Debates of Nov. 19th, 2002

Supply

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following this debate this morning and this afternoon with a great deal of interest because it is a debate about finding a balance.

I remember when the new rules for the disability tax credit came in some years ago. I felt that it was a positive thing, because we do not have to be members of Parliament sitting in our constituency offices to know that there are those Canadians who, for reasons that may be psychological, reasons in their own backgrounds, make much of what may be only limiting disabilities, make much in the sense that they use these limiting disabilities as perhaps an excuse not to work, an excuse to withdraw from society and an excuse not to participate.

I think the parliamentary secretary made a most important point when she underlined the fact that the disability tax credit is supposed to be applied to people who are severely restricted in their ability to participate in society. It is not intended to reward people for having a disability. In that sense I supported the change that came down, because I think that at that time we on this side of the House, and this entire Parliament, were reviewing the way in which government social programs were being applied. We went through, I think, a period, particularly in the late seventies and throughout the eighties, of general irresponsibility in terms of how we were applying our social programs insofar as many people were taking advantage of the social programs who did not genuinely need them. I think we were losing many, many millions, if not billions, of dollars, because we did not demand scrutiny and accountability on the way programs were applied. I think this is the case in point with the disability tax credit.

As a member of Parliament since the program change came in, I certainly had experiences where people came in who were questioned. That was what happened. There were 106,000 Canadians who were automatically receiving the disability tax credit and who were suddenly required to justify, in documentation by responding to a questionnaire, why they should still be receiving the disability tax credit. Indeed, I did have in my office, I remember very vividly, a person who came in. She had filled out the questionnaire. Her disability tax credit had been refused. When she came to my office it was very evident that she was suffering from an extreme form of arthritis. Literally, her limbs and her fingers were tied up in knots.

The reason why she was denied the credit was that she had replied on the form that she was still going out there and being active in the community, so it was assumed by the bureaucrats that this was a person who did not have a severely restrictive disability. In fact she did have, and what was happening is that she was paying for her courage in losing this disability tax credit. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I naturally intervened as best I could in her case. Indeed, it was reviewed and she did get the credit in the long run.

However, I contrast that with other people who came into my office and talked about the fact that they had been denied the disability tax credit. While one cannot get into the minds of people, it did seem very apparent that just by the way they moved around and the way they spoke and everything else, they did not seem to have the type of disability that would prevent them from participating in society in some useful way or, indeed, earning a living.

The problem is how to strike a balance between those two extremes. It is very, very difficult. One of the things that has fascinated me about this debate today is a sort of shift in sides between the Liberals on this side and in particular the Canadian Alliance on the other. We expect the NDP to always be in favour, as they always have been, of applying money, basically without question, to social problems.

I do not mean that in a disparaging sense but, shall we say, the social left of the political spectrum tends to put the money ahead of the requirement to make sure the money is well spent.

[An hon. member]

The conscience of the nation.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

On the other hand, the Canadian Alliance has always argued, as do most people of a conservative ideology, and I do not like the word ideology, of a conservative attitude, shall we say, and would normally argue that we must have accountability and transparency in the system and we have to do everything we can to make sure that when we apply money to social programs it really does reach the people in need.

What struck me as so fascinating in the remarks, particularly from the Canadian Alliance, is that social programs are always risk management. The key thing that I would have thought differentiated Liberals from the Canadian Alliance is that the Liberals would say that we should err on the side of compassion if the choice is simply saving money, to always err on the side of compassion rather than saving money. What has delighted me enormously is that this is the argument that I have been hearing from the Canadian Alliance members. They have been saying constantly to err on the side of compassion in this program, not on simply saving money.

I agree with that. I would think and I would hope that all members of the opposition would agree with that. In the end, we have to try to find a balance. As responsible parliamentarians and lawmakers, we have to try to make sure that money for social programs is spent effectively, but we always have to bear in mind, as an earlier speaker said, that there are those who would abuse the system, there are those who would defraud the system. Whether it is a disability tax credit or it is money for poverty programs, drug programs or whatever, there are always those who will abuse the system.

We must try to set up rules that are effective, but in the end I agree this time with my Canadian Alliance colleagues that always we should err on the side of compassion.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon. colleague across the way used the key word in all of this, and that is accountability.

I want to ask the member a question. He is a member of parliament who has offices, as I do. When people come in and intrinsically he does not think they are disabled, does he do anything to discourage them from applying? Does he simply say to them that it is a long row ahead and to go ahead and apply if they would like to?

I think we have a role to play as well. We as members of parliament definitely have a role to play. I have personally asked “How disabled are you?” Mind you, I have had them apply. I said I did not want to support that at all. I ask the hon. member opposite, does he individually assist those who he has a real gut feeling qualify for disability?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly MPs in their constituency offices should not play God. On the other hand, I do try to be scrupulously honest. When it is a person who in my view does appear to have a severe disability, then obviously I will intervene as best I can, but we have to be honest with those who may be kidding themselves. When people come in and want to claim that credit and they say they have a disability, then when we interview them and we think to ourselves really that does not fit the criteria, we have to still in my view take them at their honest word, but we have to be candid with them.

I do try to do what is right with all the people who come before me in the office and sometimes it is a matter of giving them very bad news.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague at least said he does not want to play God.

I would expect and hope that each and every one of us as intelligent members of Parliament would not for one iota of a minute suggest that we would be able to look at people and decide what medical problems they have or what disabilities they have. That is just not the way it works. That is why the recommendations of the committee were that it should be decided on an individual basis. The medical profession should be used to give the information that is needed.

I had the situation where an individual sent me a letter from his physician. It was life or death if this man did any kind of work. I had the letter from a specialist indicating that. I had to fight for a disability credit for that person. I had the physician's note saying it was life or death. This person looked no different than any of us. He could walk down the street and do other things, but could not do everything and could not work. He has a disability. It is not cut and dried. That is why the way that CCRA and the government's legislation is put into place is not working. It is not fair.

Quite frankly to suggest for a second that as MPs we should discourage anyone from claiming it without knowing is not our job. It is our job to say what the process is and to go to a doctor. What we are asking is that CCRA and the government not make it tougher on disabled people and not make it so they have to go back time and time again for a review. They should accept the fact there are disabled people out there who are getting a minimal tax credit. It is no different than a tax exemption for a child because of age. It is the same as getting a tax exemption because of disability.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the member is saying because it sounds as though the member is playing God.

I do not see anything wrong with being honest with the people who come before me. To simply say that everyone who comes before me should use the bureaucracy and we should let the bureaucracy decide, is that the answer that she really wants? She contradicted herself because what she said on the one hand is to leave it to the bureaucracy to decide and then in the next breath said that I intervened in this particular case.

We all agree that when someone comes before us we need to intervene and check very carefully to see whether there is a problem. One just does not simply say, “In my view, you should go to the bureaucracy”. When we look at them and see in our heart of hearts that people need an entirely different kind of help and not a disability tax credit kind of help, we should try to be honest with them. I do not see any problem with that and I will have to continue the way I am.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to what my colleague across the House had to say. I hope he understands that under the CCRA rules the tax credit requires people to produce a receipt. It is not a matter of an honour system. That is well lined up with the platforms and policies of the Canadian Alliance. Erring on the side of compassion is something that members of our party do at all times.

In light of what the member has just recently said, and having listened to us now for quite a long time and having heard what we had to say on this particular issue, is the member now aware that he should not possibly have believed what his spin doctors in own party were saying about the Canadian Alliance because it was not factual?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I often find myself at odds with Canadian Alliance policies, but I often find myself very much in agreement with individual Canadian Alliance MPs. I feel that all of us are motivated by the same ideals in the House. We run under different flags, but we all have the interests of Canadians at heart. This debate is a good example of it.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this NDP motion by my colleague from Halifax.

I agreed to speak today because, as many of my colleagues here in the House are well aware, I have a disabled child. This is a subject close to my heart, and I am on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

This is a matter of such importance that I feel each member of this House ought to take the motion into consideration, a motion I trust is not intended merely to spark a debate in order to demonstrate the unjust situation that exists in today's society. It is not just a debate for the sake of debate; I trust the motion will be taken as seriously as it deserves to be. It deserves not just majority support, but unanimous support.

It is time some thought was given to the disabled. It is time to create some all-encompassing programs that will provide them with some continuity. The bulk of these people live below the poverty line. I believe that 43% of the disabled are said to have incomes of under $10,000. Hon. members can imagine the number of people experiencing difficulties.

When I hear such nonsense as I have just heard said about a member, who has had some significant comments to make about the disabled and our duty to help them and then is subjected to remarks about her playing God, it seems to me better God than the devil. It is unbelievable that anyone would make such comments about a member who understands the situation, because indeed she does understand the situation of the disabled. Let that hon. member come and repeat to me what he has said to her and I will have a one-on-one debate with him. It is unbelievable that anyone would say such things.

I was a member of the sub-committee, but unfortunately, due to certain responsibilities that I took on related to the House, I was forced to step down, but not for lack of interest. I am still interested in it and I attend when I can.

The sub-committee managed to come up with a unanimous report, despite the fact that it is no mean feat to do so in the House, unanimous reports being something rare, especially since 1993. However, the sub-committee managed to get the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to adopt it. The report calls for changes to the T2201 form for the disability tax credit.

This whole debate stems from the fact that people who were eligible for the federal disability tax credit between 1985 and 1996—some 106,000 persons across Canada—received a letter telling them that they would be reviewed. I could talk about many cases, people who came to my office and other cases I heard about. Allow me to share one such case with the House, involving the parents of a child with a trisomy disorder who received a letter to re-evaluate their child to see if the eligibility for the disability tax credit still applied. It makes no sense whatsoever and demonstrates flagrant disrespect.

The unanimous report called on the government and its officials, who do not seem to know how to treat people properly, to apologize to the 106,000 people who received this letter. This government shelved the report and refused to apologize to the parents of persons with disabilities who received these letters.

There was a second mailing—I am not sure if it was sent out—of some 65,000 more letters, even after we in the committee and the sub-committee had said that it made no sense and that the government should apologize. They sent out the second mailing to some 65,000 people.

I do not know how hon. members see this, but it is insulting for these people, who already have difficulties and who have a hard time making ends meet. We are only talking about a tax credit. In order to get a non-refundable tax credit, these people must have earned an income. They must have been in a position to pay taxes. In other words, they must have earned enough money to have had to pay some taxes.

We are talking about $960 in taxes before a person can get a tax credit. Imagine the costs. I am in a good position to say how much it costs to raise a child with disabilities. I also think about what persons with disabilities must face to earn a living for themselves and their family. These people live well below the poverty line. It is incredible to see the conditions in which these people live. We met some of them in our offices, in committee and in subcommittee, but we also see them in our daily lives.

We must give these persons—and I say persons because they must be considered as such—all sorts of possibilities. We must also give possibilities to parents, including time to get some rest. Take the case of parents who are professionals and who work about 70 hours per week, if not more. These parents are sometimes forced to take full days to go to the hospital. Still, their work must be done. Let us not forget that, in order to succeed in life, based on the criteria of today's society, we must be productive. However, if these parents do not work for several months, or even a year or two because they must go to the hospital every day or almost every day, how will they explain this situation to their employer?

Yes, I have a disabled child. Some people have two. The government must take into consideration what I am saying. Today, I hope that all members of this Parliament will set aside party politics when it comes to such an important issue.

The faster choices and comprehensive programs are provided, the better. We are not talking about six-week return to work programs whereby, at the end of the six weeks, participants cannot use what they have learned to get a job. Once the program is over, they are told “Sorry, if you wait another three to six months, there will be another equally useless program”. That will not do; these people must absolutely be provided with the education and training they need. They have to be given a chance to learn and to enter the workforce.

These people work exceptionally hard. Here is an example. This is a person who is now on a national basketball team as a back-up. We just heard this person and a colleague are going to climb Mount Everest in their wheelchairs. That is good. These are individuals with extreme goals, but who nevertheless need support; they need to have the government protect and support them, not say “You are in a class of your own, and we have nice programs for you. You will be fine with the programs we give you”. Programs and opportunities must be provided which ensure that these persons become full-fledged members of society who can earn a living and support their families. They are not back-ups. They need help so that they can take charge of their own lives.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow you could be affected, or your wife. It is all the more cruel because we have not control over what may happen to us. Each of the 301 members in this House is a potential disabled person. We must not wait for it to happen to us before we realize what is going on. We need to take our heads out of the sand, and listen up. What I have to say today must be heeded, as must what the disabled have to say, along with their associations and health professionals.

As for the tax credit situation, these people, and I count myself among them, have come to say that they need help, that the form in question needs amending. It is important for health professionals to be involved, and not after the fact. They must not be presented with a draft form and asked to tell the public servants who created it whether it is OK or not.

These professionals want to have a part in drafting the form. The organizations responsible for persons with disabilities, and the disabled themselves, want to be involved right from square one, with the objective of allowing more disabled people to be eligible for this tax credit.

A person has to have an income if he or she is to take advantage of a non-refundable tax credit. It is not something special that the government can stash away, announcing that the disabled do not need help. These people do need our help. They need the representation I am providing here in this House today.

We are hearing ridiculous comments like those contending that the Defence budget can be raised overnight by $4 billion without any knowledge of what we want our soldiers and our army to be doing. For us, the objective would be to first of all find out what the army needs to do before talking about putting another $4 billion into its budget.

Imagine what could be done with $4 billion for persons with disabilities. We could help them, and not simply with tax credits. We could set up programs that would allow them to live their lives with dignity as parents, as mothers and fathers, and also as children, to not think that they are a burden on the family and society, and especially not on the government. When we truly help them, they will understand that we have helped all of society. They will be a part of that society and we will be happy to live alongside them.

We must not have preconceived ideas and simply feel sorry for these people when we see them. There are all kinds of disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities, with which I am less familiar, but they exist.

On the subject of intellectual disabilities, people sometimes have to travel very far in order to have this form filled out. In the case of intellectual disabilities, people sometimes have to see a doctor eight or ten times. For doctors, it is not just saying, “There you go, that's done”. They are going to charge to fill out these forms.

In our unanimous report, we asked that, at the very least, the fees doctors charge to fill out these reports, be refunded. Doctors fill out the form just to show that the claimant or the claimant's dependent has a intellectual or other disability. People are forced to pay them just to say that, and they are not even refunded that money. We are not asking a great deal of the government. It is not much to ask it to sit down with stakeholders.

Something incredible is going on. The Bloc Quebecois is touring Quebec on this issue. We are in the process of preparing draft legislation. The parent of a child with a disability went to the Federal Court and won. The government was not at all pleased. A person with a disability won because she had difficulty digesting food. She was deemed to have a disability, and therefore eligible for the tax credit. According to the government, this could be just the tip of the iceberg. They view it as dangerous.

The government immediately introduced a draft bill to change the definition of feeding and clothing oneself. What does it mean to feed oneself? It simply means bringing food to one's mouth and swallowing it. That's all.

Think of all those with digestive problems and difficulty feeding themselves. Should persons who can feed themselves but take half an hour to swallow three bites be considered as disabled or as being able to feed themselves?

This is ridiculous, and I am not dramatizing. I find it hard to believe that, in a free and democratic society, in 2002, in a country accumulating surpluses, the government would not even have the decency to take into consideration the unanimous report we have prepared. We did convince the members of that sub-committee, on which government members sit, and the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

How many times have we heard the line “Debates are held, where you can express your views. See how democratic we are. You even have committees where you and persons with disabilities may come and express your views. You have been heard. See how wonderful our Parliament is?” How can the same government, which has members sitting on these committees who are unanimous, take a report like this one and shelve it? My feeling is that shelves are akin to garbage bins here. This shows a lack of respect for the members of this Parliament, and for the members of this committee in particular.

In November 2000, I came to this House and asked colleagues who are still here “Will you listen to what the parent of a child with a disability has to say, a parent who happens to be a member of Parliament? I suggest we seriously reconsider our position”. I think it took no more than three sitting to get the committee to change its mind. We were on the point of doing an about-turn, but in the meantime, a specific incident happened; I told you there were 106,000 signatures concerning the tax credit. We took concrete action. I figured if we tried to do too much, it would not work. But we are used to this. Except, they took our report and tossed it in the garbage.

I am very disappointed by the government, in such a rich country. And I am talking about Quebeckers or Canadians. Be serious and do not lock yourself up in your offices without bothering to know what will happen here today with such an important motion. We will vote on this motion. However, as we all know, even if a motion is a votable item, it is not a bill. It is a directive that we must give to society and our society follows the directives that the government and the executive branch give to it.

If the scope of this draft bill, given the legal example that I just gave, is not broadened to allow people with disabilities to receive this tax credit—in fact the government is even trying to limit this scope right now—I do not understand anything anymore.

How can the government have so little heart and be so petty as to target society's most vulnerable members? The same thing happened with the guaranteed income supplement for the elderly. For a number of years, under this same government, the elderly were entitled to an income supplement that could reach $6,000. The government is once again targeting the disadvantaged.

This supplement to which the elderly are entitled is a right. It is theirs and all they have to do is to fill out the form to get it. The Bloc Quebecois provided information on this and people are thankful for that.

This same government has accumulated a lot of money over a period of several years. It is said to have received in excess of $4 billion, but it will not give that money back to taxpayers or to the elderly.

Before, when a person was entitled to something, he could submit a claim and it would be retroactive for three or five years. However, when the government saw that there was money left in the coffers, it amended the legislation to provide for just one year of retroactivity.

I do not know if hon. members are getting the picture, but as far as seniors are concerned, the law is being changed to prevent retroactivity and the government is keeping the money to which they are entitled. As for the disabled, the tax credits are being restricted and the programs that are created are so minimal, rather than treating them as worthy individuals who are part of our society and earn their own way. Think about the EI fund, and the $40 billion grab. The money is no longer there. They used it to pay down the debt, when there are all the problems in the softwood lumber industry and so on.

Whether one belongs to the Canadian Alliance, the Liberals or the Progressive Conservatives—I do not think I need to convince the NDP of this—the disabled need to be helped immediately.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc, who has shown a very compassionate and sensitive involvement in our disability subcommittee, for his comments today.

Families of persons with disabilities and all advocacy groups have said to us that they forgo income, they forgo sleep, they forgo a great deal emotionally and financially to care for family members with disabilities. They pick up thousands of dollars of costs in terms of drugs, assistive devices, transportation, special shoes, special foods, special adaptive devices. There are many significant costs.

The latest figures put out by the National Council of Welfare show as a percentage of the welfare costs that they are below the poverty line. Persons with disabilities continue to see a decrease in terms of their overall income in provinces such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and many others.

Based on the real disparity that is rampant for persons with disabilities, does the member support the concept of a refundable tax credit that recognizes the costs of disabilities and a tax credit that more accurately reflects the actual costs to individuals with disabilities?

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the answer would be yes. I will give an example.

My son is four. He has outgrown what we were using for him to get around. We have to think about applying for an adapted chair, because it is a one-time subsidy. Do we use it at age four, or age twelve? When will it be needed.

We have to ask ourselves: when is the best time to use the subsidy? The government has money, and I am in a bind, as is my child, and I have to make a choice. I ought not to even have to think about such things. There ought to be provision for it. People need money to live in dignity, whether for a prosthesis, a wheelchair, a bath, or even a special toilet seat, and all these things should be part of the refundable tax credit. Why? There is a lot of technology available now, and people must be able to live in dignity. This has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the financial state of the government or the country. Do not try to tell me it does.

I told you earlier. I took the example of National Defence, with its $4 billion budget. It would cost much less than billions to enable these people to live with dignity without tiring themselves unnecessarily. To determine whether I am entitled to a given piece of equipment, I have to read up on this program, that subsidy. Only to find out that this other program or subsidy applies.

It takes my son's mother, myself and others a lot of time to look after all that and determined which subsidy to apply for and at what level. The process could be made simpler. People with disabilities and health professionals will tell you. I am not referring to officials here, but health professionals. It is the same thing for people with mental disabilities. They need this or that. They should be able to buy what they need and get a refundable tax credit.

The figures are dramatic. As we can see, the figures available date back to 1991. It is perhaps time for new figures; we are asking for studies. Imagine, we have gone more than 11 years without up-to-date figures. It is time this government acted and asked for new figures.

In 1991, it was reported that 43% of adults with disabilities had an income under $10,000, and 26%, under $5,000. Between you and me, the refundable tax credit will not be much help to them.

In 1997, it was reported that a mere 40% of persons with disabilities in Canada indicated labour compensation as their main source of income, compared to 78% for persons without disabilities. So, to your question, I answer, yes, a refundable tax credit is necessary.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. These kinds of messages need to be heard by the majority government. There are two government members here. I call for quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

There is no quorum. The bells shall not ring for more than 15 minutes. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

We have quorum.

Before the quorum call there were three minutes left in questions and comments.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member what he thinks of some of the requirements that are in the legislation. People are required to be evaluated on perceiving, thinking, remembering, feeding, dressing oneself, speaking, hearing, eliminating, walking, et cetera.

The committee recognized that the government had left out one of the most vital functions of living and that is breathing. What does the member think about the government saying no, that it is not a vital function it would want to add to the list?

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is because there is not enough air opposite. Clearly the form needs changing. Clearly what it contains is utterly ridiculous. That is why it needs changing. The form is incomplete. It is poorly written. It is complex and it should allow people to be assessed for disabilities.

The main goal should not be to save as much money as possible with the form. It should allow persons with disabilities to be assessed as such, whether their conditions make it difficult for them to breathe or feed themselves. When we talk about feeding oneself, it does not simply mean putting food in one's mouth and swallowing. Feeding oneself is much more involved than that.

Imagine the way this form is to be interpreted. We must ensure, right away, that the government does not introduce the draft bill that it is planning. It must realize that people who need this tax credit should not be restricted. This, at least, must be respected.

Also, people should be able to have the form filled in by health care workers, persons with disabilities themselves and organizations that understand this better than the government; of this I am sure. We have to listen to these people; they will help us fill out the form. Please, we cannot simply leave this up to the bureaucrats, who will be given the order to provide as little as possible for people with disabilities, when these people should be entitled to more.

Committees of the House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the membership and associate membership of the Standing Committee on Official Languages be deemed tabled and concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the minister for ACOA.

The debate raises a number of questions that are interesting for the House to consider. There has been a lot of work done, beginning with the work done some years ago by the member for Fredericton when they first began to look seriously at the question of providing greater support for people with disabilities. The work by the subcommittee that is the subject of the motion was an important piece of work that rightly had all party support.

It raises a question in the minds of all of us. I think it is a question that I and those of us who are on the government operations committee want to spend some time thinking about also. The question is why is it that smart people make stupid decisions? It is a funny question in a way.

I was a public servant within the department of family services in Manitoba for many years. Some of my colleagues and certainly those in the minister's office would call it the department of personal pain. In many ways government has to work in space that is very difficult for people, dealing with crises and great problems in their lives. The government tries to act to provide some remediation and it can never satisfy the demand.

In fairness to the public servants, they are always caught in this terrible collision between a huge level of demand and an equally strong pressure to maintain a balance or control on public expenditure. Yet every now and again caught in that nexus it is too easy to forget what is actually happening.

About two and a half months ago I received a call from a fellow I know in Brandon, Manitoba. He said he had applied for the disability tax credit for his daughter and was refused. He wanted me to help him understand why. I know his daughter. His daughter was born without her left arm; she has nothing from just below her shoulder.

I said that this could not be possible, that obviously some mistake had been made and somebody just did not understand what was going on. I thought maybe he had submitted the wrong form. I said I would see if I could sort it out. When my staff called the department they were told that because the child was born without her left arm she never would have missed it and therefore she could not be considered to be disabled.

I am not a lawyer, but I did study a commercial law course once and I remember the professor talking about the principle of the reasonable person. Would a reasonable person standing back and looking at that circumstance think that was a reasonable response? Of course he would not. It is absolutely outrageous.

By and large I have a great deal of respect for the public servants here in Ottawa and across the country, but how do smart people end up making a decision like that? How do smart people end up getting themselves so tied up in knots that they get so focused on the definition they have to apply and how to apply it that they lose sight of the fact that they are applying it to a human being?

I think that is an interesting question. It is also one that speaks to a related issue which is the need for the members of this chamber to become more active on these issues. The example of the subcommittee is an excellent one. By and large by allowing ourselves to become caught up in short term fatuous partisan debate, we have forgotten that part of our role here is to represent a set of values.

I have debates with the Auditor General all the time. I have great respect for our Auditor General. I had great respect for the last one; I worked closely with Mr. Desautels and I like the new Auditor General very much. I think at times the Auditor General gets called upon to determine or state what is valuable because of an absence of direction from this chamber. While the Auditor General's staff may be great people to count the pennies, they are not necessarily the people who should be determining the values of the country. That is a job for us.

It is passing strange to me. Just as I was sitting here listening to the debate I sent up to my office for the most recent report on tax expenditures, because this is essentially a tax expenditure. One document says it is about $360 million a year. Another report says it is $310 million but that report could be a year out of date. That is the total expenditure we are making to assist in making lives a little bit easier for some of the most vulnerable people in our country.

We seem to spend not a lot of time debating the fact that we give $1.7 billion in tax expenditures to people who win lottery tickets. We give $590 million to people who pay a little interest so they can earn more money. We give $565 million to people to deduct their union dues. We give $260 million toward the deduction of luncheon expenses. We seem to do these things with relative ease, yet when it comes to providing a relatively modest amount of additional financial support to a group of citizens who are by definition among the lowest incomes and most vulnerable in society, we tie ourselves in knots trying to find ways not to do it.

Surely it is a response of a system that has gone a little mad. It is important that the House support the work of the subcommittee. The subcommittee did what we say committees should do in undertaking their responsibilities. Members from all parts of the country and all political persuasions came together and reached unanimity.

Unanimity is not an easy thing to do around here. Many of us would argue that we would be a lot better served if we strove harder to find unanimity in our committee reports and we would be far more influential if we did that. We finally have one that did it.

The subcommittee looked at the issue in detail. Very talented members spent a lot of time looking at the issue. In their responsibilities as members of Parliament, they came to a set of conclusions they believe are in the best interests of the people who are affected by this. The members did that unanimously and the House should support that work. We should applaud them for what they have done and frankly, we should urge other committees to do the same thing.

Given the conversations I have had with other members in the House, I think that the work of the subcommittee has been largely accepted and is respected by the government. I suspect we will find that the government will vote for the motion. I look forward to the opportunity to do so.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot turn down the opportunity to thank the hon. member for his very thoughtful rumination on why it is that smart people do dumb things. I find that a very interesting phenomenon. I have thought about that a lot at various times of my life.

I appreciate the respect the member afforded the subcommittee's work. As a member of the subcommittee I concur that we did an enormous amount of work. More to the point, we heard from hundreds of people who know clearly what is needed at this point in time. We synthesized the material and put it forward for this chamber to deal with and to take seriously. I thank the member for his support.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the informed debate and the different views that have been expressed in the House this afternoon but as well during the course of several weeks of discussion about a very important issue that touches upon the lives of so many Canadians who are reaching out to better their own lives and to participate as full Canadians in a full society.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of one of the previous speakers, the hon. member for Winnipeg South who has been a passionate leader in speaking out on issues related to those who require assistance, those whose lives have been touched, not only by disabilities but, more important, by abilities.

The level of the discussion we are having today comes from the hard work at the committee level, the people who believe that we have a responsibility to assist people in gaining full access and full control of their own lives. I think this is what the hon. members opposite and hon. members on this side of the House have really been promoting, and it has come through loud and clear in this discussion.

It may be worthwhile to continue on with this informed debate and discussion to outline some important things that all members of the House should continue to reflect on and be aware of.

The federal government does have several tax measures that help with the costs associated with disabilities above and beyond the disability tax credit. Some provide tax assistance to caregivers while others help to reduce barriers to labour force participation for persons with disabilities.

The medical expense tax credit, for example, assists people who face above average medical expenses. In 2002 the tax credit equals 16% of the qualifying medical expenses in excess of about $1,700, or 3% of net income. It also might be worth pointing out that the list of eligible medical expenses is regularly reviewed and expanded to keep pace with new technologies and needs of Canadians. That is an important element of an evolving assistance program.

I would also like to reinforce the fact that the caregiver credit, which this government introduced in 1998, helps the many Canadians who provide in-home care to adult loved ones. For claimants, this measure alone represents an annual tax benefit of almost $600. There is also the tax assistance to individuals who care for an infirmed relative who may live in a separate residence. The amount used for calculating both this and the caregiver credit increased by almost 50% on January 1, 2001, from $2,386 to $3,500.

Perhaps bottom line figures, however, rather than examples, would better illustrate our government's commitment to persons with disabilities through the tax system. The 1996 total federal tax assistance to Canadians with disabilities amounted to some $600 million. Today the total is approximately $1.1 billion. That is an increase of almost 80%.

Clearly that is where the government's priorities are. Since assuming office back in 1993, our government has remained steadfastly committed to helping people with disabilities and using the tax system as an important element to our strategy.

However the federal government provides assistance to persons with disabilities through more than just the $1.1 billion provided through the tax system. Assistance is also provided through direct spending programs.

More than $4 billion in support is provided to Canadians with disabilities through the Canada pension plan and direct spending programs. Some $3 billion is provided annually by the Department of Human Resources Development Canada through the Canada pension plan and key departmental programs such as employability assistance for people with disabilities, the opportunities fund, the Canada study grants and the social development partnerships program.

It is also important not to forget the Department of Veterans Affairs in this role, another key federal player, which provides direct funding totalling over $1 billion annually for veterans with disabilities.

It is clear to me that when we look at the whole picture, instead of focusing on just one aspect of federal assistance to persons with disabilities, a clearer picture emerges.

This brings me directly to the disability tax credit itself. As all hon. members in the House know, the disability tax credit reduces an individual's federal income tax by up to $989 per year. In total it provides approximately $400 million a year in federal tax assistance.

Those who are proposing the motion called on the government to act on the recommendation of the standing committee report entitled “Getting It Right For Canadians: The Disability Tax Credit”, and in particular the recommendations concerning the eligibility requirements of the disability tax credit.

As all hon. members are aware, the government released its official response to the report on August 21 of this year and has indicated that it is indeed taking action on a number of recommendations. While the government' s response is not structured on a recommendation by recommendation basis, it is comprehensive and addresses all recommendations in the committee's report.

Let me highlight three specific principal committee recommendations on which the government is indeed taking firm action. First, the government has agreed to conduct an evaluation of the disability tax credit when key data become available next year.

Second, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is already expanding its consultations on improving the application form for the disability tax credit.

Third, the government will continue to consult and assess tax assistance for persons with disabilities on an ongoing basis to ensure its effectiveness.

It is important not to forget, as I mentioned earlier, that the overall tax assistance for persons with disabilities has increased about $1.1 billion per year from $600 million in 1996. Again, this is an increase of 80%. In light of the third recommendation, which I discussed a minute ago, I can assure the House that the government will continue to review tax assistance for persons with disabilities on an ongoing basis to ensure its effectiveness and its appropriateness.

No one can argue that the government has not been responsive to the priorities and needs of persons with disabilities. Think once more of the substantial enhancements to the disability tax credit, to the increased tax assistance for families caring for children with disabilities, to the increased support to caregivers and to the enhancements to the medical expense tax credit and that case is well proved.

We do recognize that there are important contributions that can be made to refine the system. I think that is why the motion from the New Democratic Party is timely and we will be reviewing that in due course.

In addition to federal tax assistance and spending, it is important not to forget that the provincial and territorial governments, as well as the voluntary sector and groups representing persons with disabilities, play an important role in helping to achieve this overall objective.

We should note that in the Speech from the Throne at the end of September the government announced that it would put in place targeted measures for low income families caring for children with severe disabilities.

The evolution continues. The priorities that were outlined in the Speech from the Throne built on the conviction that we must add to the work of our ancestors and leave a better place for future generations. That definitively includes a better place for persons with disabilities, people who have huge contributions to make to each and every one of us and to society. That is a commitment to which the federal government remains steadfast.

I want to say how much I appreciate, not only the input from the members opposite, but the members from this government, members who worked at the committee level who continue to advocate, lobby and express the need for expanded measures that really get to the core of how we ensure the complete integration of persons with disabilities into the community at large. The contribution they make equals the contribution we all make. We all grow as a nation when we have full participants, full Canadians building Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, Terrorism.