Charlie Penson

[Goods and Services Tax, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is simply no excuse for this. The government was warned repeatedly about the dangers of GST fraud, yet it failed to plug those loopholes.

Even today the Liberals talk about auditing, investigating and prosecuting instead of closing the loopholes that led to these scams in the first place.

What we are talking about is fraud that may have cost Canadians over $1 billion. That buys a lot of Sea Kings and a lot of hospital beds.

When will the government do something concrete to stop the flow of free money to criminals and con artists?

[Goods and Services Tax, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, New Zealand warned Canadian officials about the potential for GST fraud at the very beginning, yet the barn door was left open.

By 1995 the Liberal government knew it had lost over $10 million to GST fraud, yet it failed to include safeguards when it revamped the GST legislation in 1996.

My question to the minister is quite simple: Why did the government sit idly by while criminals and con artists helped themselves to millions of dollars of taxpayers money?

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

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.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

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.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

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.

[Goods and Services Tax, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I bet the criminals are quivering in their boots over that.

When the people at CCRA were asked how cheques worth millions of dollars could be mailed out without raising any alarm bells, they said they did not have enough auditors to do the work. Well, the CCRA seems to have more than enough auditors to watch over every mom and pop store in the country.

Why does the government pay so much attention to the money that is coming in and so little attention to the millions and millions of dollars that is going out the door every day?

[Goods and Services Tax, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should know something about the delay of the Canadian helicopter purchase. That is one.

Canadians are outraged by news stories today of millions of tax dollars being paid out to fraud artists. Criminals are setting up phony companies and claiming bogus car exports to get the GST refund. It is an easy scam because the government does not usually check the validity of such claims. Small businesses have to struggle to comply with the GST and deal with an army of CCRA bureaucrats every day.

How could the government allow this big time GST racket to slip through?

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I believe Canadians want a rational, reasonable approach to the health care issue. I also believe Canadians want a government to deal with this and not push it off, as the government has done for 30 years, and see a steady decline in the health care system.

Canadians are looking for answers. They want to see the health care system improved. Their bottom line is, in my view, timely accessibility to the health care system and they want it through a public system. If that means there needs to be some private delivery within that, we are prepared to look at that.

The business of a dedicated tax for health care has been raised. We are prepared to look at that as well but we do not believe that it is necessary. The provinces and Canadians need to have the chance to read and digest all the reports from the Kirby commission and the Romanow commission to understand what is being asked of them, which is an increase in funding. We think it is incumbent upon the government to look within its budgetary framework. We have identified lots of areas of government spending that are low priority, such as regional development programs from coast to coast to coast and business subsidies to companies like Bombardier.

We believe that if Canadians were asked whether they would rather give money to Bombardier or have more money for health care, we think they would choose health care. Therefore why is the government playing the stock market for us in a de facto position in the stock market? That is really what it is doing.

In terms of the U.S., I think my figures stand in spite of the fact that a big portion of its health care is being delivered by private insurance. Even its sector from the public side spends more money per GDP than we do in Canada. We think there have to be some efficiencies there but the government has really let the side down. It has let the side down by letting the ball drop. Back in the 1970s the government promised to pay 50% of the cost of health care. What do we have today? We have 14% on average.

The government is not doing the job for Canadians. We think it has failed Canadians miserably on the health care issue.

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in today's take note debate in regard to health care. This has become a very important issue for Canadians in the last few years as we have seen a serious decline in our health care system. The budgets of several provincial governments are approaching 50% just for the delivery of health care. People are concerned about whether this will be sustainable in the future. Several commissions have been established in order to try to deal with the health care issue.

I welcome the national debate that is taking place on health care and I welcome the debate in the House today, but I do have to say that we have really gone quite a ways from the days when Lester Pearson introduced health care as a national priority and guaranteed, in his words, from the Liberal government of the day, that no less than 50% of the cost of health care delivery in the country would be provided by the federal government.

We know that is no longer the case. There has been a severe decline in health care in terms of the amount of money that the federal government is putting into it. I suggest that this no different from the decline that we have seen in several other areas. We have seen a decline in productivity. We have seen a decline in the Canadian dollar. We have seen a decline in the amount of foreign investment in Canada as a percentage of world investment. Correspondingly, we have seen increases in taxes and big growth in government. We have seen growth in government in business subsidies, in areas that they have established as priorities on the other side of the House and which we certainly do not share in terms of their position.

What do we have in our health care system right now? We have a decline. We have a problem in that provinces are facing difficulty in being able to fund health care. The national amount of money coming from the federal government is now only 14%, and yet the government wants to dictate all of the rules to the provinces on how health care should be delivered. We welcome this debate.

Three studies, Kirby's, Romanow's and of course the Mazankowski report in Alberta, either have indicated that reforms are needed or are in the process of doing that. We have seen that Mr. Kirby's report, tabled the other day, is calling for increases in taxes so that we can fund over $5 billion in increased funding for health care. I want to deal with that, but I want to also deal with what Canadians really want.

What we believe Canadians want is a public system that is accessible on a timely basis. In other words, if they have a health problem, they want to be able to go to their doctor and have that health problem diagnosed and dealt with in a timely fashion. We know that if this does not happen, things could deteriorate fairly quickly.

How do we propose to get there? These three commissions have all indicated or are in the process of indicating that there needs to be more money for health care. A couple of elections ago, the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance recognized this. We recognized that Canadians have health care as a high priority. In fact we think that if Canadians were able to set their priorities, it certainly would be health care funding over things like money for Bombardier or some of the business subsidies that the government currently gives out.

What Canadians want is a public system. They want accessibility and they want it in a timely manner. We really support that idea. Unfortunately, the only thing that the Liberal government can see as a way to address this is to raise taxes. It is not as though the government is not used to raising taxes. We have seen a lot of tax increases and that seems to be its answer to everything. That is its philosophy: tax it.

What would a family do if faced with a similar situation? What would family members have to do if the family budget were overtaxed? They would say that they have these new expenditures they have to make and they would say “I guess we are just going to have to find some new money someplace”. It is not a realistic possibility for most families. Unless they go out and get part time jobs to support the present jobs they have, that is not a possibility. Yet the government seems to take the attitude that if it needs more money, it will just tax Canadians higher.

We have been down that road. The former finance minister and the Prime Minister have been here since 1993 and since that time taxes have increased steadily. We have seen 53 corporate and personal income tax increases, excluding the Canada pension plan and bracket creep; 28 corporate tax increases, 25 of those being personal income tax increases; 6 bracket creep de facto personal income tax increases from 1994 to 1999; 8 Canada pension plan contribution rate increases from 1994 to 2001 up to 9.4%. This was an 88% increase for the Canada pension plan.

We have seen 67 corporate and personal income tax increases, including CPP and bracket creep, from the government since 1993. What do we have? We have less money being spent on health care in real terms today by the federal government than it was spending in 1993. What a travesty when it is telling the provinces to clean up their act on health care.

The government made a commitment in the late sixties and early seventies that its portion of funding would never fall below 50%. What is it today? It is 14% on average. Some provinces of course are less than that. What happened to that promise? This is consistent with the long term decline in the way the government has run the country for so many of those 30 years.

The budget of 2001 had a 9.3% increase in program spending but not one cent was cut to low priority areas. In 2002 federal government revenues total almost $180 billion. The average Canadian taxpayer will pay about $8,300 in federal taxes. That is a lot of money. In fact the Globe and Mail and Ipsos-Reid had a poll just recently that found that three-quarters of Canadians felt that they were taxed too high in comparison to the services they received, such as health care and education.

What do we have from the government? We have proposals for tax increases. Kirby suggested it. What is he doing? I suggest he is trying to lay the groundwork for the federal government. He is talking about raising in the GST from 7% to 8.5%. He is talking about a raise in either the GST or else a premium that would be raised through a national tax system to raise $5 billion. I do not think that is what Canadians want.

Why will those guys not just cut spending and set their priorities? Why do they have to raise taxes to pay for those services?

It seems to me that they just cannot get their own fiscal house in order. What are they spending the money on? Why do they require all these taxes? Why can they not find the $5 billion within the existing budgetary framework? I think the reason is that they have a lot of friends. They have a lot of business subsidy programs. Over $12 billion in loans were granted to companies like Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce and Honeywell over the past five years. Of that $12 billion granted how much have they received back on their investments? They have received $25 million, a 2% return on investment.

Why do they have to raise taxes further for health care? The answer is that they do not. They just have to get a hold of their own out of control spending.

Canadians are concerned because total government expenditures as a percentage of GDP back in the 1960s were roughly equal in Canada to the United States. Today the Canadian government spends approximately 42% of GDP on public programs and interest payments on debt, a full 11% more than in the U.S.

It is commonly assumed that the extra expense is used to pay for health care but, as was pointed out earlier, the U.S. spends more money on public health care, although many people have private insurance as we heard earlier, than does Canada. We also know that the United States spends a significant amount on its military, which takes up a big portion of its GDP, but it still has government spending that is 12% less of its GDP than ours.

The government certainly can do better. We have had advice from people, such as Toronto Dominion economist, Don Drummond, who used to work for the government as a deputy minister. What he has said is that for every new dollar of spending there should be an onus to identify another dollar that is a low priority dollar to be cut back. That is the total missing approach in Ottawa at the moment. I could not have said that better.

The government has no idea how to get its priorities straight. Money is there for health care if it is required but not from new taxes. Canadians do not want more taxes. They want the government to act fiscally responsibly and find the money within the existing budgetary framework.

[Petitions, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to present 10 petitions today calling for Parliament to protect our children by taking steps to outlaw all materials promoting and glorifying pedophilia and sado-masochistic activities involving children. These petitions are signed by 750 individuals and it is my pleasure to present them on behalf of these Peace River constituents.