Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this NDP motion by my colleague from Halifax.
I agreed to speak today because, as many of my colleagues here in the House are well aware, I have a disabled child. This is a subject close to my heart, and I am on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
This is a matter of such importance that I feel each member of this House ought to take the motion into consideration, a motion I trust is not intended merely to spark a debate in order to demonstrate the unjust situation that exists in today's society. It is not just a debate for the sake of debate; I trust the motion will be taken as seriously as it deserves to be. It deserves not just majority support, but unanimous support.
It is time some thought was given to the disabled. It is time to create some all-encompassing programs that will provide them with some continuity. The bulk of these people live below the poverty line. I believe that 43% of the disabled are said to have incomes of under $10,000. Hon. members can imagine the number of people experiencing difficulties.
When I hear such nonsense as I have just heard said about a member, who has had some significant comments to make about the disabled and our duty to help them and then is subjected to remarks about her playing God, it seems to me better God than the devil. It is unbelievable that anyone would make such comments about a member who understands the situation, because indeed she does understand the situation of the disabled. Let that hon. member come and repeat to me what he has said to her and I will have a one-on-one debate with him. It is unbelievable that anyone would say such things.
I was a member of the sub-committee, but unfortunately, due to certain responsibilities that I took on related to the House, I was forced to step down, but not for lack of interest. I am still interested in it and I attend when I can.
The sub-committee managed to come up with a unanimous report, despite the fact that it is no mean feat to do so in the House, unanimous reports being something rare, especially since 1993. However, the sub-committee managed to get the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to adopt it. The report calls for changes to the T2201 form for the disability tax credit.
This whole debate stems from the fact that people who were eligible for the federal disability tax credit between 1985 and 1996—some 106,000 persons across Canada—received a letter telling them that they would be reviewed. I could talk about many cases, people who came to my office and other cases I heard about. Allow me to share one such case with the House, involving the parents of a child with a trisomy disorder who received a letter to re-evaluate their child to see if the eligibility for the disability tax credit still applied. It makes no sense whatsoever and demonstrates flagrant disrespect.
The unanimous report called on the government and its officials, who do not seem to know how to treat people properly, to apologize to the 106,000 people who received this letter. This government shelved the report and refused to apologize to the parents of persons with disabilities who received these letters.
There was a second mailing—I am not sure if it was sent out—of some 65,000 more letters, even after we in the committee and the sub-committee had said that it made no sense and that the government should apologize. They sent out the second mailing to some 65,000 people.
I do not know how hon. members see this, but it is insulting for these people, who already have difficulties and who have a hard time making ends meet. We are only talking about a tax credit. In order to get a non-refundable tax credit, these people must have earned an income. They must have been in a position to pay taxes. In other words, they must have earned enough money to have had to pay some taxes.
We are talking about $960 in taxes before a person can get a tax credit. Imagine the costs. I am in a good position to say how much it costs to raise a child with disabilities. I also think about what persons with disabilities must face to earn a living for themselves and their family. These people live well below the poverty line. It is incredible to see the conditions in which these people live. We met some of them in our offices, in committee and in subcommittee, but we also see them in our daily lives.
We must give these persons—and I say persons because they must be considered as such—all sorts of possibilities. We must also give possibilities to parents, including time to get some rest. Take the case of parents who are professionals and who work about 70 hours per week, if not more. These parents are sometimes forced to take full days to go to the hospital. Still, their work must be done. Let us not forget that, in order to succeed in life, based on the criteria of today's society, we must be productive. However, if these parents do not work for several months, or even a year or two because they must go to the hospital every day or almost every day, how will they explain this situation to their employer?
Yes, I have a disabled child. Some people have two. The government must take into consideration what I am saying. Today, I hope that all members of this Parliament will set aside party politics when it comes to such an important issue.
The faster choices and comprehensive programs are provided, the better. We are not talking about six-week return to work programs whereby, at the end of the six weeks, participants cannot use what they have learned to get a job. Once the program is over, they are told “Sorry, if you wait another three to six months, there will be another equally useless program”. That will not do; these people must absolutely be provided with the education and training they need. They have to be given a chance to learn and to enter the workforce.
These people work exceptionally hard. Here is an example. This is a person who is now on a national basketball team as a back-up. We just heard this person and a colleague are going to climb Mount Everest in their wheelchairs. That is good. These are individuals with extreme goals, but who nevertheless need support; they need to have the government protect and support them, not say “You are in a class of your own, and we have nice programs for you. You will be fine with the programs we give you”. Programs and opportunities must be provided which ensure that these persons become full-fledged members of society who can earn a living and support their families. They are not back-ups. They need help so that they can take charge of their own lives.
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow you could be affected, or your wife. It is all the more cruel because we have not control over what may happen to us. Each of the 301 members in this House is a potential disabled person. We must not wait for it to happen to us before we realize what is going on. We need to take our heads out of the sand, and listen up. What I have to say today must be heeded, as must what the disabled have to say, along with their associations and health professionals.
As for the tax credit situation, these people, and I count myself among them, have come to say that they need help, that the form in question needs amending. It is important for health professionals to be involved, and not after the fact. They must not be presented with a draft form and asked to tell the public servants who created it whether it is OK or not.
These professionals want to have a part in drafting the form. The organizations responsible for persons with disabilities, and the disabled themselves, want to be involved right from square one, with the objective of allowing more disabled people to be eligible for this tax credit.
A person has to have an income if he or she is to take advantage of a non-refundable tax credit. It is not something special that the government can stash away, announcing that the disabled do not need help. These people do need our help. They need the representation I am providing here in this House today.
We are hearing ridiculous comments like those contending that the Defence budget can be raised overnight by $4 billion without any knowledge of what we want our soldiers and our army to be doing. For us, the objective would be to first of all find out what the army needs to do before talking about putting another $4 billion into its budget.
Imagine what could be done with $4 billion for persons with disabilities. We could help them, and not simply with tax credits. We could set up programs that would allow them to live their lives with dignity as parents, as mothers and fathers, and also as children, to not think that they are a burden on the family and society, and especially not on the government. When we truly help them, they will understand that we have helped all of society. They will be a part of that society and we will be happy to live alongside them.
We must not have preconceived ideas and simply feel sorry for these people when we see them. There are all kinds of disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities, with which I am less familiar, but they exist.
On the subject of intellectual disabilities, people sometimes have to travel very far in order to have this form filled out. In the case of intellectual disabilities, people sometimes have to see a doctor eight or ten times. For doctors, it is not just saying, “There you go, that's done”. They are going to charge to fill out these forms.
In our unanimous report, we asked that, at the very least, the fees doctors charge to fill out these reports, be refunded. Doctors fill out the form just to show that the claimant or the claimant's dependent has a intellectual or other disability. People are forced to pay them just to say that, and they are not even refunded that money. We are not asking a great deal of the government. It is not much to ask it to sit down with stakeholders.
Something incredible is going on. The Bloc Quebecois is touring Quebec on this issue. We are in the process of preparing draft legislation. The parent of a child with a disability went to the Federal Court and won. The government was not at all pleased. A person with a disability won because she had difficulty digesting food. She was deemed to have a disability, and therefore eligible for the tax credit. According to the government, this could be just the tip of the iceberg. They view it as dangerous.
The government immediately introduced a draft bill to change the definition of feeding and clothing oneself. What does it mean to feed oneself? It simply means bringing food to one's mouth and swallowing it. That's all.
Think of all those with digestive problems and difficulty feeding themselves. Should persons who can feed themselves but take half an hour to swallow three bites be considered as disabled or as being able to feed themselves?
This is ridiculous, and I am not dramatizing. I find it hard to believe that, in a free and democratic society, in 2002, in a country accumulating surpluses, the government would not even have the decency to take into consideration the unanimous report we have prepared. We did convince the members of that sub-committee, on which government members sit, and the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
How many times have we heard the line “Debates are held, where you can express your views. See how democratic we are. You even have committees where you and persons with disabilities may come and express your views. You have been heard. See how wonderful our Parliament is?” How can the same government, which has members sitting on these committees who are unanimous, take a report like this one and shelve it? My feeling is that shelves are akin to garbage bins here. This shows a lack of respect for the members of this Parliament, and for the members of this committee in particular.
In November 2000, I came to this House and asked colleagues who are still here “Will you listen to what the parent of a child with a disability has to say, a parent who happens to be a member of Parliament? I suggest we seriously reconsider our position”. I think it took no more than three sitting to get the committee to change its mind. We were on the point of doing an about-turn, but in the meantime, a specific incident happened; I told you there were 106,000 signatures concerning the tax credit. We took concrete action. I figured if we tried to do too much, it would not work. But we are used to this. Except, they took our report and tossed it in the garbage.
I am very disappointed by the government, in such a rich country. And I am talking about Quebeckers or Canadians. Be serious and do not lock yourself up in your offices without bothering to know what will happen here today with such an important motion. We will vote on this motion. However, as we all know, even if a motion is a votable item, it is not a bill. It is a directive that we must give to society and our society follows the directives that the government and the executive branch give to it.
If the scope of this draft bill, given the legal example that I just gave, is not broadened to allow people with disabilities to receive this tax credit—in fact the government is even trying to limit this scope right now—I do not understand anything anymore.
How can the government have so little heart and be so petty as to target society's most vulnerable members? The same thing happened with the guaranteed income supplement for the elderly. For a number of years, under this same government, the elderly were entitled to an income supplement that could reach $6,000. The government is once again targeting the disadvantaged.
This supplement to which the elderly are entitled is a right. It is theirs and all they have to do is to fill out the form to get it. The Bloc Quebecois provided information on this and people are thankful for that.
This same government has accumulated a lot of money over a period of several years. It is said to have received in excess of $4 billion, but it will not give that money back to taxpayers or to the elderly.
Before, when a person was entitled to something, he could submit a claim and it would be retroactive for three or five years. However, when the government saw that there was money left in the coffers, it amended the legislation to provide for just one year of retroactivity.
I do not know if hon. members are getting the picture, but as far as seniors are concerned, the law is being changed to prevent retroactivity and the government is keeping the money to which they are entitled. As for the disabled, the tax credits are being restricted and the programs that are created are so minimal, rather than treating them as worthy individuals who are part of our society and earn their own way. Think about the EI fund, and the $40 billion grab. The money is no longer there. They used it to pay down the debt, when there are all the problems in the softwood lumber industry and so on.
Whether one belongs to the Canadian Alliance, the Liberals or the Progressive Conservatives—I do not think I need to convince the NDP of this—the disabled need to be helped immediately.
