Debates of Nov. 19th, 2002

Supply

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about the disability tax credit, which is a non-refundable disability tax credit at the present time. I would like to look back at a recommendation made by a member of his government in a 1996 report entitled “Equal Citizenship for Canadians with Disabilities: The Will to Act”.

The recommendation was for a refundable tax credit. The point of a refundable tax credit is to more accurately recognize the cost of disability. At that time the member said that a disability tax credit would combine the best features of the disability tax credit and the medical expense tax credit, and that like the DTC, the new credit would be available to persons with disabilities that prevent them from performing the basic functions of daily life even with the assistance of a technical device.

I would like to have his comments on a refundable disability tax credit.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the committee produced a unanimous report outlining specific recommendations. I believe it was the Scott report that she was referring to. If I understand correctly, all the information was available to the committee to make its recommendations.

Looking at the range of programs available to those incurring disabilities, our objective is to integrate them fully as participants in the mainstream of society because that is possible and it is our responsibility to do so. A number of different initiatives can be adopted.

The committee, which we are responding to in measure today, was an all party committee. It had a wealth of information at its disposal and it made recommendations.

However, at this point in time it would be more appropriate for me to simply stand in response to the committee report to which the government has already responded. It is something that encourages further debate and discussion.

Other measures can be taken. Obviously the recommendations in the Scott report are things that will not easily be shelved nor should they be shelved. It continues to allow us an opportunity to look at all aspects, all tools, all things available to us and to respond accordingly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. parliamentary secretary of state for ALCOA referred to the desire to treat people fairly. Another parliamentary secretary earlier today said that the government wanted to ensure that all who reapplied would be treated fairly and consistently.

Under section 118.4(b) it states:

an individual's ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time ,even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable...to perform the basic activity of daily living;

It goes on to list things such as “perceiving, thinking, feeding, dressing”, et cetera.

My question is about the line that says “even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication”.

Many times people have to spend their own money to buy those things which then disqualifies them for credit. Does the member believe that this is an item of unfairness that needs to be changed?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, through you, in your role as Speaker in the Chamber, I must correct the hon. member on my title. My title is Minister of State of, not ALCOA, but ACOA.

It is very clear that a number of different initiatives have been employed, can be employed and will be employed. The technical rulings found within the legislation have been vetted through various voluntary sector groups, as well as through broad consultations with Canadians.

There is a purpose to establishing a criteria based on when the disability tax credit is brought into play and that affects who is eligible versus who is not eligible.

A very specific question has been raised but seeing that there is more to move on to today, I will take it under advisement.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to contribute to the debate today on the supply day motion concerning the disability tax credit.

By this motion, the House is asked to call upon the government to “level the playing field” for Canadians with disabilities. It is considered that such leveling of the playing field would be achieved if the government were to act on the unanimous recommendations of the committee report, “Getting It Right for Canadians: The Disability Tax Credit” and by this motion the government is so directed.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I neglected to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River.

To get back to the report, the government is particularly directed to act on the committee report recommendations concerning eligibility requirements for the disability tax credit. At the same time, the government is asked to withdraw proposed changes to this credit that were released by the hon. Minister of Finance on August 30.

As the House already heard this afternoon, 106,000 Canadians with disabilities have already been affected by these changes after finding out that they were no longer automatically eligible and would have to reapply for a credit that they had been receiving for years. Given the concerns that have been expressed by various groups potentially affected by these changes, the views of the hon. Minister of Finance are particularly anticipated during the course of the debate.

I first want to commend the hon. members of the New Democratic Party for bringing this motion before the House. It would be preferable to be debating the actual proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act since, as many have noted, the House legislative agenda appears thin at this time. However in the absence of a debate on the actual legislation, a debate such as today's is particularly important and timely.

Disabled Canadians routinely face challenges that able-bodied people do not have to consider in their everyday lives. In many cases meeting those challenges means extra effort, extra time and extra expenses. The disability tax credit helped to offset a small portion of those expenses by providing a tax break to disabled Canadians.

Under the changes to the disability tax credit, even that small bit of relief has been removed for many Canadians who no longer are eligible for the credit even though their disability has not changed or lessened in any way.

The range of mental and physical afflictions Canadians deal with on a daily basis is staggering and often cannot be adequately described on a standardized form, as is required to be eligible for the disability tax credit. Some disabilities are more of a burden than others and we must recognize that some people are more challenged than others. With fewer people receiving tax savings through this disability tax credit, the government is punishing the people who need the most help, and that is a tragedy.

One example that comes to mind is a gentleman who contacted my riding office after he became ineligible for the disability tax credit. This man lost part of his leg and uses an artificial one to help him get around. Because he is able to move at least 50 metres using his prosthesis, which is counted as a device, the gentleman is no longer eligible for the tax credit that he had been receiving for the past 14 years. According to the government, he is no longer disabled enough to receive the credit. How absolutely ridiculous when in fact the opposite is true.

The gentleman feels he is becoming more disabled as his age increases and his body begins its natural decline. He also feels let down by the system that is essentially penalizing him for taking advantage of the prosthetic technology that allows him to improve his mobility.

The disability tax credit is refused to people who are able to meet performance criteria with help from a device, such as my constituent's prosthetic limb. The irony is that disabled persons often spend their own money on devices that will in turn allow them enough functionality to make them ineligible for the disability tax credit.

Another constituent, who is legally blind, expressed her frustration with having to fight to have her tax credit eligibility reinstated after she was informed she no longer qualified. Again, there was no miracle as far as her eyesight was concerned. Her disability was as real as it always was, just not in the eyes of the government.

After many visits to specialists, this constituent was able to prove her disability but felt the process was time consuming, insulting, annoying and frustrating. She says she understands there must be checks and balances in place to avoid fraud but feels the disability tax credit is now too restrictive and forces the disabled to go to too much effort to prove their condition.

Finally, I would like to share a part of a letter I received from Canadian arthritis patients alliance members, Anne Dooley and Joy Tappin, with whom I met to discuss the concerns I had heard about the disability tax credit and how it affected disabled Canadians.

The letter states that four million Canadians battle arthritis and the number is growing. In Saskatchewan, there are 140,000 people with arthritis, 1,000 of them children.

It goes on to say that arthritis can have a devastating effect on individuals, families and communities. It is the biggest cause of long term disability in Canada and costs taxpayers $17.8 billion a year in direct and indirect costs. However the physical and socio-economic costs to the men, women and children with disabling arthritis and the families that care for them is most felt at home.

It goes on to say that the burden can be awful. To help offset some care costs, the Disability Tax Credit to a maximum amount of approximately $960 a year was put into place. However a review by Canada Customs and Revenue of 106,000 individuals receiving the tax credit, denied one-third of claims for 2001. This was because a more restrictive Disability Tax Credit Certificate, Form T2201, had been put into place even though the criteria for eligibility had not substantively changed since 1991. This affected all disabled individuals, not just those with arthritis.

Further it says that consultations between CCRA, medical professional associations and disabled groups during the summer of 2002 produced recommendations that have been ignored by CCRA. A far more restrictive Form T2201 has been drafted and the Department of Finance proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to further tighten eligibility. The people who need this money, in most case, haven't the funds or the strength to appeal.

The recommendations that were referred to in the letter came from the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and Status of Persons with Disabilities, which tabled a report on March 14 on the government's handling of the disability tax credit eligibility review.

The report, which featured 16 recommendations, including an apology to the 106,000 Canadians who were informed of their ineligibility by way of an ill-worded letter, is not supportive of the government's proposed disability tax credits or the way the eligibility review has been conducted. So far the government has ignored the unanimous recommendations of the report.

Disabilities affect many Canadians. We must do our best to ensure that they are not any more disadvantaged than they already are. In the case of the disability tax credit, disabled Canadians are not asking for any additional consideration or benefit. They simply ask that the tax credit, which has been in place for many years, be left alone.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, is my colleague aware that the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have passed unanimous recommendations to take the issue of the disability tax credit to task and want it to be reinstated as it was?

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, no I am not, but I thank the hon. member for making me aware of that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Blackstrap for a very good speech and her very interesting views on this issue. I have heard a number of speakers today express very sincere interest in this issue.

I would ask the hon. member to consider what I see as a glaring contrast within the government's taxation policy. I have been pointing out over and over again to the government and to members on this side as well that I find it outrageous that a business can deduct fines and penalties from their income tax as a legitimate business expense and the government does not seem to take any steps to recoup this revenue. Yet it finds unlimited resources to launch a nationwide campaign of harassment on disabled people, as if the disabled community is full of fraud artists or something scamming the government for this paltry $960 per year.

Does the hon. member see, as I do, what a glaring contradiction and contrast this is and what a warped sense of priority this is in terms of taxation policy?

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate is all about and why it has been brought forward this today. We have heard all afternoon that the contrast is glaring and that people are receiving deductions for all sorts of circumstances. People who are truly disabled and really need assistance are only asking for a tax break. They are not asking for any money. They are not asking for new ramps for their wheelchairs.

Yes, I do believe there is a glaring difference.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the NDP motion calling for development of a comprehensive program for disabled Canadians. It recommends accomplishing this by acting on unanimous recommendations of the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, in particular, the withdrawal of the proposed changes to the disability tax credit.

The disability tax credit was established during the second world war to recognize the fact that individuals with severe and prolonged impairments often faced additional, non-discretionary expenses for basic living that reduced their ability to pay tax.

It has quite a history. Prior to 1996, Canadians applying for the disability tax credit went through an assessment process administered by their physicians but very few were subjected to a post-assessment review. However, after 1996 the CCRA began to review claims before it assessed individual returns to determine whether the applicant was eligible. Once approved, however, those Canadians who were approved believed they could count on receiving the credit as long as their circumstances did not change.

That was not the case and we have seen a hue and cry across the land. I do not think there is a member in the House who has not had contact with constituents complaining about it, because in 2001 a full review of the disability tax credit was begun, with a poorly worded and confusing letter and form sent out in October to all 106,000 recipients requesting them to re-certify because CCRA did not have enough information to continue allowing claims for 2001 and future tax years. This request caused a lot of upset in all communities. My constituency office was certainly bombarded by people who were cut off as a result of that. I know that many MPs from across party lines heard the same stories: people with disabilities who had been qualifying had to re-certify and no longer qualified.

The member for Blackstrap related a story. I have a constituent with a somewhat similar story, one of the many who contacted me. The man is working in the oil patch. He lost a leg somewhere along the way in his life. He was receiving the disability tax credit. He has a prosthesis and he had to have his vehicle fitted so that he could move around and work from site to site. Of course when the form came through, the question the doctor had to ask as a result of the revenue agency's request was whether the man could walk 50 metres unaided. This is a proud person, a man trying to earn his living even though he has a severe disability. He said of course he could. All of a sudden he lost his disability tax credit.

He contacted me and asked what the government was trying to do, whether it wanted him to go on welfare and claim money from the government for that. He said he wanted to have a job. I know this individual. He is going to work no matter what happens. But why is there this meanspirited attitude of cutting off people who have qualified for a very long time?

In fact, when I was in Toronto last week at the prebudget hearings, a group from the MS society talked about another aspect of the disability tax credit. My colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre referred to it earlier. The question is whether people can function for a certain percentage of time. As we know, people with MS are not always in a condition of being debilitated. They actually have some times in their lives when they can perform quite well. They never know when that is going to be, but now they are cut off as well because the government seems to be shaking the tree and trying to get every cent possible from Canadian taxpayers. And to do what? To waste it on agencies, on advertising, or on not advertising, on not even having the advertising contracts, on Groupaction and Shawinigan. We have seen the HRDC scandal as well.

What is it trying to do? Is it trying to take advantage of those who have the biggest problem making a living in society, to take that measly disability tax credit away from them and waste it on all kinds of government programs that go out the door? In fact, the Prime Minister, when he was questioned about the Groupaction advertising contracts, said that we lost a few hundred million but it was worth it because we saved Quebec. Really, what a silly attitude and answer.

Here we are, having a problem with disabled Canadians who are trying to make a living. As my colleague said earlier, they are not asking for money from the government. They are just saying that in recognition of the fact they have a disability that costs them a certain amount of money they should be able to get a tax credit, or in other words, a refund of some of the taxes they have already paid.

That is part of the problem. The priorities of the government are all wrong. In response to the complaints that were coming in, the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities held hearings last winter and issued a report on the issues related to the tax credit. My colleague was a member of the subcommittee. The unanimous report criticized the CCRA for “practices that are grossly inadequate for persons with disabilities” and called for a complete overhaul of the program. That was an all party committee of the House, including people from the government side.

In fact, when I was in the prebudget consultation meetings this spring, we raised it with the Minister of National Revenue and alerted her to the problem. It was like water off a duck's back. She did not seem to be the least bit concerned.

Instead of responding to the report, what has the government done? It has forged ahead on further restrictions to the eligibility requirements. This time it is the Department of Finance. In response to losing a court case, it has proposed amendments that would severely restrict the interpretation of feeding and dressing oneself. Those amendments were drafted without consulting the government's own subcommittee on the disabled community. It did not hold consultations with the disabled community about this issue at all. It just forged ahead, full steam ahead. To what end? To shake out a few measly dollars from these disabled people so that it can waste them in all kinds of other areas.

I think it is despicable. The Liberal members should give their heads a shake, look in the mirror and see what they are doing to Canadian society. Those who are the most vulnerable are the ones being taken advantage of. We think something needs to be done to turn this around. That is why we support today's NDP motion to have a complete review of this whole process.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments and his support for our opposition day motion. I appreciated the comments he made about certain kinds of disabilities that are not being dealt with and are being completely left out of the disability tax credit system. One of them is MS, along with other illnesses which are of an intermittent nature.

I want to ask the member about his feelings with regard to the whole issue of mental illness. There is a lobby. The Canadian Mental Health Association is on the Hill today. We as a subcommittee on disabilities certainly heard a great deal about the issue of mental illness from the Canadian Psychiatric Association and persons who suffer from depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Again, mental illness is an intermittent kind of illness and is one that just falls between the cracks and does not get dealt with by the disability tax credit.

In my speech this morning, I mentioned a father who has three sons suffering from schizophrenia. This is a family tragedy. There is no question about that. Yet he is being asked to reapply for the disability tax credit. There are enormous costs involved in caring and supporting those young men in their lives and their difficult journey. I would like to know what the hon. member thinks about the issue of mental illness in the disability tax credit area.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Dartmouth for that question. I think it is a very important one. Whether it is a physical disability or a mental disability it is very real. It causes distress in those families and for that individual. I think it should qualify in the same way that a physical disability qualifies.

We all know of families and individuals who have those kinds of problems and we all know about the difficulty they have in adapting to and functioning in society. In fact, I think some of the problems we have on our streets these days are related to that very problem: people with mental disabilities who need help.

I want to say one more thing on this. As members of Parliament we have constituents that deal with this all the time on other issues. Canada pension plan disability is another one. We have people coming in about that. What is really sad, I would say, is that in most cases the attitude of the government is to turn down those people on their first request. Why would the government not just consider the case on its merits the first time? It seems to be a government policy to completely deny all those people on their first request. Then they have to go through the whole process a second time on appeal and apply again. Sometimes they get it and sometimes they do not. It seems like a very backward process.

It seems like the government is trying to collect money from the wrong people. I think it has its priorities wrong. It needs to address its spending problem and quit trying to get money out of people in these categories.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief. I want to say first and foremost that I am happy to rise to lend my support to the motion brought forward by the New Democratic Party. I am glad to see that we have the cooperation of all parties on this issue. I think it is very important. It is something that has been of concern to people with disabilities for some time now and I am glad we are going to be able to take action on it.

I want to make one other point. I am glad we have cooperation on this motion and I am glad we are moving forward on the issue, but I am also glad that this debate today sheds a little bit of light on the whole issue of tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are a huge part of the government's financing or budget package. When governments forgo tax revenue, it is called a tax expenditure. We can help corporations or others in many ways. We can give them direct supports, which is called spending, or we can reduce the impact of taxation, which is called a tax expenditure.

For example, we know of a number of corporations in the country that do not pay any income tax at all. How is it that a corporation can have perhaps millions and millions of dollars of revenue and scores of employees and not pay any income tax? It comes down to a question of tax expenditure, so I am glad that there have been some comments on tax expenditures. We should explore the whole issue much further. I just wanted to put those comments on the record.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

I hope there is time to adequately reply, Mr. Speaker, because the member has raised an important issue. I think it is all a matter of setting priorities. It seems to me that we do not take advantage of people who are disadvantaged, but that we actually try to help them up.

Canadians feel overtaxed already. In fact, we are some of the most heavily taxed people in any place in the industrial world, so instead of having more taxes, people want tax relief. In this case they want the disability tax credit, which I think is the right thing to do, but the member has raised the issue of corporations. I would just respond by saying that if I had to set a priority between giving huge companies in the aerospace industry, like Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric, hundreds of millions of dollars, or refunding with a disability tax credit some of the money that disabled Canadians have paid to government, I do not think it would be too hard a choice. I think that the government has its priorities all wrong. That is what the problem is.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to join in the debate. There has been, as my Liberal colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia has mentioned, some extremely good debate. It is an excellent point that we are actually debating tax revenues and tax expenditures.

He was mentioning that when someone forgoes a tax revenue it is a tax expenditure. The big one that always come to mind for me is the $2.1 billion trust fund that went to the U.S., literally robbing Canadians of about $700 million in tax revenue. The government did nothing to keep that money in Canada to support Canadians, our social programs and infrastructure. That is what our tax dollars go toward.

I am not one of those people who believes that when we pay our taxes the government takes our money and we never get it back. I believe I get my tax dollars back a hundredfold most times. It is when we see wastage that we start to cringe about the taxes that we pay. Taxes pay for infrastructure, post-secondary education, social programs and defence, because as it is now we still have a defence program. Our taxes provide a lot. They pay for this democratic institution and we have an obligation to ensure that tax dollars are used wisely.

I for one do not object to my tax dollars being used properly with the priority of Canadians as the initiative. I do object when $700 million in tax revenue was lost because possibly it was a friend of so and so's trust fund and nothing was done. There is a real issue with that.

Then we see situations with the disability tax credit and disabled people being attacked. We are referring to it as an attack because there is no question about it. Statements were made by numerous members in the House from all parties who contacted Revenue Canada and heard the remarks coming back. My colleague from Winnipeg South commented on the young girl that was born without an arm. The remark he received from Revenue Canada was that it did not see it as a loss because the girl never had an arm. How could it be a disability? She never had it, so she did not miss the arm.

I have a letter from a constituent stating that she wrote to the minister and the response to her was, “We are targeting seniors. We will get to them all eventually”. When those kinds of statements are made one cannot help but wonder what the heck is going on here. I was pleased with the comments from my colleague from Winnipeg Centre who said that sometimes smart people do stupid things or make stupid statements. There is no question about that.

When we realize that there is a bad policy and some bad action taking place, it takes good leadership and sound judgment to recognize that mistake. We should immediately say we are wrong and that we will not do this any more, that we will ensure the right policies and practices are in place to support disabled people to give them a break, while recognizing that with certain disabilities there are additional costs.

No one is suggesting for one second that there not be criteria. I have not suggested it, other members in my caucus within the NDP have not suggested it, and I have not heard anyone suggest it. I have not heard anyone suggest that everyone can apply for disability and automatically get it. What has been suggested is that we should adhere to the recommendation of the committee report that an advisory committee be put in place that would include the medical professional, people from the disabled community, people who recognize where the need would be and where the expenses would be incurred because of certain disabilities. Along with that we should deal with each case individually. That is what good legislation is about. Recognizing where the need is and consequently giving the support.

I mentioned numerous times in my comments today that each of us here does not necessarily know whether or not someone else has a disability. That means that we have done some good things. There are ways that people can carry on and be active members of society where their disability does not even come into play, it is not even noticeable. We have colleagues in the House who have hearing problems but are able to carry on. That is not to say they do not have additional expenses because they have some problems. We do not go around every day saying I have to do this and this.

We have heard numerous colleagues comment on having family members who have additional costs that are incurred because of their disability. Each and every one of us should not be here to judge the expenses of someone else's disability. I heard a comment today that we cannot have everybody who has some kind of food allergy or problem with eating receive a disability tax credit. Hold on a minute here. I know what it is like to buy particular foods because we cannot eat certain things and we might not be able to get those things in a certain community so we have to go to great lengths and expense to get them. All of those things should be considered on an individual case basis. If there are additional costs incurred then people who are disabled should have the right to access the disability tax credit.

We are not just talking about food. I mentioned today things that many people would not think about. When people are in a wheelchair we might not necessarily know that they might have to, because it differs for each and every individual, do weekly catheterization, use suppositories, use incontinent pads, have additional expenses because there is a lot of wear and tear on clothing, and moving their wheelchair to get in and out of vehicles. There are a lot of additional expenses that are incurred.

People who do not have their sight incur additional expenses in material they may have to get so that they can carry on in society whether it be an additional phone, reading material, or material on video tapes, but there are a lot of additional expenses incurred. We are not in a position to justify each and every case. That should be up to the advisory committee that would look at this and put in some sound practices for the disability credit. It cannot be this process we have now where if individuals can walk 50 metres, if they can get the spoon to their mouth, they are not disabled.

I do not know if anyone has ever had a family member with Parkinson's. These individuals want to continue doing as much as they can themselves. They go through a whole long process of preparing their food and every so often they cannot do it and they have to hire someone to come in and help. Then as they are trying to feed themselves it might take five tries to get that food to their mouth. However, heaven help them if they get it there once. Revenue Canada would be cutting them off. That is simply not right.

I am pleased that we are hearing a good number of comments from colleagues throughout the parties supporting the motion. I hope it passes because I believe it is the right thing to do, not necessarily for political reasons, but because it is the right thing to do for disabled Canadians. It is the right thing to do for their families because any family that has a disabled member feels that impact. When most family incomes are spent looking after disabled individuals or doing things to make their life easier because they do not necessarily need us to look after them and do everything, but when additional income is spent, whether it is for prosthetics, mechanical equipment or food that must be bought, the whole family feels it. What we are doing is right for the disabled and their families.

A number of comments were made today about the type of tax deductions that were allowed. It was suggested by one colleague, the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, that by giving a tax credit we were making disabled people reliant and if we wanted to promote reliance how could we possibly give a tax credit to people who did not really need it?

I was quite offended simply because it showed a total lack of understanding of why the tax credit was intended initially. It was not there to necessarily promote reliance, it was to recognize that an additional cost was incurred and as a result of that we were going to give someone a tax break. We are not going to give them back the money, even though that is a credible point. A refundable credit is a credible position and one that should be looked at, but that is not what this is talking about. We are just giving them a tax credit.

He also suggested, and I think he is right here, that the NDP always does the humane, compassionate thing and we do not think about the cost. That is just not true. We do, because as a party we know that to provide social programs, infrastructure, and all the things we desire in our country, there is an incurred cost. We must be able to support those programs or we are not going to survive. We do not for one second believe it should just be willy-nilly money handed out. There should be criteria in place and fair taxation. All those things should be in place. However I wanted to emphasize the fact that he made the comment that we are humane and compassionate and that it is always happening from the left. He is absolutely correct, it is. I do not regret it and I do not give any apologies. Quite frankly I am darn thankful.

We want to see fairness in taxation. My colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia suggested we should have more tax discussion on tax revenue and tax exemption, and he is right. I would like to have greater discussion on the situation with CCRA which was mentioned in the House today. For four years CCRA has known about the GST scam and has done nothing. Meanwhile the government has been badgering disabled people. The problem is if it had been paying more attention to that real problem out there it would be getting the money. It could put its priorities in place and target where it needs to target instead of the disabled.

It is disappointing that CCRA had known for four years and nothing was done. It is disappointing that there are huge tax exemptions. The government talked about all the tax exemptions corporations were getting such as the capital gains tax exemption. Maybe it is justified but how does the government justify that and justify what it has been doing with the tax credit for the disabled? To me that gives a real indication of where the priorities are.

I am hoping that, in spite of the lights going off today and coming back on, tomorrow all members of the House will see the light and support the motion so we can do the right thing for the disabled and ultimately all Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair will take a short, brief comment because at 5:15 the debate will collapse. The hon. member for Charleswood —St. James—Assiniboia.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Churchill. I know she is concerned about this particular issue and I think her hope that the motion will pass tomorrow will be realized.

I want to set the record straight on one matter. My colleague from Churchill made reference to the tax case of more than 10 years ago that saw some $2 million in trust funds transferred to the United States. That did not happen on this government's watch. That happened on the Mulroney government watch. It was ably exposed by Mr. Harris of Winnipeg. I was rooting for Mr. Harris but unfortunately the court saw otherwise. However, it did not happen on this government's watch.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply is deemed to have been put, and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred until Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 3 p.m.

Business of the House

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding the order of reference adopted by the House of Commons on Monday, October 7, 2002, the Special Committee on Non-medical Use of Drugs be permitted to present its final report by December 13, 2002.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent for the parliamentary secretary to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might find consent to see the clock as being at 5:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.