidjan, Accra, Abuja and Cameroon, all in the area. I do not think it can be fairly said that Canada is reducing its diplomatic representation in the region.

Could my colleague comment on his quote on January 8 on CBC when he said, “We would be very different. This is what the NDP would be doing right now. First of all, we'd be engaged with peacekeeping, peacebuilding and conflict resolution”. That sounds like Canadian troops in the region. Perhaps he could explain that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is interesting that the member mentioned Niger. I did underline the point that we were retreating from Africa in development and diplomatically. We have closed embassies.

I want to enlighten my friend about the fact that the government has retreated from peacebuilding and peacekeeping. Canada is 53rd now in contributions to the UN when it comes to that.

A significant document just came out in January from the UN, which lays out what peacekeeping and peacebuilding is about. I will share that with him later. It is about ensuring that we resolve conflict, that we use resources not just troops and that it goes through the UN. I welcome him to look at that.

The problem the government has is that it cannot deal with the facts. It is basic arithmetic. We will be cutting $377 million from the CIDA budget. That is the government's numbers. This means that disproportionately we will be hurting Africa. What is the government's response when we ask it what it is doing there? It tells us that it has sent our trade minister there and he is in Nigeria trying to negotiate free trade agreements. I am sorry, but when the house is burning, one does not try to get a better mortgage.

The situation at hand has to be dealt with. The government does not understand that we have to be present, that we have to commit resources, that at the last minute we cannot pretend that we are contributing, because that just does not work.