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.
