Lost his last election, in 1997, with 39% of the vote.
Supply February 14th, 1995
As soon as I find out, I will let the member know.
We were not elected to eviscerate, to cut out the you know what of government without regard to the important job it must and can fulfil both today and in the longer term.
The difficulty if we operate from the premise that we do not need a government, as this crowd obviously does, is we have difficulty seeing the wisdom in anything the government does. I happen to believe we need some government.
Supply February 14th, 1995
The hon. member needs a new writer.
The government was elected to bring the people of Canada leaner, smarter and more efficient government. Even my friend from Elk Island believes that. We were not mandated to wholly eviscerate government.
Supply February 14th, 1995
Can I get that in writing? He says the government does not do anything. He could have fooled me when I heard his leader yesterday in the House of Commons. I thought he was saying we are doing all kinds of terrible things. Get together, guys. I do not want a fight, especially on Valentine's Day. Let us not have a fight among the kissing cousins in the same caucus. He says we do nothing and the other member says we do a lot. Which is it?
Supply February 14th, 1995
Madam Speaker, they have to be given an opportunity to vent in a way they never can in caucus. We might as well let them do it here.
I would never dare be smug about Canada's tax burden. It should be clear by now that I am not endorsing high taxes. We have to face reality squarely which I believe supporters of this motion are failing to do.
When they make comparisons of Canada's tax burden it is typically vis-à-vis the United States. As much as I want lower taxes I have to point out that there are some flaws in that particular comparison with the United States. Contrary to what some hon. members would have us believe, lower taxes in the U.S. do not come without a cost, a financial cost and a human cost.
Take the example of medicare. Medical insurance represents a very substantial cost for millions of Americans and their employers. For the tens of millions without insurance a serious illness can spell personal and financial ruin. If members want to make the comparison between Canadians and Americans, what they ought to do in fairness is either when they are making comparisons deduct the taxes in respect of which we pay for medicare or alternately when they look at the American tax total add in the medical care costs which are hidden in the sense that they are not tax dollars, they are funded elsewhere but represent a cost on the pocket nevertheless.
They are comparing apples and oranges. Either compare the American and Canadian system with medicare written in or with medicare written out. They will find that they do not have such a tax holiday as my good friend would like to suggest.
The point I am making is twofold. First, we have to avoid making comparisons that are simplistic and specious and I would go so far as to say dishonest because they compare apples and oranges. Second, we have to realize that while the opposition's position on taxes sounds a lot like a call for motherhood, it is about a lot more than taxes. It is about the kind of government, the kind of society that we want in Canada.
I can tell the House how to reduce taxes, bring them way down. Sock it to all the poor people, sock it to all the disadvantaged, do away with our medicare system and so on. There is a way to get ever lower taxes. Low taxation, small government versus big government are not objectives in themselves. None of these is an objective in itself. What they do for society ought to be the objective, what they accomplish.
If we are going to go to the extreme of having small government for the sake of small government, I can tell the House how we can make it really small. Let us have no government at all, none.
I take it you have all written in to forfeit your pensions.
The Minister of Finance has said very clearly that government cannot and should not do everything. We too want-
Supply February 14th, 1995
The former. I intend to take most of the time allotted because it is an issue raised by my good friend from Capilano-Howe Sound, a gentleman who brings great credentials to the House and to the debate. However, he ought to use more of those credentials in formulating his motion but I will come to that a little later because the effort allowing us to debate this issue is applauded. For that I applaud my friend from Capilano-Howe Sound.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate because the motion does have its merits. I am confident that the merits of the motion will be addressed in the budget which is upcoming.
Unfortunately, however, I have to say to him that the motion is also a bit tainted in several areas by a bit of simplistic thinking. I would have expected something different from him. It is tainted by a search for panaceas that if we do this and this, all of our problems will go away. I do not think he believes that.
Let me emphasize that the government knows full well that Canadians believe taxes are already too high. We agree with them on that. We would get a certain impression if we saw some people trying to start a tax revolt or in Mackenzie King's famous statement: "There go my troops. I must rush out to lead them". I am not sure which it is, whether they want to start the revolt, join the revolt or what. It is either naive or treacherous as the case may be but you decide, Madam Speaker.
Our priority objectives as a government are to stimulate economic growth while putting in place some real fiscal discipline. It is this double barrelled thrust that will ultimately allow us to reduce taxes in the years to come.
Let us remember that the tax and deficit relationship is a two way street. Every dollar of deficit borrowing we accept today will lead to higher taxes tomorrow. Every dollar we can trim from the deficit is a step on the road to keeping the tax burden down.
That is why the government's 1994 budget was in many ways a tax reform and a tax reduction budget. It included measures to eliminate loopholes and to increase tax system fairness and equity. It also committed to direct action to bring down unemployment insurance premiums, a payroll tax that acts as a real barrier to new job creation.
It was also a tax reduction budget because of the firm commitment made by the Minister of Finance to cut the deficit to 3 per cent of the economy in three years. Again, let me make this central point. Fiscal discipline is the key to long term tax
reduction in two ways. Obviously the less we have to borrow, the less we have to tax to repay the loan and its interest.
There is another important dimension to this process. Controlling government's appetite for debt is our fundamental tool for getting interest rates back down. Lower interest rates mean lower carrying costs on our $500 billion debt. Again that means fewer tax dollars that we need to spend.
I understand the tax fatigue that so many Canadians feel. I can appreciate that some may be cynical about the possibility of measures that add to tax revenues today in order to let us cut taxes in future.
That is why the 1994 budget undertook a program of net spending reduction over three years that is the most significant of any budget in a decade. Over 80 per cent of the net fiscal improvement delivered by the 1994 budget over three years came from spending cuts.
In other words, there was $5 in spending cuts for every dollar of new revenue increase. Obviously I am not in a position to talk about the measures that will be set out in the forthcoming budget, but the Minister of Finance has already made it clear that he will rely overwhelmingly on spending cuts to achieve his fiscal targets.
Lower taxes are important and this government is committed to working toward that. In the process we cannot ignore the facts. The views expressed by the opposition on the issue of taxation appear to be partly driven by a belief that Canadians bear one of the highest tax burdens in the world, but there is more political grandstanding than truth in that particular perception.
The Canadian tax foundation, a highly respected non-profit, non-partisan research organization, has recently made this clear. Among the 24 members of the OECD, an organization that includes most of the world's advanced industrial economies, Canada ranks 14th in total tax burden. That represents 36.5 per cent of our gross domestic product compared with the OECD average of 38.8 per cent.
I say to my friend from Wild Rose, if he heard the first part of my speech, yes it is a matter of concern. If the hon. member is going to vent his concern based on facts rather than fantasies he should first get at the facts. Among the 24 countries we are 14th in total tax burden.
Supply February 14th, 1995
Madam Speaker-
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns February 8th, 1995
What action is being taken by the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue to resolve the problems associated with the tax assistance for retirement savings TARS program, including the need to improve accountability for the costs and results of the TARS program; the need to review, revise and strengthen the current compliance strategy; and the need for both departments to improve the information provided to Parliament on TARS, as outlined by the Auditor General in his 1994 report?
(Return tabled.)
Income Tax Act February 7th, 1995
moved that Bill C-282, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (medical expenses-disabled senior citizens) be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that is very dear to my heart. I know so many disabled seniors who are in a terrible financial bind because of the cost of dealing with their disability, the medication, the equipment and so on.
At the same time, I cannot claim to be the first person to raise this issue in the House. Indeed a committee of the House, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons made recommendations to the House in March 1993. One of the recommendations was the very one that is in effect embodied in this bill, that the taxes that people with disabilities pay should be reduced by measures that offset their disability related costs. That is the spirit of this bill as members will see as I proceed.
The proposed amendment to the Income Tax Act is designed to give tax assistance to disabled seniors with out of pocket medical expenses.
The medical expenses tax is a non-refundable tax credit as members know, meaning that eligible medical expenses are added to other personal amounts. They are multiplied by 17 per cent, the result being deducted from federal income tax otherwise payable.
In less jargon let me put it this way. At present, expenditures on eligible goods and services required for medical reasons in excess of the lesser of 3 per cent of net income or $1,614 may be used in calculating the medical expenses tax credit. To say it yet
differently, you have to have $1,614 of medical expenses before you can have a tax benefit.
That is not particularly a problem if you are hale and hearty and earn $50,000 or $100,000 a year. However if for example you are a disabled woman of 70 years of age living alone on an income of $12,000 then $1,614 represents essentially one-eighth of your income. Fully 12 or 13 per cent of that woman's income is being spent to buy her required medications. This bill is intended to address that issue.
The amendment I am proposing here would remove the minimum threshold for tax filers age 65 and over and eligible to claim the disability credit. They would be able to claim all medical expenses from the first dollar, provided of course they are in the category of being disabled and senior.
I submit that the proposal is very justified by the disproportionate burden borne by disabled seniors with respect to medical expenses. For example in 1991 the average deductible medical expense for all taxpayers was $1,580. For disabled seniors it was $2,716.
Disabled seniors thus pay considerably more in medical expenses than the average person, while enjoying an income markedly lower than average. They are therefore prime candidates for tax relief with respect to medical expenses.
This is a time of cost consciousness and of deficit reduction. One question we should put on the table quickly is, how much would this proposal cost? The answer applied in 1991 terms is that across the country it would cost $2.7 million to implement this provision in the bill. Let us say in round figures, in today's terms, $3 million.
Who would it benefit? At the moment about 170,000 seniors who are disabled and poor. The statistics on disabled seniors are mind boggling. They are absolutely horrendous and they cry out for a bit of justice here. Let me show you what I mean.
Of people in this country aged 65 years and over, 46 per cent or 1,222,000 have some form of disability. Over 81 per cent of disabled seniors have a mobility or agility disability. Approximately 20,540 individuals or 8 per cent of the disabled seniors in households who require mobility aids do not have them. There are approximately 82,000 who require hearing devices and another 23,000 who require visual aids who do not have them.
Another statistic: Women with disabilities are four times more likely to be widowed than men. It is 56 per cent compared to 13 per cent. Another thing: Approximately 45 per cent of disabled males compared with approximately 72 per cent of disabled females report incomes under $10,000 a year. Nearly half the disabled senior males and three-quarters of the females had incomes under $10,000. That is the target group we would seek to help here.
Unfortunately this is not a votable item but that is the luck of the draw. I do not quibble with that. It is part of our procedure, but I do wish it had been votable. I know that all members of this Chamber would dearly love to have the opportunity to be identified with this particular measure. There is however another way. The government could introduce the measure as government policy.
I can tell the House that I spoke several weeks ago with the Minister of Finance on this issue. At that time he was quite favourably disposed to the suggestion which we discussed in some detail. I intend to pursue it with him and I invite other members of the House to do so as well.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to you privately earlier, while I am entitled to 20 minutes as the lead speaker in this debate, I prefer to split my time with my colleague for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. That will enable more members to speak to this particular issue during the hour we have assigned for this debate.
In conclusion, I say to all members that this issue of allowing disabled senior citizens to claim the first dollar of expenditure for tax credit purposes is an issue of compassion. It certainly is that, an issue of compassion. I do not think I need to elaborate for any members in this Chamber on what I mean. We can ease some of the pain for those people who are hurting on that particular issue.
Finally, it is also a dignity issue. These people have the double whammy of poverty and disability. In many cases the poverty is the result of dealing with the disability. Therefore in the name of dignity, in the name of compassion and some fairness I would appeal to all members of the House and the government to get behind this issue.
Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies) February 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I do not get my jollies by smearing people and I do not think that sets me above anybody in the Chamber. I do not think anybody in the Chamber really gets their jollies out of it. Sometimes we fall into the trap of doing it. I have fallen into that trap over the years myself, but that does not make it right.
Just now when I singled out an example of an earlier speaker in this debate-not only one speaker, two or three speakers-I did not name names. That would have defeated the point I was making that one smear does not justify a second smear because the thing just grows.
It seems to me, and I think I said it in my speech, that if people have concerns about the system and document those concerns-I recognize that some arithmetic has to be done-then those people have this label or those people do not have those qualifications. I submit that can be done without naming names and make the same point.
I would submit that the law of averages says that of all the people appointed, I dare say some of the 700 I mentioned just now cannot do their jobs. Of the 295 members of Parliament, probably some of them cannot do their job either. The law of averages takes care of those. Nobody is going to suggest that every one of the 700 appointments is absolutely brilliant. Some of them were, I would guess, clumsy, stunned appointments.
But that is different than saying that somebody is sitting here full time asking: "How can we warp the system so that only incompetent Liberals get all the jobs and nobody else will get any"? Well, if that is the thesis, prove it but do not smear people along the way.
Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies) February 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Kitchener on his first point, I tried to get the figure, but I did not get it in time. There are many hundreds of vacancies on government boards now because we wanted to do the review before we began appointing people to agencies that we either no longer need in
terms of the government's policy thrust, or did not need in such numbers.
For example, the ACOA board is going to be reduced from 18 members to 7. There were vacancies on that board, but it would have been foolhardy for the minister responsible, my friend from Cape Breton-East Richmond, to rush in and appoint those people, knowing full well it was the government's intention to reduce the size of the board.
As far as the second part of his question is concerned I say to my friend from Kitchener that I think I alluded to that in my speech when I said that both Liberal and Conservative governments over the past have been guilty of what I described-what I defined first but then described in the context-as corrupt patronage, where you appoint people of a particular party label for that reason alone, not because of their competence to do the job.
A party label ought not to be the reason for the appointment, but it should not exclude one from receiving such an appointment. That was my point. A fair amount of it has gone on in the past. What is more to the point is that since the government took office I believe it has been fairly diligent. It has had 150 backbenchers keeping an eye on it, as well as the opposition. It has been fairly diligent on this matter. I do not honestly believe that one can make much of a case that there has been an orgy of patronage under this administration.