Bev Desjarlais

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a comment and my colleague may wish to comment back. In a roundabout way it reflects on the question that my colleague from the governing side just asked.

If the premise behind tax credits within the Income Tax Act is based on self-reliance, I have to question why there are tax breaks for corporations, why there is a tax credit available if one has a child under a certain age, why there is a personal exemption tax credit, and why there is a tax credit so to speak for a political donation or a charitable donation. If the premise behind a tax credit is self-reliance, I think the member on the governing side has missed the whole point.

The premise of a disability tax credit recognizes that disabled people have additional costs, costs that we do not always see. Those costs are there on things we would not normally think about.

I know someone who is a paraplegic and who goes to work every day. Do the people here recognize the things that might push up costs are incontinence pads, suppositories, additional footwear, catheters that have to be used on a daily basis, and increased transportation costs? That person is quite self-reliant but deserves the opportunity of a tax break because of additional costs. That is the premise behind the disability tax credit.

If the member across the way does not realize that, we are in deep trouble.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have a hard time not getting emotional over this. It is often said that we really do not know what someone else's life is like unless we experience it ourselves or possibly have a family member or a friend who because of their disability is greatly affected. It is apparent that is what is happening on the other side of the House by the comments of the hon. member.

We will not let the Liberal government off the hook. The Liberal government is the problem. The member is absolutely correct that it is the government that has brought in these changes. It is the government that is attacking the disabled. The CCRA is following through on bad legislation and on a mistake. The government should simply admit it is wrong and get it over.

In no way should we attack the disabled and the small pittance of a tax credit which they receive. I do not want to hear one more person talk of the seriously disabled or those who really deserve it when we have a tax exemption for a child under a certain age in the Income Tax Act. We do not say that because this is the third child, the child will get hand me downs. We do not say that because that child does not cost as much money, we will give less of an exemption. The bottom line is we recognize that in certain aspects of human living there are greater costs incurred.

I would suggest that the member listen very clearly. I mentioned some things that maybe she does not consider the seriously disabled have to pay for, such as incontinent pads because when they go to bed at night they are not sure whether something will happen. Catheters ensure that they have adequate bladder drainage. They pay for suppositories that so they can fully empty their bowels because when they go to work they do not have an accident. There are additional foot coverings that are not covered because their feet swell because of their disability. Adjustments must be made to clothing because their arms or legs might be a bit shorter or not there at all. Those are all costs that she might not consider to be the cost of a seriously disabled person.

However until she and everyone here experiences those types of costs, the mere pittance of a tax credit that the disabled get should not be attacked. The government should go after those who get tax breaks which they should not get. For years the NDP has called for tax fairness. This is living proof that the government's priorities are out of whack.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, over the past number of months when questions came up in the House about the disability tax credit, the government would often respond by saying that if those people were really disabled, their cases would be reviewed and they would get their money. I have a letter that was sent to the minister by some constituents of mine. I would like to read it to give hon. members, including my colleague from Dartmouth, the impact that those types of attitudes have on the disabled:

I have had a recent experience regarding how Canada Customs and Revenue Agency treat the disabled.

My mother was removed from the rolls of the disabled for a period of six months. While her exclusion was eventually overturned, I got to endure such comments as: “We are targeting seniors. We will get to them all eventually”. When I spuriously suggested that the great physicist, Stephen Hawking, would not qualify as disabled, one of your bureaucrats had the audacity to agree. Seniors and disabled persons are easy targets and many have neither the will, energy nor support to fight back.

While ultimately vindicated I feel the stress and anguish contributed to the subsequent hospitalization from which my mother has recently recovered.

It is not okay to treat the disabled like this. It is not okay to have them go through an appeal process with Revenue Canada when there are numerous criminals out there who are trying to escape from paying their taxes. These people just want a little bit of a break. The government is willing to give breaks to corporations for boxes at baseball games and for corporate executive wives to buy $1,000 gowns, but the disabled do not get a break for a mere pittance of a tax credit. It is absolutely shameful. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Poverty, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this year the Thompson Corps of the Salvation Army celebrated its 40th anniversary. I would like to extend my congratulations to the members of the corps and its volunteers for their hard work and determination.

The Thompson Corps began in the basement of a home and it has grown from its humble beginnings to provide community services, such as the local thrift store, the food bank and the emergency shelter. With the hard work of corps members and community volunteers, the Salvation Army raises money through its Red Shield Appeal and in the upcoming holiday season through its Christmas kettles.

In addition, the Thompson Corps and the Salvation Army, nationally with other organizations throughout Canada, provide Christmas food hampers to families in need. Regrettably, the number of families in need has grown as the problem of poverty has continued to escalate in Canada. More and more people in this country are forced to work two and three jobs just to survive.

The Liberal government needs to finally make good on its promises to help impoverished children and their families.

[Citizenship of Canada Act, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Windsor who certainly has brought his diverse community to our caucus on many occasions. He has taught us a lot about the relationship Windsor has had with the U.S. It is interesting to note that the actions of the U.S. have tarnished that relationship, not just for Windsor but for all Canadians.

I would like him to expand a little on whether or not he ever thought he would experience in his lifetime a McCarthyism type of approach. It is the approach of treating one cultural group inthe way that used to be done years ago when they were all lumped into one category, for example, as all being thieves, criminals or terrorists, in many cases with no justification whatsoever.

I wonder if he ever expected in his lifetime, in this day and age, that we would be living through that once again. In spite of having numerous groups come to us wanting restitution for harms that were done before, and we still are dealing with that, did he ever expect that we once again would be allowing this to take place with one specific group of people within our country?

[Income Tax Act, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a company was fined $125,000 for contaminating the environment. Last year a mining company received a $150,000 fine for an unsafe workplace where an explosion took the life of a worker. The government's income tax legislation allows companies to claim these types of fines as a tax deduction, an expense to do business and increase profit.

The New Democratic Party has called on the government to close the tax loopholes in the legislation. Where are the changes? Why are dead workers the cost of doing business and a tax deduction?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Dartmouth for her comments related to Bill C-17. I would like to question her in regard to her thoughts on the privacy commissioner's comments that the lists being asked for are too extensive in nature and that the usage of the list leaves it open for the privacy of Canadians to be jeopardized. I just wonder if she would further reflect upon his comments. What are her thoughts on that?

[Employment Insurance, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government slashed EI benefits, it increased qualifying time, and it penalized seasonal workers and workers who had to access the program more than once. There is a $40 billion surplus in the EI fund. The money is there. It should benefit workers who want to change or improve their employment opportunities.

When will the government pour money from the EI surplus into training and education?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, that is what the bill says. When the discussion came up during the briefing we got there was talk about how, if there were warrants out for certain people, they would be able to get them. There was also talk about being able to keep the information for a period of time.

I am sorry, but it is hard for Canadians to believe that there would not be a problem when we have had accusations against CSIS that it was investigating union workers working within the post office. Canadians need to have some checks and balances in place to ensure that their civil liberties and their democratic rights would be upheld.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for mentioning this. There is no question that when the ports police were being cut, the issue was raised in the House a number of times with the government. We indicated that this was going to be a problem. The government does not have a security strategy in place that is intended to address security. The ports are one of the greatest areas that are at risk, not just for terrorist activity but for drugs and everything else. There is no question it is an issue. It is proof that the government does not have a plan in place.