Debates of Feb. 7th, 1995

Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies)

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his excellent speech and his very shrewd and wise comments about patronage. I wonder whether he realizes that many of the positions we have abolished were vacant. The government had the opportunity to fill them but chose not to do so.

I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on the contrast with patronage practices of the past. He has been a member for a considerable period of time. Could he make a comment on that fact?

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

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.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my colleague for his very interesting remarks and ask him to share his experience with us on this point.

All too often in my view we have heard-as he said in his remarks-names put forward that because there is some sort of party connection, that person should somehow be disqualified. Does the member in his experience feel that when a person levels that sort of a charge, there should be an onus on that person to show the individual appointed is in fact unqualified for the position? To do otherwise is just to smear people who may have this or that political affiliation, if that is the sole reason. It is my view that the onus should be on the accuser to put the case when they make the accusation.

I wonder if the member would share his experience and his point of view on that idea.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

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.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into this debate. I have just a couple of comments on the previous speaker's comments on patronage.

First I refer to the picture he has of the cow. I remember from history class another famous cartoon of a cow. Perhaps some other time he would like to comment on it. It is a picture of a cow kind of straddling the Canadian map. It is foraging on the east coast, being milked dry in Ottawa and its rear end is pointed toward the west. That is a famous cartoon. It is kind of humorous but sometimes I think there is an element of truth in it too.

On the definition of patronage, what causes concern for many of us on this side of the House is that the Liberals campaigned so hard against it. The red book comments on patronage. The definition of a patron includes someone who is a former owner of a slave. I guess depending on how you think their commitment is to the party that appointed them, a patronage appointment has a negative side to it.

I rise today to speak to this latest legislative initiative of the government, Bill C-65, which gives legal force to an announcement made by the the Minister of Public Service Renewal on the day that he announced the downsizing of a number of federal government boards eliminating 150 patronage positions. I assume he thinks that is a good thing. I certainly do. He even announced the abolition of seven councils and advisory boards.

Like so many other Liberal initiatives this legislation is a half-hearted attempt to placate voters rather than a fundamental change in the way government works. There is much talk about what is wrong with the system and the systemic change that is required. He is very accurate. I do not see that this legislation changes any system at all.

The Liberal government does not move quickly and decisively to resolve the problems that the electorate is angry about. It moves cautiously and slowly, inching far behind the will of the people.

On this side of the House we often wonder why. Why does the government drag its feet? It drags its feet because the government is elected, operated and sustained by a coterie of political friends. The way Liberal politics has always operated in this country is to weld together an extraordinary network of friends, often through the dispensation of favours.

The cabinet puts hundreds of old Liberals horses out to pasture. Three hundred and fifty government boards, councils and commissions liberally water these Liberal pack ponies until the next election comes along. Every four years a very long list of names builds up, very personal and private promises are made and if the government delivers it can be assured of continued support.

I want the House to know that the people who support the Reform Party now and in the future do so because they want good government, not because they have any chance of political patronage plums.

Even during the last election when Reform had relatively little chance of actually forming a government, they worked their hearts out. That is because Reformers believe that there is a different way to govern in Canada, that there is something called merit that overrides patronage concerns, that there is such a thing as pure political motivation where people get together and become politically motivated because they love their country rather than their salaries.

I am not saying that Liberals or even Liberal appointees do not love the country. I am saying that their love for Canada and their love of service to its people are sullied, are mixed, are mingled with the motivation of private gain in the minds of some Liberal appointees. When the collective will of the government, operated by thousands of Liberal friends in key posts, is expressed we are not surprised to find that any change from the status quo is slow and tortuous.

Over a period of many years, even in a time of financial crisis such as we are experiencing today, real change is agonisingly slow, even when the public demands it. The movement of the government is hindered by the collective will of people who are gaining handsomely from the old way of doing politics.

The old ways are passing. We are entering a new political time in Canada. Reformers foresee a government that is elected through the public demonstration of its value, its ability to act and react with speed and firmness to meet the real needs of the country, not the perceived needs of friends, of special interest groups, elite politicians and a few radical intellectuals.

The Reform Party of Canada was elected. It has support across the country because Canadians are sick of the old ways governments operate. In the last few weeks I have attended meeting after meeting in my constituency. I have talked with hundreds of constituents and they are very angry in my riding. They are fed up. They are sick to death of the old ways and the old spending, the old taxation and the old ways in which their will is reinterpreted by the government.

The Liberal government seems to have some kind of a hearing problem. When the people say no tax increases, the government hears them say readjust the tax system. That is just another way of saying there will be tax increases. When the people shout at the government that they are sick of patronage, the government hears them whisper they want to reduce patronage a little.

The government is hard of hearing. It does not understand what the people want. Canadians want a different way, a systemic change if you will, of appointing people to our boards, our commissions and our advisory bodies. The people do not want a little less of the same old thing, they want real change.

The Liberals cannot seem to hear what the people are actually saying. When the people say that they want a smaller, less intrusive government, the government repeats it in a different way. The government says "We understand. You want us to eliminate a few advisory boards that did very little in the first place. You want us to get rid of a few commissions that do not sit anyway". No, that is not what the people are saying.

The people are saying loud and clear-I hear it every day in my office-that they want to get rid of government agencies that look busy, agencies that are doing too many things right now. They want to get government out of their lives. They want to reduce the number of things that government does.

That is the difference between the Reform agenda and the Liberal agenda. In every way the Liberal government attempts to preserve the aging status quo.

The Liberals want window dressing. Reformers are window cleaners. The Liberals want theatre. The Reform Party of Canada wants real life. The Liberals want to throw today's hot potatoes into the laps of the next generation and let it pay for it. Reformers want to solve the difficult problems created by this generation in this generation.

That is why I oppose this legislation. Although it eliminates a few useless boards and commissions, it does not bite into the functions of government or into the systemic change that the hon. member across the way was mentioning earlier. Although it downsizes a few boards and eliminates a little patronage, it leaves the patronage system entirely intact. If it is left intact it must roll again.

Even this morning when I sat on the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons the last item on the agenda was order in council appointments. There were not many of them, just four, but nobody knows who these people are. There is no way one can stop these appointments. Even the other Liberal members on the committee did not know what it was about. They asked if this was a rubber stamp and the word came back from the clerk that yes, it was a rubber stamp. That is why, as I mentioned earlier, if there is no systemic change I will oppose this legislation.

Allow me to read the following. Some of it has been read before but I think it should be read into the record again. It is a list of patronage appointments being carried by the Globe and Mail . It is ironic that the list was compiled by a senator who used to work in Prime Minister Mulroney's office and today enjoys the rich patronage fruits of the old Conservative regime.

If the listener can get over the nauseating hypocrisy of this particular pot calling the kettle black, I will get on with the business of reading a short part of this list. Just to get your blood boiling listen to a few appointments that the Liberals have made. Don Johnston, former Liberal Party president to the OECD. It cost $100,000 just to win enough favour to get him. Richard Kroft, director of the CNR. Jack Wiebe, the Lieutenant-Governor of Saskatchewan. Nova Scotia Liberal fundraiser Robert Pace has somehow become a director of Canadian National and his partner in Nova Scotia, Mervyn Russell, is now chair of Halifax Port Corporation.

Robert Wright, a negotiator for the Pearson Development Consortium, did a really good job. I think he pretty nearly has the government into court now for a few hundred million dollars. Anyway, he was the Prime Minister's chief fundraiser for his leadership campaign and his services now cost us $1,000 per day. The whole Pearson deal was a Tory patronage boondoggle in the first place and the Liberals won the election partly by denouncing Tory patronage. I guess it is only fitting that one be appointed to investigate it.

I am sure all Canadians are happy that the Prime Minister's friend is benefiting from the old Tory patronage scheme in the same sort of a Liberal way I guess.

I will resume my list. Jean Cordeau, chief aboriginal organizer for the Prime Minister, is now director of Petro-Canada. That obviously tied together. David Maclean, a fundraiser for the Prime Minister's leadership campaign, is now chairman of CN Rail. Gary McCauley, a former Liberal MP, is now on the Immigration and Refugee Board, one of my favourites. He makes about $85,000 a year. Congratulations, Gary. Former Liberal candidate Bill Code somehow found his way to the NAFTA disputes panel. Yves Caron, a former Liberal MP, is now commissioner of the Canadian pension commission.

Michael McDonald, the financial agent for the minister of public works, is now a director at Enterprise Cape Breton. The minister of goodies is still at it. Andrew Ogarcenko, a well known Liberal from Winnipeg-not to me-is now the director of the National Arts Centre. He is the director of the National Arts Centre which is a great job. Perhaps that is why in Question Period today the Minister of Canadian Heritage mentioned that the Liberal Party is doing an excellent job of promoting culture in Canada. Of course a Liberal would be able to do that at the arts centre.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health had a very good campaign manager in the last election and he has received his award. Ron Longstaffe is now chair of the Vancouver Port Corporation.

Inderjit Bal was a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board for a while. He received his reward after organizing delegates for the Prime Minister and, who else, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. Unfortunately, Mr. Bal had to resign after it was found that he had entered Canada illegally himself. Otherwise, he was very well qualified in all Liberal aspects.

Richard Campbell is another campaign manager, this one for the Secretary of State for Veterans. He is now director of Marine Atlantic. We also have a judge or two. Judge Thomas Lofchik was with the Ontario Court of Appeal, a prominent Liberal organizer in Hamilton. I am sure that his appointment and his political involvements are just a coincidence. We have another judge, Federal Court Trial Judge Jean Richard. What was his connection? He was a partner of the Prime Minister in his old law firm. How about James Langston, former Liberal fund raiser and organizer, now on the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

The taxpayers will be happy to see that the totally pure system of justice is being used in this way. I could go on and on and on.

We have directors at the Bank of Canada, a host of appointees to powerful quasi-judicial panels and boards of large corporations. Patronage, I am sad to say, has even reached as high as the highest appointment in the land, that of the Governor General of Canada. He will be installed tomorrow, God bless him. On this side of the House we wish him well.

All of this is to say that we need a different, more objective way of doing appointments. We need to find a way to select the best, the brightest, the people who will help Canada to get ahead in the world. To cut out the motivation of money would do a lot of good for public bodies in this country or for political favours cut out that motivation as well. We might have fewer people helping out in political campaigns but the ones who do so might be motivated with a higher and more noble purpose, the ambition of the public interest unsullied by the hope of personal gain.

Big government is also a problem. For instance, we should not be reducing the board of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The board should disappear altogether along with the political machine that funds it.

The board of the Canada Council should not be made smaller. It should be wiped off the face of the earth, along with its funding of radical and violent groups like Buddies in Bad Times Theatre in Toronto, an organization which wrote a play suggesting that an editorialist who penned an negative column about its pseudo-masochistic seminars should be raped. That is good stuff. We have to keep it around. The Canada Council funds this group to the tune of $60,000 a year. I believe that any council with that kind of discretion is a danger to the public interest.

There are other boards, institutions and activities which government should no longer be involved in. This noble bill even goes so far as to create a new board called the Canadian cultural properties export review board with up 12 new members on it, 4 of whom have to have been art collectors or antique dealers. I can hardly believe it. Even when the government is downsizing, it is upsizing.

Patronage and big government are problems, big problems, and these are just two of the reasons why I cannot support this bill.

There are one or two things that it does eliminate which I wish the government would have left in. For example, there is now no minister required to table an annual report on emergency preparedness. I guess Canada will never have an emergency. Again, it is a small thing but why eliminate that board and keep these other ones in place?

Another one that comes to mind, again an accountability thing, a small thing, is the National Library of Canada, an important federal institution. The archivist now is allowed to destroy material without checking with anyone whether the material should or should not be saved. I would suggest in this day and age of political revisionists I seem to run into from time to time that there should be a check and balance on the powers of the national archivist. It is a small thing, an accountability thing, but I think that accountability should have been left in place.

Finally, I believe sunset clauses should be included on each of the boards so that legislation would not be required every time we wish to wind down the operation of a government body. On the less important agencies we could include a clause that would require the minister to close the operations of the board at a certain definable point. Perhaps a timeframe would be suitable of five years for most boards. After five years the board would automatically dissolve unless the government renewed it through legislation.

Requiring legislation to renew mandates would make it harder for these boards to be perpetuated long after their useful life is gone. It would require the government to justify their continued existence in the House of Commons and in the public. Of course it would reduce the Liberal pastureland, so to speak. It could do the taxpayer good and would make the government generally more efficient.

We cannot support this legislation. This legislation is not worthy of support. Let us see some changes in the process, some real changes in the way we do government. As soon as the government quits it showpiece legislation and comes up with something concrete I will be applauding it, not from the front row but from the fourth row. The Reform Party of Canada will indeed support concrete solid measures.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act, and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act, be read the third time and passed.

Immigration Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 6 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at third reading stage on Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act, and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. We have approximately 20 minutes left on Government Orders, so we will continue with the debate on Bill C-65.

Those of you who have other commitments will please leave the Chamber so we may continue with the business of Bill C-65.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies)

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand in the House today to address this particular bill. Before I begin I need to make a few comments with respect to the previous speaker, a colleague from the Reform Party who did

not stay around to handle questions. He was probably frightened to do so.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I know sometimes it is difficult when a debate is split, in this case by a vote. I think we all realize the commitments each and every one of us has to fulfil at times.

We should not reflect on the absence of any member from the Chamber at any time. I think it is a good practice and one we should maintain.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to add something else that has nothing to do with presence or absence. Mr. Speaker, have you ever envisioned that when Reformers speak a halo suddenly starts to appear around their heads? They come across as pure, white fallen snow. It is quite incredible. I am delighted to be a Liberal, because I am an ordinary human being who has strengths and weaknesses, unlike them.

Today gross exaggerations that I want to address were made by a member of the Reform Party, but they have not fooled anyone, and certainly not Canadians. Reform Party polls in the whole of Canada are lower than the Bloc's in the whole of Canada, and it is trying to tear the country apart.

Stay tuned. One of these days one of those Reformers will trip and the halo will fall down and crack. We will find out that the freshly fallen white snow is rather darkened and blemished. We will shortly see whether or not Reformers sin.

I want to get to this important piece of legislation.

It deals with the reorganization and dissolution of certain federal agencies.

What we are talking about today is a bill aimed at renewing government and restoring confidence in it. That is what this bill is about. It is a new type of government. A less cumbersome one. A government aimed at increased efficiency. A government that is responsive to the needs of Canadians throughout the country.

A government concerned with increasing government efficiency.

I want to quote this because it appears to be the only safe way to not be misquoted by certain members of this House. The red book says, "The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable". That has been extremely important to this government.

We know that Canadians are tired of large government. They have entrusted this particular party with the task of ensuring the careful management of public funds. They want honesty and integrity restored to their federal institutions. That is exactly what is happening in spite of the Reform rhetoric.

Some of my colleagues on the other side have a lot of difficulty listening to the truth. They jump and fidget and writhe whenever the truth is spoken.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

I will let you know if we hear some.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

In fact some of them have to rise from their seats because they cannot stand the heat. They are probably hungry too.

Mr. Speaker, you may recall that during the last budget the Minister of Finance announced that we would have a full-scale review to examine the size and relevance of existing agencies, boards, commissions and advisory bodies in order to achieve cost savings and ensure that if they were no longer needed or no longer played a useful role they would be taken out. That is what this bill is all about as well. The government has moved simultaneously on three fronts, which will lead to a leaner, more cost effective and efficient government.

Bill C-65 will bring into force decisions taken last July to reduce the numbers, and streamline or reduce the size of operations of certain agencies, boards and commissions where there is an interest to do so, when they are no longer as relevant or as important to Canadians, and where we can perhaps do without them.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that on July 8, 1994 the minister responsible for this particular initiative issued an interim report on the progress to date with the co-operation of his cabinet colleagues. He was able to report that decisions had been taken affecting 41 agencies and 9 different portfolios. Some people will scoff at that, but I assure you it is a major initiative and has been a successful one.

The legislation before the House today will place into law those decisions requiring legislative action, as necessary.

What I wanted to stress more is that we are abolishing and streamlining 22 government agencies. We are eliminating 150 positions filled by governor in council appointments. This is a lot; it is concrete, a success for this government. In concrete terms it means an annual saving of $1.5 million for taxpayers. This is only the first round of measures.

I am going to give you a few examples of how thorough planning pays big dividends. This is planning that the minister initiated with his colleagues. He then began a long process of consultation which ended in success, as in the case of Petro-Canada with a reduction of its board of directors from the current 15 to three. This is a major reduction.

I will give a few other examples quickly: the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, created 25 years ago, will lose 24 posi-

tions; the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will now have seven board members instead of 18. Another major reduction. Seven positions will disappear with the abolition of the board of trustees of the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian research fund, which manages funds intended for research on children's diseases.

But the interesting point is that this agency will no longer exist to manage the funds, yet research will be carried on and will from now on be performed by the Canadian Medical Research Council. That is good planning.

I can give the House another example of amalgamation of this type, namely the elimination of Emergency Preparedness Canada as a separate body. The protection it provided will not disappear, will always be necessary and Canada will continue to be well served in this regard, but this role will be taken on by National Defence and that makes sense. There is another example.

We tried to establish whether certain roles were still relevant, still served their purpose or had become superfluous. If they were found no longer to be relevant, had become superfluous, we eliminated them.

In cases in which it proved necessary to retain an agency, we attempted to determine whether its role could be carried out with fewer people, at a lower cost and perhaps more effectively.

Over a dozen organizations will have the number of their board members reduced resulting in significant savings. A few of those included in this group are, for example, the Canada Council, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Arts Centre and the boards of four of Canada's national museums.

Bill C-65 will give effect to the government's objective of identifying sensible and practical actions to eliminate overlap and duplication, and simplify government wherever possible.

As I have already mentioned, the review of agencies, boards and commissions is but one aspect of our government's overall approach to streamlining, restructuring and reorganizing government. The program review and the work in improving the efficiency of the federation are two additional initiatives which attempt to reach similar objectives.

For example, the government has signed action plans that deal with specific sectoral issues where overlap and duplication can be reduced or eliminated within specific timeframes. That has been done, if my memory serves me correctly, with nine provincial governments and two of the territories. That is important progress.

The program review is the other very significant initiative that will give the government a new look. It will result in a substantially different government, which focuses on core roles and responsibilities. It is very important to focus on what can be done and what we can afford to do.

There will be more announcements made with respect to those initiatives very shortly.

I would also like to mention, and I believe this is a point we should emphasize, the status quo does not exist, federalism is evolving. It is a system, not because of its ability to evolve but rather because of its ability to change and respond to changing needs and always be aware of the needs of its population.

Our ability to embark upon the measures which I have just mentioned is a function of a body, a system which is flexible, adaptable and able to respond to the needs of our society and our country.

By the same token, federalism is a form of government characterized by its adaptability. Our entire history illustrates the extreme flexibility of our system of government.

This point needs to be accentuated time and time again. Some people like to pretend government and its institutions have not changed, but this is blatantly false. Government continues to change. Those who will not admit it have not taken the time to look at it, study it, and really get into government to understand the profound changes that are occurring.

Perhaps more than anything else, Canadians want their government to be more responsive. They want governments to listen to the people.

I understand that all MPs want to suggest they hold the truth, that they listen to their constituents and that they should be listened to. I believe that collectively somewhere lies the truth. I have never believed that there is necessarily one answer to one problem, particularly in today's society. I have never believed that one member or one party holds all of the truths. I wish all of us could think about that.

By the end of this program review, we will, as government, have dissolved many other agencies, boards and commissions; eliminated more than 600 positions and effected savings of over $6 million a year for the taxpayers. In my book, this is an enormous success.

To sum up, there are three points I would like to stress. First, we have just reduced duplication and overlap in government. Positive progress has been reported but, more importantly, work will continue in that area.

In addition, agreements were signed with the provinces and territories to ensure that every level of government can deliver the services it is responsible for. What we want to do, above all, it to ensure the efficiency of government operations, so that

goods and services are delivered as efficiently and economically as possible.

This work must and will continue because it is through such initiatives, bringing about improvements on a daily basis, that we will eventually have a better government in Canada. We already have a very efficient government, but there is still room for improvement. No organization can claim that it could not be better.

I can see one of my colleagues from the Reform Party smiling. I think that, in all honesty, he should answer the following question. When I mentioned that the government we have is already a good one, but that it is trying to be better, it made him laugh. I have challenge for this person, a person who I am unfortunately not at liberty of naming, although I would love to and am tempted to do so, but I will not. He belongs to a political party. Does he think that everything is perfect with his party? Does he think that it cannot be improved in any way? Does he think that his political party has all the answers?

I would like to hear what he may have to respond honestly to these questions I have just put to him.

These are my comments for the moment.

As I have indicated, the government should be lauded for these initiatives. They will bring about a more effective, leaner government but not a meaner one. It is one that will attempt to respond to Canadians' needs, in fact one that will continue to respond to Canadians' needs and one that recognizes that we need to continue to improve in order to get even better than we are.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before recognizing the member for Fraser Valley West, I just want to make the House aware that at 6.50 p.m. we will move to Private Members' Business. With the two minutes remaining I will split the time evenly between the question and the answer. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess that means I cannot speak to this today. That is too bad.

I have a question for the hon. member who just spoke. First of all the assumption that this Liberal government already is an efficient government is not only suspect, it is a ridiculous comment. I do not think many Canadians would agree with that. If it is so efficient I would like the member to tell us why all of these charades are going across the country trying to get input into major changes. We just saw the human resources failure to prove that.

Since the member has said there has been good planning here and the government has cut the number of board members, I would like him to tell us how many boards are actually going to be reduced. Never mind the board members, there are only a few. Tell us how many boards are going to be reduced.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says there is an assumption that we are a good government. What I said was that we were doing a reasonable job, in fact a very good job in certain sectors and we are going to get better. The polls would confirm that. Check our polls against Reform's which are lower than those of the Bloc Quebecois and it is trying to tear this country apart.

With respect to travelling around the country and calling it a charade, let the record show that the Reform Party said consultation was a charade. What a shocking statement.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 6.50 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Income Tax Act

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

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.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I rise enthusiastically to support my hon. colleague from Burin-St. George's on this proposed piece of legislation. I think it is an excellent initiative and I support the proposal he has made without hesitation.

I do not think there is a member of Parliament in this Chamber who at some time or another early in the game has not heard from a disabled senior citizen who has not been able to find the financial means to survive like other members of our society.

Speaking of seniors in general, we have a large number of seniors in Canada and it is continuing to grow. In 1971, 8 per cent of our population consisted of senior citizens. In 1991 the census figures showed 12 per cent of Canadians were senior citizens.

The growth is very rapid. The latest figures I have seen show that by the year 2036 we expect to have somewhere in the vicinity of 25 per cent of Canadians as senior citizens. This I believe gives even more impetus to the suggestion the hon. member has made.

To recap, I will use some of the figures that may be slightly different from his, however the point is still the same. The purpose of the bill essentially is to make it more fair for disabled seniors, quite a few in Canada. Specifically, it removes the requirement for seniors to have to pay, to have to reach a threshold or to have spent a total of $1,614 or 3 per cent of their income, whichever is the lesser-it is usually the lesser based on the 3 per cent-before they can deduct the 17 per cent of their medical expenses; in other words, to get some return for an expense on necessity.

Why would we make this proposal? Yes, it is out of compassion and it is out of dignity. However, there are some figures that support the reason we should be proposing and supporting this. First, disabled seniors make less and pay more for medical expenses. The figures quoted by my hon. colleague are accurate. The average income tax return in 1991, the year for which the figures are solid, was $25,639. That was the average income for those people who filed taxes. The average income for a disabled senior was $23,069. That is 10 per cent less than the average income filed.

The average expense for medical deduction was $1,580, whereas the average expense for a disabled senior was almost twice that amount, $2,716. There is one reason we should seek compassion and consideration for disabled seniors.

The second reason is that not only is their income lower, the income is based on the average, but the median income, the income that is the most recurring, not necessarily the average, the one that is basically what most of the disabled seniors earn or make, is closer to a low income level.

I agree with the figures suggested by my hon. colleague. The last time I checked the figures of the 21,000 disabled seniors in the province of Newfoundland whom I represent, 18 per cent are from low income families.

We have a group of people who deserve compassion, dignity and to be given some more hope than the average person who is not disabled or senior who can perhaps more afford to absorb the expense.

I am very conscious that I am part of a government in which the hon. Minister of Finance is trying to scrape the barrel to find every cent he can. I think every member in this House is conscious of that no matter where we stand on the issue of the budget and how it is executed.

The fact of the matter remains that for the number of disabled seniors this would help, we are looking at a sum of less than $3 million. Three million dollars is a lot of money to you, Mr. Speaker, and it is a lot of money to me. What is it in the overall expenditure of things considering the target and the group of people we are looking at?

Consider that we give in the vicinity of $5 billion to business and it says it does not really need it and does not use it well.

There are a lot of loopholes that have been discussed in this House tonight, yesterday and before the Christmas recess. It is the subject of many recurring media reports.

Against that backdrop $2.7 million is not a great deal of money.

I have talked about the seniors we have. I also have to remind members that of the seniors in our country, 46 per cent have some kind of a disability. Of that percentage of 46, 84 per cent live in households. In other words, they do not live in institutions where medical care, wheelchairs, hearing aids and visual aids are available to them.

Specifically, of those who live in households, 20,000-plus or 8 per cent need mobility assistance and cannot get it. Thirty-one per cent need hearing assistance and cannot get it. Ten per cent need visual assistance and cannot get it. Why?-it is not because it is not available, it is because they cannot afford it.

I would suggest if this private member's bill were passed it would certainly ease the burden on that group of Canadians which is least able to afford the expense to basically enjoy the necessities of life.

There is another statistic that I did not recall from my hon. colleague. I was also told that of the expenses that seniors who are disabled spend out of pocket, 20 per cent is for prescription and non-prescription drugs. That is one-fifth of their out of pocket expenditure. That also gives some indication of the magnitude and the importance of this particular bill.

I am like most other members in this House. I have 72 seniors groups in my riding. I have visited practically all of them. I have never visited one from which I have not come away inspired; inspired by the leadership they provide their community in helping themselves, in providing activities and staying very much alive.

I also find they are a great inspiration to the younger members of the community, showing them how to live by providing examples of life as it can be lived and, perhaps more than anything, showing all the communities I represent and which other members of this House represent the whole idea of picking themselves up by their boot straps and moving together in co-operation so that the synergism of the groups and the individuals in the groups amounts to more than the sum of the separate individual members. In my riding the largest group has

about 80 members and the smaller groups in some of the smaller communities sometimes have ten members, sometimes less.

My point is yes, dignity; yes, compassion, but also hope. This measure would indicate to the seniors that kind of compassion that Canadians from all sides of this House have for them and for their well-being.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-282 proposed by my colleague from Burin-St-Georges.

The main purpose of Bill C-282 is to amend the Income Tax Act in order to exempt taxpayers aged 65 and over who qualify for the disability credit from the provision that only expenses exceeding the lesser of 3 per cent of net income or $1,614 are included in the calculation of the allowable amount.

In other words, this amendment will allow handicapped people over 65 to deduct from their income the cost of drugs and other medical expenses. This amendment changes the definition of formula symbol "C" in subsection 118.2(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The main effect of this bill will be to alleviate the disproportionate burden that medical expenses represent for handicapped seniors.

We all know that our old people spend a larger proportion of their income on health care than other taxpayers.

Some parts of subsection 118.2(1) of the Income Tax Act in its present form give us food for thought. For instance, we know that the medical expense credit and the disability credit are designed to alleviate the tax burden of eligible people. Subsection 118.2(1) contradicts this principle by taxing eligible people for up to 3 per cent of their income spent on health care.

Subsection 118.2(1) clearly violates the tax principles currently recognized in the Income Tax Act, thus requiring handicapped people to spend more.

According to a report by the National Advisory Council on Aging, seniors are twice as likely as the Canadian population as a whole to suffer from various diseases and health problems such as arthritis, high blood pressure, heart problems and respiratory disorders. They are also the most affected by physical and mental disabilities.

Again, according to the National Advisory Council on Aging, 44 per cent of men and 47 per cent of women in that age group suffer from various health problems. Seniors should get all the attention they deserve.

When the last budget was tabled in February 1994, the Bloc Quebecois denounced the fact that the tax credits available to our seniors were cut by $500 million. The Bloc Quebecois has always asked this government to restore equity. So the $2.7 million that this bill will give back to handicapped seniors is very little compensation.

I might add that just as the federal government was cutting tax credits for seniors, we learned that the largest proportion of seniors living in poverty was found in Quebec.

Bill C-282 is aimed at restoring a tax loophole. True, Canada is facing a major financial crisis and must put its fiscal house in order. This is why it is appropriate, just a few weeks before the next budget is tabled, to mention once again that the Bloc Quebecois asked for a thorough review of the tax system, so as to eliminate the loopholes used by high income earners and major corporations.

The Bloc also proposed efficient measures to reduce the deficit and control government finances without targeting the poor. These proposals, ten of them, were listed in the Bloc Quebecois's minority report on the pre-budget consultations, which was tabled in December.

As the Official Opposition critic on health, it goes without saying that I look at poverty with the issue of health in mind. Poverty affects 4.2 million people in Quebec and in Canada. There are 1.2 million children who live in poverty. A large majority of single mothers, women who are single parents, and seniors live in poverty.

The link between poverty and health was clearly established in several studies. Low income people, such as seniors, are more frequently ill, use more medication and require greater medical attention. Poverty among the elderly has increased tremendously over the last several years.

According to a study conducted by Santé Québec, almost all of the 25 most common health problems in Quebec are more prevalent among low income people than among those who are better off.

To better control the general state of health of Quebecers and Canadians, and thereby control health costs, we must first work relentlessly to solve the issue of poverty. By refusing to acknowledge the link between poverty and health problems, the federal government compromises the efficiency of our health system, thereby jeopardizing the health of a large number of Quebecers and Canadians who live below the poverty level.

If we look past the numbers and the statistics, we see real people, people who are suffering, people who are sick and are hungry, people who are waiting for the government to assume its responsibilities and to propose long-term solutions.

In conclusion, I would like to say that it has been proven without a doubt that the health of Quebecers and Canadians is closely linked to the endemic poverty that has swept across the country during the last recessions. Since it is well-known that this state of poverty, which affects too large a segment of the population that we represent, has a big impact on the cost of the

public health care system, we feel that we must urgently attack the problem at its root, which is poverty.

We should also remember that the men and women who are now seniors, only yesterday, blazed the trail and built with their own hands, their efforts and their lives, the Quebec and the Canada we live in today. Thanks to them, our society offers us a certain quality of life and certain values, because all through their lives, they worked to implant and strengthen them.

Today, these builders are taking a well-deserved rest. They have passed the torch on to us, and it is important, even our duty, to ensure that they be treated with respect during this period of rest to which they are entitled. Bill C-282 faithfully provides this respect. I have explained to you why I approve of Bill C-282.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on Bill C-282, I would like to preface my remarks by putting this in its proper context.

It was interesting when the member for St. Boniface was making comments in regular House business, he was saying that Reform members think they have haloes. No, we do not think we have haloes, not at all.

We do look at some of the actions of the government. We do look at some of the things it is doing, particularly when we look at the plight of seniors in our nation and how they will be potentially impacted positively, I might say, by Bill C-282. All of these things have to be put into context.

I draw to the attention of the House the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday which states: Treasury Board president had met bitter caucus resistance to serious pension reforms'', that is from the Liberals,in December. He said he could only promise the government will fulfil vows made during the 1993 election campaign''.

The issue in Bill C-282 is particularly near and dear to the people. They see the Liberals incapable of coming to a consensus on something very simple and straightforward. Return MPs' pensions to normal industry standards. What is complex about that? I do not find anything complex about it. I realize I should not imply or impugn values, so I would not use the word hypocrisy in that context.

I am also interested in some of the actions of the government. The Calgary Sun on the weekend noted that in the past year Ottawa has announced a $50 million anti-smoking campaign while at the same time giving away $400 million of taxes because it was unwilling to enforce the laws of the land as they stood. It established a new $30 million anti-racism committee and will spend $1 million to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Canadian flag.

I have had the good fortune of being able to travel offshore as a tourist from time to time. I am very proud of the Canadian flag, wear it on my apparel, have it on my suitcase. It stands for the great nation that we are. But to be putting out $1 million at this time for a 30th anniversary when we are talking about the enactment of Bill C-282 being a potential cost of $3 million to the treasury, the numbers just do not add up.

While I do not see in any way the concept of Reform members feeling that they have haloes, on the other side of the coin I can see why Canadians might say to themselves: "I do not understand a party where there are such willy-nilly things all over the place that just do not seem to make any sense".

Before I begin my comments on this bill I would also like to say that I really applaud and salute the member for Burin-St. George's for his initiative on this. His intent is very laudable.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-282, an act to amend the Income Tax Act on medical expenses for disabled senior citizens. As has already been recited, the purpose of this bill is to lower the threshold for deductibles of seniors for the medical expenses tax credit. It lowers the threshold by altering the formula for determining the medical tax credit for disabled seniors by means of rewording item (c) of subsection 118.2(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Under the current law the first $1,614 dollars, or 3 per cent of net income, is required to be spent before it can be taken into account for income tax purposes. The bill would make it possible for all eligible medical expenses from the very first dollar to, in effect, be income deductible for senior citizens.

The reason for targeting disabled seniors for redress is because their higher medical expenses and lower incomes leave them with a disproportionately high relative cost from the limited deductibility. It is estimated that the average deductible medical expense for disabled seniors is twice as high as that for all other tax filers.

The proposed amendment to the Income Tax Act could result in a potential revenue loss of approximately $3 million. Certainly not a huge amount in light of the numbers we were just talking about; a $400 million giveaway for taxes on cigarettes no longer collected. Actually I understand from other sources that it will be $800 million and $50 million for an anti-smoking campaign to counteract that. It seems to me we are getting close to a billion dollars when we add on the $30 million plus the $1 million I was talking about. Therefore, $3 million certainly is not a huge amount.

On the face of it, the bill seems fair and equitable. By altering part of a formula for the purpose of allowing disabled seniors

more deductions for medical expenses is part of horizontal equity. In my judgement the current rumours very rampant around the country that the government is going to be taxing medical and dental benefits would all be part of this whole thing.

I see the bill as an attempt to square a circle, the circle being the targeting of disadvantaged seniors inadvertently targeted by an aberration in the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the bill itself is not disturbing. As a matter of fact, I would probably as revenue critic for my party recommend that we seriously consider supporting it if it was votable.

What is disturbing is discovered by attempting to determine the effects of the bill. The bill amends subsection 118.2(1) of the Income Tax Act. In that subsection is a formula for the medical expense credit. Let us look at just this little snapshot of some of the complications in the Income Tax Act.

I have to read this. The formula is a(b) minus c (minus d) where a is the appropriate percentage for the year; b is the total medical expenses of the individual; c is presently the lesser of $1,614 and 3 per cent of the individual's income for the year; d concerns the income of dependants and spouses as claimed by the person filing for the medical expense tax credit. Part c of the formula is altered by this bill by adding (a) an amount under section 118.3. Section 118.3 deals with a tax credit for mental or physical impairment and (b) an amount under subsection 118(2), in which case C is equal to zero.

That is really terrific. Therefore we have before us in this simple one-page bill which touches the medical expense credit, the tax credit for medical or physical impairment and the age credit, a bit of an idea why Canada's Income Tax Act is over 2,000 pages long. One can see how it got to be that big. That is a matter of philosophy. Let me describe the philosophy that leads to an ever-growing act and a constantly increasing tax burden on Canadians.

There is perceived a need or deficiency encountered by certain individuals such as, for example, mental or physical impairment. I really admire the work of the member from Newfoundland but he believes that the government is to be used as an instrument of action that enacts or changes legislation to address this need.

I certainly accept that this was done with the best of intentions by well-meaning individuals, as was the case with this bill. What happens when the government acts to address the needs of only one group of people? Other groups and individuals seek to address their problems through government action. That is how we ended up with age credits, medical expense credits, GST credits, charitable donation credits, political donation credits. The list goes on endlessly.

The Income Tax Act quickly changes from being straightforward legislation which sets rates of taxation and strictly defines taxable income into an amalgamation of credits, write-offs, grants seeking to redress or placate every group in Canadian society. This is the snowball effect where the small snowball starts at the top of the hill and picks up speed on the way down the hill.

What the Liberals fail to ignore or to understand is that the fiscal crisis we are currently in is not a result of a few years of unbalanced books. It is a result of a conscious decision in the 1960s and the 1970s of the government to involve itself in the lives of its citizens to an unprecedented degree. The involvement of the government into the lives of citizens, once begun, is very hard to slow down, to stop and even harder to reverse. What we see in this band-aid legislative proposal is that a band-aid would not stop the Titanic from sinking.

It further complicates an overwhelmingly loaded, confusing and complex collection system. Combined with the Liberal's blind homage to the outdated concept of big brother knows best, Canadians lack real hope of reform.

As I mentioned, if this was a votable bill, I would be recommending to my caucus that we support it for all the good reasons that will be expounded. But the real reason in my judgment for this bill to even have to be in place is the complexity of the Income Tax Act that the government refuses to do anything about.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend a few moments tonight addressing the House on the benefits of Bill C-282 and to congratulate my hon. colleague from Burin-St. George's for his initiative and work since 1993 on this valuable legislation.

No doubt every member's riding, the same as mine in Cumberland-Colchester, is comprised of large numbers of senior citizens, many of whom are disabled. Most members, including myself, have parents whom this bill would potentially affect. In fact, it is the disabled parents and grandparents of this nation to which this bill is addressed and not just a change in the Income Tax Act. It is a statement of principle, namely Liberal principles, of how the government views and treats our rich resource of knowledge and wisdom, our human resource, our seniors, particularly our disabled seniors.

These are men and women who have worked hard all their lives and have jumped one of the last hurdles toward retirement only to find themselves struck with the financial burden along the way having become disabled and not able to enjoy the fruits of their life.

Unfortunately, though, we helplessly watch as they grow older, the ravages of time and disease claiming their strength and vitality. They often require extra support from the medical community which in many cases was neither expected nor

accounted for. This can easily drain their retirement savings, if they have any, and as a result many seniors end up being the responsibility of the other spouse or some overworked social worker.

For many seniors as they go beyond the 65 year mark their medical expenses in ratio to their income rises far beyond their ability to maintain anything human in lifestyle.

It is inevitable that all people will eventually need some form of medical attention as they grow older. However, when the cost of this required attention becomes so burdensome that their overall financial freedom and quality of life are reduced, the so-called golden years become bitter tears.

Added to this indignity, the Income Tax Act in its present form drops an extra load on them by not allowing adequate concession to deduct their medical expenses.

As has been stated by my hon. colleagues, the allowable limit on the medical exemption tax credit is the lesser of either 3 per cent of net income or $1,614. This means that the cash outlay for seniors up to this amount is taxed as part of their incomes.

This should not be. We should be giving every consideration to retired Canadians, especially those who have had the misfortune of falling prey to a disability.

Technology kept in its rightful place is a wonderful thing. It has allowed individuals to progress from caster boards to modern electric wheelchairs. Microelectronics now allow hearing impaired individuals to do away with listening horns and progress to highly advanced optometry. All of these aids cost money. One of the beneficiaries of this great technology is the disabled senior but as it presently stands many cannot afford these technology products.

A Statistics Canada survey on senior's health and limitations says that 8 per cent of disabled seniors who require mobility aids do not have them, 31 per cent who require hearing aids do not have them, 10 per cent of those requiring visual devices do not have them. The reason is financial cost.

The income of many disabled seniors is low. Sixty per cent of seniors with disabilities have an average income of less than $10,000. Many simply do not have the money for medical prescriptions or appliances for their needs.

We must remember that these people are the ones who built this country with their ingenuity and labour, who fought our wars and who endured hardships in the darkest times. They are parents, school teachers, doctors and neighbours.

Jimmy Carter, former President of the United States, defined the quality of a nation: "A strong nation, like a strong person, can afford to be gentle, firm, thoughtful and restrained".

There have been many comments from Canadians in recent years over the faceless and heartless form of government. We have been accepting of the norm and we are tolerant. I do not wish to see this Liberal government remembered as a faceless or heartless government. We must move back toward the gentler, thoughtful and restrained days of the Government of Canada they have known before these present years. Our firmness will not be lost. We are a strong a nation. We can afford to show our elderly consideration.

What this bill is about is the cost of taxation that is too high to a particular sector of society which has a low ability to pay. This is inequitable. It is also very unfair. What this bill is about is putting fairness in the Income Tax Act for our disabled seniors. What this amendment does is allow all medical expenses to be deductible for disabled seniors.

Recently I received a letter from a couple in my riding who are in the position of many disabled seniors across this country. They wrote to me and I telephoned them to get permission to read a little of their letter:

Dear Mrs. Brushett,

I am writing on behalf of my husband and myself to express our concern for the government's proposed changes to social programs such as old age assistance. Our concern is for people like ourselves who are trying to live on fixed incomes, pay our usual living expenses, buy prescription drugs, walkers, wheelchairs and special devices, some of which we pay taxes on when purchased.

While we realize something must be done about the deficit, the answer is not with people who don't have much of a chance of helping themselves.

When we talked to Mr. and Mrs. Tower of Amherst, Nova Scotia, they said "We are getting by. We are able to make do. We do not have much left but we are able to make do".

This bill would allow eligible medical expenses from the first dollar to be effectively income tax deductible. This bill would help people like the Towers of Amherst, Nova Scotia.

We have the opportunity as a government to exhibit strength of character and to make adjustments for those in this country who need it most. We cannot let this issue die only to be brought forward again in the future by those who may not see particularly as clearly as we do today.

Finally, I wish to re-emphasize that Bill C-282 is going to effect the people who need it most. It will not be a set of statistical data sitting on a storage shelf collecting dust. It will not help the research notes of political science students. It will

help living, breathing human beings who need help most in our communities today.

In the spirit of the words once spoken by the Right Hon. W.E. Gladstone I would affirm: "Show me the manner in which a nation cares for its elderly and I will measure with mathematical exactness the tender sympathies of its people, their respect for the laws of the land and their loyalties to high ideals".

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if adopted, Bill C-282 would amend the Income Tax Act to remove, for taxpayers aged 65 and over and eligible to claim the disability credit, the requirement that only expenditures on goods and services required for medical reasons in excess of the lesser of 3 per cent of net income or $1614 may be used in calculating the medical expenses tax credit.

We in the Bloc Quebecois support this proposal, since all medical expenses would be fully deductible from the income of disabled seniors. This change in the system would be made by changing the definition of formula symbol "C" in subsection 118.2(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Disabled seniors have substantial medical expenses that are often higher than those of other tax filers. The 1993 national advisory council on seniors sketched the following picture of the health of seniors in Canada: About 80 per cent of seniors aged 65 and over said they were suffering from one or several chronic conditions, while only 20 per cent said their activities were restricted to the point where they required assistance in getting on with their daily lives-this according to statistics compiled in 1991.

It is clear that limited deductibility represents an enormous expense for disabled seniors, considering their many medical expenses and low incomes. These people pay taxes on amounts that may represent up to 3 per cent of their income, which is not in accordance with currently recognized tax principles.

The proposed amendment would only provide tax relief in terms of expenses actually incurred. It would not change the provisions on production of receipts, which are already included in the Income Tax Act. The 1993 national advisory council on seniors also described the health problems of seniors, saying that seniors aged 65 and over were twice as likely as the rest of the population to report respiratory problems, arthritis and hypertension, and three times as likely to report cardiovascular problems.

Among seniors, the percentage of mentally or physically disabled in 1987 was 47 per cent for women and 44 per cent for men. These ratios, together with the rate of multiple disabilities, tend to increase with age. During the 1991 tax year, the latest year for which data are available, 153,490 tax filers aged 65 and over claimed the disability credit.

Of this number, 91,050 had taxable income. This is the group for which the proposed amendment could represent an additional cost to the federal tax system. Of the 153,490 filers, 18,380 claimed medical expenses greater than the deduction limit.

Basically, if the amendment were passed, all these taxpayers could see their medical expense credit increase by three per cent of their net income, that is to say by the amount they used to have to subtract on their return.

On the other hand, this amendment affects a larger group: taxpayers with medical expenses lower than the deduction limit, often under $200, who would also be claiming the medical expense tax credit.

The approximate figure of 91,050 disabled senior citizens with a taxable income is indicative of the potential number of claimants. If you subtract those who are already claiming the medical expense credit, the total number of persons affected is 80,000.

Combined tax expenditures in terms of basic federal income tax on both groups, the old and new medical expense credit claimants, for 1991 are about $2.6 million, without the federal surtax which, if it were added on, would bring the grand total to about $2.7 million. This amendment to the Income Tax Act is needed to improve the quality of life for handicapped seniors.

A Canadian Press article published in the January 26 edition of Le Droit quotes a just released study by the national advisory council on aging as saying that Quebec seniors are the poorest in Canada and that Quebec holds the dubious record of the highest poverty rate among people aged 65 and over in Canada. According to the council, despite some improvement in their economic situation, many seniors, especially those living alone, live in poverty. The council also found that women aged 65 and over have less money than their male counterparts, a gap which increases after 75.

Old age security is still the main source of income for seniors, especially women. People aged 65 and over get over 50 per cent of their income from government programs.

The study shows that in 1992, the percentage of people making less than $15,000 increased with age, especially among women.

A Canadian Press article published in the January 21, 1995 edition of Le Droit stated that middle-class workers would not be able to spend their old age in comfort and that, according to the Canadian institute of actuaries, taxing RRSPs would have disastrous consequences. The institute feels that this measure would lower the savings rate in Canada and increase public

expenditures in the long term, when the baby boom generation reaches retirement age.

In the future, the challenge for individuals and decision makers will be to balance the various sources of retirement income, so as to ensure that private and public retirement funds, along with personal savings, will be such that the largest possible number of Canadians and Quebecers can enjoy an adequate standard of living in their retirement years.

It is essential for the government to realize that it must not cut into social programs and thus reduce the quality of life of our seniors. Rather, it must cut into the family trusts of rich Canadian families, since assets held in these trusts are not subject to capital gains tax for several years.

These trusts allow rich families to protect part of their family assets from generation to generation. Family trusts, which were introduced in 1972 by the Trudeau government, required a deemed disposal of assets in trust after 21 years, that is in 1993 for trusts set up before 1973.

The Bloc Quebecois has nothing against family trusts; however, it does object to their use as tax loopholes. For example, the Bloc is against the deferral, to the next generation, of the tax payable on capital gains. We also ask the government to release the figures on the value of assets held in family trusts and on the loss of tax revenue resulting from the deferral of the tax payable on capital gains.

The Income Tax Act should also be amended to prevent Canadian companies with subsidiaries abroad from using the fiscal losses of these subsidiaries to reduce their taxable income in Canada.

Bill C-282 is an act to amend the Income Tax Act so as to eliminate, for taxpayers aged 65 and over who are eligible to the credit for disability, the applicable reserve. This bill is acceptable, since disabled senior citizens are often among the poorest people in our society.

As spokesperson for Canadian associations and organizations representing seniors, I once again pledge to ensure that this social program review does not become a mere exercise to cut into programs which protect the poor, and particularly the elderly.

I have always been firmly opposed to letting the federal government reduce the deficit at the expense of our seniors, who have worked all their life and who deserve a decent standard of living.

We support this measure because all the medical costs would be deductible from the income of disabled seniors, and we feel that this amendment is essential.