Manon Perreault

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation.

First of all, I would like to point out that this is a huge bill. It is almost 1,000 pages long and contains many technical amendments. The bill is extremely complex and only adds to the complexity of our tax system, which says a lot. It is, without question, a real omnibus bill.

However, unlike the mammoth budget bills we have seen recently, at least this one contains technical changes to a few very closely related bills. So, this represents quite a change, since we do not have to focus on a range of topics that have noting to do with the bill.

Nevertheless, the scope of this bill demonstrates just how much the government must do better to ensure the integrity of our tax system. Such a large bill can only complicate the work of parliamentarians and penalize businesspeople. Thus, it is imperative that the government do a better job managing our tax system, starting with introducing tax-related legislation on a more regular basis.

That is exactly what the Auditor General recommended in her fall 2009 report, which said:

If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.

The purpose of Bill C-48 is to make some highly technical changes to our tax system that have been accumulating for a very long time. Most of these changes have been announced in press releases and comfort letters from the Minister of Finance and in budgets since the most recent technical bill passed over 11 years ago.

These changes will definitely be revenue positive and, more importantly, help prevent tax avoidance. Accordingly, we strongly support the changes proposed in this bill. Tax evasion and avoidance are fundamental problems that we need to address.

It is therefore high time that action was taken to stop tax evasion and tax avoidance that deprive the government of large amounts of revenue. Government revenue comes in large part from taxation, and we must protect the integrity of our tax system and ensure it is equitable. We cannot just forget about this tax revenue.

While we support the amendments made by the bill, the government must make these changes in a timely fashion, instead of doing everything at the same time. The most recent technical bill was passed in 2001. Why did the government wait so long before taking legislative measures to implement the 200 or so technical amendments that were still pending?

Canada’s Auditor General noted with concern in 2009 that there was a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that had not been enacted. The report that she released in the fall of 2009 was nonetheless very clear about this and emphasized the fact that tax practitioners had expressed a need for the legislative changes that the comfort letters identified to be enacted.

This is therefore very complex bill, and I will take this opportunity to go through some of its parts in detail, to draw attention to what it is we are discussing.

Bill C-48 deals first with offshore investment fund property and non-resident trusts. Some of the proposals in the bill were in fact part of the 2010 budget and the budget of August 2010. The amendments in this part of the bill aim primarily at protecting the integrity of the tax system and preventing tax avoidance. For instance, there are measures that are meant to guarantee the taxation of Canadian residents’ worldwide income from all sources. This was not the case in the past, and this measure will have the effect of discouraging tax evasion.

Bill C-48 also deals with the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates. Here again, the intent of these amendments is the same: to protect the integrity of the tax system and prevent tax avoidance.

There are other measures to prevent tax avoidance, such as those relating to specified leasing property, to subject income trusts and partnerships to the same loss utilization restrictions as transactions between corporations, to limit the use of foreign tax credit generators in order to avoid paying foreign income tax, to clarify the rules on taxable Canadian property of non-residents and migrants, and to establish a tax avoidance information system.

Any tax avoidance transaction, that is, any transaction that is intended to obtain a tax advantage, must now be reported, even if it is not abusive. Other reporting requirements will apply if the transaction raises questions as to its lawfulness.

This is just a brief overview of some of the amendments included in the bill. While all of these changes are important and necessary, I would still like to point out that the government has taken too long to enact these technical amendments. Knowing that the most recent technical tax bill was passed in 2001, we can say that the time frame was far too long.

In the meantime, the government racked up hundreds of outstanding technical changes over the years. Some of the changes in Bill C-48 go back as far as 1998. These changes should have been made periodically and not through a massive 1,000-page bill. This bill includes a series of beneficial and necessary measures. The government must change its way of doing things. It must considerably improve the amendment process, which is far too slow, as we have seen. The ever-growing backlog of tax measures must stop.

In other words, the government must introduce a greater number of smaller bills, in order for their provisions to be enacted in a more timely fashion. That is precisely the view of the former senior chief of the Sales Tax Division at the Department of Finance, who said the following in September 2000:

Until now, the choice has probably been more in favour of combining measures so as to put forward fewer bills. I think the lesson that we learned from this experience is that it may be preferable to change the balance somewhat. That may mean putting forward smaller bills which would contain measures that would be enacted on a more timely basis. As I said, it is a trade-off between how many bills enter onto the agenda, and their size and timeliness

Accordingly, in order to beef up our tax system, we must simplify tax legislation by making it clearer and more predictable. Obviously, that means incorporating tax policy changes into legislation on a more regular basis and therefore in a reasonable timeframe.

The complexity of our tax system creates many loopholes for businesses and individuals, which makes it especially difficult to achieve fairness in our system. I think we should seize the opportunity that this massive bill is giving us to debate the complexity and fairness of the system.

We need to have a real discussion about taxation in Canada. For example, there are many non-refundable tax credits offered by this government. These credits can only be used by people who pay taxes and, therefore, they are not available to the people most in need, who earn less. I am thinking specifically of the disability tax credit. People with the lowest incomes are exactly the people most in need of this assistance, and they should be targeted by this program. Consequently, these non-refundable tax credits have a limited ability to foster income security.

In conclusion, we support Bill C-48. However, I would like to point out that the government must improve the administration of its tax laws, especially the process for making amendments. We fully support the amendments in this bill. It includes measures to eliminate tax evasion and avoidance, while preserving the integrity of our tax system. This is an important fight for the NDP as it attempts to ensure that our system is fair.

[Employment Insurance, February 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is hard to find the grain of truth in these replies.

According to the Service Canada guidelines, refusing employment can lead to disqualification from benefits. There are three types of refusal, including not taking advantage of an opportunity for employment. Situations of this type can include a contemplated move to another area or pregnancy.

Can the minister explain why pregnancy can lead to being disqualified from benefits?

[Employment Insurance, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, by attacking unemployed people with their employment insurance reform, the Conservatives have neglected to consider people living with disabilities.

Their reform requires unemployed people to accept any job within an hour of their home. But working people with disabilities do not have the same ability to travel as other people have. They are being asked to do the impossible and they are being threatened with punishment if they do not obey.

Will the minister finally admit that her reform is punishing working people, and especially those who are living with disabilities?

[Persons with Disabilities, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, of course I would be delighted to forward the source of the figures I gave earlier. You will see that they are accurate.

When we look at the government's record regarding disability issues, we see just how inadequate the programs are. The government's refusal to provide adequate funding for the public service disability insurance plan is unfortunately part of this appalling trend.

The government must understand that it needs to fulfill its commitments to persons with disabilities through fair and balanced programs. Otherwise, the government's commitment is worthless and the programs in place will not meet the objectives that were set.

So, instead of ending funding to the public service disability insurance plan, which would explain why it is in a deficit position right now, the government must take action. The number of compensation claims is on the rise, and now is not the time to abandon these people in need, many of whom also have mental health problems.

What does the government plan to do about this? Will the Conservatives provide adequate funding for the plan?

[Persons with Disabilities, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on October 23, I asked the President of the Treasury Board to explain the problems with the funding of the public service disability insurance plan. He did not answer my question.

He stated that the government would establish a plan for the future to support and protect the interests of public servants and to be accountable to taxpayers. In fact, nothing has been done and there is no reassurance that public servants are covered by a disability plan that is adequately funded.

My question had to do specifically with the fact that barely two years after recording a $102 million surplus, the public service disability insurance plan was posting a deficit.

Nevertheless, the President of the Treasury Board said he was standing up for public servants in this matter. However, the reason why the disability plan was suddenly in the red was because the government had stopped paying millions of dollars into the plan a few months earlier, even though claims were up. The plan is in the red because of the government's inaction.

The board of management that oversees the public service disability insurance plan had warned the government in its 2011 annual report.

An unexpected negative plan experience resulted in a $69 million deficit. The warning was also designed to force the government to be more vigilant over the course of the following months. The government did the opposite. It stopped funding the plan as claims were increasing.

To top it off, the Treasury Board report clearly shows that the plan began declining in the last seven months of 2011. This coincided with increasing claims related to mental health issues.

The government's inaction leads us to believe that the Conservatives intend to reject claims from people with mental health issues, as well as those from other people truly in need. The government claims that it is protecting the interests of public servants. Our understanding of this issue is quite different.

If this trend continues, the plan's financial outlook will only worsen—the number of claims has gone up by nearly 13% over last year. A large part of this increase is attributable to people with mental health issues. They are entitled to compensation.

Why does the government continue to neglect those living with limitations instead of improving services for them?

The government's management of this file is dismal, and the government does not seem to want to take the situation seriously. It has not presented a credible strategy for ensuring proper funding. The plan's current funding is extremely problematic and it is people with mental illness who are paying the price.

As is the case for the vast majority of federal programs that lack planning, it is the people with chronic or episodic illness who slip between the cracks.

This is not the time for the government to stand idly by. It has a duty to help the growing number of struggling public servants get better.

There is cause for concern if the government does not put in place adequate corrective measures.

I will repeat my question: will the Conservatives ensure that this plan has proper funding?

[Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act, February 5th, 2013]

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.

[White Cane Week, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is White Cane Week. It is an opportunity to raise awareness about the reality of people living with a visual impairment and their contribution to society.

Vision loss carries a huge financial burden and costs our society billions of dollars a year. If nothing is done, these costs will rise substantially over the coming years, given our aging population.

Unfortunately, access to specialized documents and products for the visually impaired is still lacking in Canada. I would like to remind hon. members that Canada still does not have a national network of public libraries with accessible formats for the visually impaired.

It is unacceptable that people with a visual impairment are required to pay federal and provincial tax on the already very expensive assistive technologies they need, when many of them are living below the poverty line.

I urge the government to take the meaningful action needed to meet its international commitments in this regard.

[Criminal Code, January 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, naturally, I am pleased to support the bill put forward by my colleague from Red Deer. No one is against virtue. This bill is designed to ensure that personating a police officer or a public officer for the purpose of committing another offence is considered by a court to be an aggravating circumstance.

The bill does not include minimum sentences, which respects judicial independence while appropriately punishing the criminal.

It would therefore remedy a flaw in the Criminal Code by amending section 130, while also providing justice for victims. It is about appropriately punishing offenders by increasing penalties for those who take advantage of this trust to cause harm to others.

I would like to point out that the member who tabled this bill was concerned about an unfortunate incident that took place in his riding, where a young girl was sexually assaulted by a man disguised as a police officer who had fake cruiser lights on his car. The bill introduced by the member for Red Deer came out of a terrible event in his riding in 2009 that demanded action. He showed compassion with his response to this event in his own community. His approach is both balanced and appropriate. Congratulations.

This type of offence abuses the trust that people put in our institutions. Police officers are there to protect us. That is the foundation of our justice system, and it is compromised in these types of situations. When someone usurps the power of a law enforcement officer, that forces the victim to submit to false authority so that the offender can commit another offence. It is crucial that we protect the integrity of our institutions and prevent people from being misled.

It should be said that the majority of Canadians put their complete trust in the police and readily submit to an officer's requests. That is normal. But it is that same authority and power that is exploited to facilitate other heinous crimes.

Such incidents are rare, but they have terrible consequences. I would not go so far as to say that incidents involving personation of a police officer are on the rise, but the fact is that everyone is concerned about such offences.

The problem has surfaced elsewhere in the country as a factor in all sorts of crimes. I will provide several examples during my speech.

This bill also provides an opportunity to raise awareness. We have to remind people to be vigilant and careful. Everyone has rights, and anyone can ask an officer to confirm their identity. Such a request is perfectly acceptable if a police officer approaches an individual and makes suspicious requests or behaves oddly.

When in doubt, people have every right to ask an officer questions or request to see their badge or ID. Of course, they should do so respectfully.

This bill is about personating a peace officer for the purpose of committing another serious offence, such as theft, home invasion or, in the case of the crime committed in Red Deer, kidnapping and sexual assault.

Any abuse of the trust that people have in police officers is reprehensible because that trust is crucial to the well-being of our whole society.

In July 2011, Toronto police arrested a man on suspicion of fraud against elderly persons. The man in question pretended to be a police officer and made off with their wallets. He was charged with 14 counts of theft and 14 counts of personating a peace officer. His victims were all between 70 and 80 years of age. I just wanted to mention that we should never tolerate any form of elder abuse.

The most surprising thing about this case is that this was not the first time the accused had passed himself off as a police officer. In 2003, he was sentenced to four years in jail for personating a police officer in order to commit theft. In 2008, five years later, he was at it again. He passed himself off as a police officer to commit another theft, but he was convicted only of theft.

There have also been cases involving motorists who were pulled over by police impersonators for an alleged speeding offence or expired licence, only to be extorted for money. They forced victims to pay a fine on the spot, using the authority and power of a police officer along with the threat of towing the vehicle and the victim having to pay all of the related expenses.

Montreal police arrested two men for these kinds of offences in 2010. The two young men, both 18 years old, did not have police badges, but they did have flashing lights and managed to stop and search several vehicles in the east end of Montreal, demanding payments for fines while also stealing items from inside the vehicles. After several interactions with motorists, some drivers became suspicious and alerted the police as quickly as possible.

This case is particularly telling, since it shows that many people were completely fooled by these two men who passed themselves off as police officers—certainly corrupt ones—but police officers using their authority and their power.

Yet, this is not the first time that this happened. In 2008, the Calgary police had already charged two people who were personating police officers and who had tried to arrest drivers. They also had cruiser lights on their car. How is it that people other than police officers can purchase cruiser lights? I am just wondering.

Another incident took place in Oakville in 2010 when a women who was personating a police officer pulled a driver over, accused him of speeding and demanded that he quickly pay a fine right then and there. In that case, the woman did not have a uniform, a badge or an ID card. The situation was suspicious enough for the driver who was being scammed to call the police as soon as possible. Once the crime has been committed, victims take the time to think about it and then they realize that they have been scammed.

It is important to remind the public that there are ways to identify who is really a police officer. Police officers, whether they are plainclothes or in uniform, always have a photo ID card and a badge. If they are not visible, people have the right to ask to see them and should call the police if they have doubts as to a police officer's true identity.

Crimes such as what happened in the riding of Red Deer, or elsewhere in the country, have made the public and victims more distrustful of our institutions. Personating a peace officer should not be considered secondary in these cases, but should be considered an aggravating circumstance by the courts during sentencing.

We know how much trust the public puts in the people it believes to be real police officers. Personating an officer is even more serious, because it exploits the public's trust in the police. It affects all members of society; not just the victims.

The bill exposes a troubling and worrying aspect of the crime, which is when the offence is committed for the purpose of committing another offence. This bill will very much improve our justice system. It will give the courts a necessary—and currently lacking—tool for sentencing.

The member for Red Deer did a good job with this bill. It epitomizes his compassion for and understanding of the victim and the victim's family, and is an improvement to our justice system.

This private member's bill is a shining example of a logical and balanced approach to justice. The fact that there are no proposed minimum sentences should encourage the Conservatives to reconsider their normal approach to these issues.

It goes without saying that this is and will continue to be an important issue. Personating an officer is a crime that leads to other crimes. It must therefore be considered an aggravating circumstance by the courts. I urge my colleagues to unequivocally support this bill.

[The Conservative Government, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, during the break I met with a number of Canadians who shared their concerns with me.

I met with people who are worried about the changes to EI and how they will negatively impact the agricultural sector.

I met with people who are very worried about underemployment and who are having a hard time making ends meet.

I met with people whose communities do not have the resources they desperately need for infrastructure.

I met with organizations representing persons with disabilities and veterans that are watching the government slowly withdraw the crucial support they depend on.

I remind the members opposite that these are also their fellow Canadians. When the government hurts Canadians and these members do nothing, they are also responsible.

It is a new year; they must remember that they have been called upon to represent all Canadians and not to pick and choose.

[Employment Insurance, December 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can try to make us believe that her reform is working, but her words are not fooling Canadians.

People living with disabilities already find it hard enough to enter the job market; they do not need to be penalized further by the fiasco caused by the minister. And yet she refuses to assist those who have contributed to the employment insurance fund.

Will the minister stop attacking persons with disabilities and help them enter the labour market instead?