Larry Spencer

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across for her fine leadership on that committee.

Does she see any way in which the act is being unfair in that some of the qualifications required to receive DTC are related directly to staying alive, while some would apply to others who are quite able to go out in the community, live a normal life, work at a job, et cetera, for example, a blind person who has a job and is quite capable of working?

Would the member comment on that. Is there a need to look at the fairness overall in the act?

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, of course we believe the government has a responsibility to ensure that proper steps are followed and that people do receive it if they do not qualify. However it is fairly obvious that some people with disabilities would have difficulty in getting to see a doctor.

One recommendation the committee made was that if this was required unnecessarily and the disabled person went to the expense, usually around $125, to requalify, the government should recognize that as its responsibility. The government is asking for this and is asking people to spend over one month of disability benefits simply to requalify.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I agree that integrity is quite hard to find, especially, as has already been pointed out in this debate this morning, considering the kinds of tax deductions given to others. We hear about companies being fined for breaking the law and the fines being tax deductible. We hear about major amounts of money leaving the country and thus escaping taxes.

People with disabilities, no matter whether they are life threatening or not, have extra expenses. We need to take that into consideration and acknowledge that. How many of us would want a disability payment of $960 a year maximum? Not one of us would. We would not take a minor disability if somebody paid us that much every year. To slap these people in the face by not allowing them these kinds of benefits shows a callous and uncaring group of people who worry more about money than people. Good government is about people, not about money.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the only way it has not been ignored is that the government made a few minor changes. However most of the changes ignored the feeling of the committee that this tax benefit was not to be made more restrictive, and that form T2201 was already too restrictive, too prohibitive, too complicated and too hard to follow through on. We asked for a review of the whole thing.

Such minor changes, as what the government has so far proposed, are basically in no way a review of the whole situation. We asked that the government go back and review the original intent of the legislation. If we were to go back to the days when this was instituted during World War II, we would probably find out that it was for more than just keeping people alive. Although we have asked the government to do it, that is the way it is done but it is done outside the House.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Surrey Central.

It is indeed an honour to stand and speak in the House on behalf of Canadians, individuals and families, who are dealing with the burden of disabilities. We all feel for those people. Our hearts are broken in many cases because of what we see.

A moment ago the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned that it was the aim of the government to ensure that all those who re-apply or apply are treated fairly and consistently. However, if we look carefully at the way the act is written, it could be contested. For instance, people who are blind can receive the disability tax credit, even though they may be fully functional in other ways, employed and that sort of thing, but if they are missing, let us say, their hands and parts of their legs, but by the use of devices can walk and feed himself, they are no longer counted to be severely disabled.

I would count myself to be severely disabled if I were in that condition. I think some very basic problems with the act need to be explored as well as these on the surface that we have been mentioning.

The disability tax credit was established during World War II to recognize the fact that individuals with severe and prolonged impairments often face additional non-discretionary expense for the basic daily living that reduced their ability to pay taxes.

The DTC is to provide support for those with severe and prolonged mental and physical disabilities who have marked restriction performing basic activities of daily living, such as seeing, hearing, walking, speaking, perceiving, thinking, remembering, controlling waste elimination and feeding or dressing themselves.

It seems to me that the interpretation being given most of the time would be that those who severely disabled are those who have to go to great lengths just to keep themselves alive. It seems to me that we are tightening this up way beyond what was really stated in the legislation.

The credit is claimed by approximately 430,000 Canadians. The maximum benefit per year is only $960 and it costs the federal budget only about $390 million. We are not talking about a real huge dollar hit on the federal budget. It is peanuts to the government and to the country. It is absolutely absurd that we would go through this kind of tightening and tightwad activity to impair further those who are already impaired through disabilities.

The people who need to qualify need to have a doctor or another professional certify that they have the disability to the extent prescribed by law. The word “prolonged” is in there; the requirement that if they have a disability it must be prolonged. It would be for a year or more was the interpretation. Sometimes people have recurring problems that may not last an entire year. Let us say that they last nine or ten months and later on more and more. These people do not qualify.

Marked restriction is a requirement, of an activity of daily living. It is interpreted to be all or a significant portion of the time, and that of course is interpreted to be 90% of the time.

I am not really sure why that mark has to be so high, unless the government is concerned that it might not be eligible or it might be able to receive tax credits, if it is not thinking or perceiving 90% of the time or more than 10% of the time. Maybe that is why there is such a narrow gate to get through.

No credit is given for multiple disabilities. For instance, if a person is afflicted with a disability that disables him completely for 35% of the time, has a second disability that perhaps only bothers him 35% of the time and a third disability that only bothers him 35% of the time, that comes up to being 105% disabled but he would not qualify because not any single disability is there all the time. This of course applies especially to those who have cyclical mental problems or disabilities that recur but are basically unpredictable.

I have a constituent who has a problem. One of the allowances is that if a person needs life giving therapy for 15 hours or so a week they qualify. My constituent is a former member of the RCMP. During his time of service he broke his neck and back in three places. As the years have gone by, those broken vertebrae have increasingly caused trouble until he finally had to go on disability. He cannot work. He is unemployable and must stay at home.

The only therapy that will stop the intense pain that drives him to his bed is for him to simply lie on his bed for sometimes a few hours, sometimes many hours and sometimes days. However, because that is not a life giving therapy, he does not qualify even though he has to do it. He is not able to do any of the other activities of life while he is in that condition.

I suggest that there are many ways in which this legislation is not entirely fair in the way that it is being interpreted.

Some of the changes made by Revenue Canada were suggested by the committee but most of them are very superficial things. One of the major changes is simply dividing the ability to dress oneself and the ability to feed oneself into two separate categories rather than appearing that they are together. For the most part the changes simply tighten the restriction, not loosen it.

I would like to refer to a news release, released by the chairman of the committee for disabilities, with whom I served as we did this investigation. The release states:

Recent court rulings... have interpreted the legislation in a more humane and compassionate manner than Finance is willing to accept... To make matters worse, this decision by the Department of Finance ignores all of the hard work by the government's own parliamentary committee. The Sub-committee's report, recommending a complete overhaul of the DTC program, was tabled in the House of Commons in March this year. The Sub-committee recommended that “the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) and the Department of Finance take immediate steps” to consult with disability groups and professional organizations, to discuss future amendments to the Act. Instead the Department of Finance acted arbitrarily.

Over and over we see the government ignoring the work and the recommendations of committees. We saw that when the health committee, which was working on recommendations for stem cell research, was pre-empted by the announcement of the guidelines even before it heard the recommendations. We hear rumours going on now about what the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice will do in relation to safe injections sites, the legalization of marijuana and so on.

As members of the committee, we heard many witnesses. We had the responsibility of making recommendations to the government. It is a real tragedy and an insult to the operation of Parliament to see the government ignore its own committees and the reports they bring back. We on this side will certainly be supporting the motion.

[Age of Consent, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, reports say the justice minister has in fact slammed the door on raising the age of consent. He refuses to take responsibility and do the right thing.

The Criminal Code is federal jurisdiction. Changes to the Criminal Code can be made only by the federal government.

I ask again, will the government do the right thing? Will the Prime Minister take the lead and raise the age of sexual consent and help protect our children rather than just protect his own ministers?

[Age of Consent, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister continues to handcuff law officers and tie the hands of parents who desperately want to protect their 14 year old and 15 year old children from sexual predators.

The government is choosing to hide behind the provinces. The legislative age of consent is the responsibility of the federal government. Will the Prime Minister stop accepting excuses, take the lead and raise the age of sexual consent?

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, very recently I talked to Captain Truelove of the HMCS Regina , which I believe is now docked in Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca preparing to leave for the gulf area very shortly. I said to him, “I understand from the Liberal government that your naval operations are very well funded”. He immediately let me know that he had a lot to say about that, and that it was not true.

The Liberal government continually criticizes the Alliance for promoting cooperation with the United States and for seeking greater and stronger funding for the military, yet it talks about us, in reference to the U.S., weakening our sovereignty. Sovereignty requires a certain ability to guard and protect one's own borders.

Does the member think that a strong military will support, strengthen or weaken our own sovereignty? Is it important to sovereignty?

[Health Care, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in Regina the health care strike continues. A man has died and CBC is asking if it is a result of the strike.

This tragic death of an elderly man is a symptom of the perpetual finger pointing exercise that is going on in the health care system. Meanwhile, the strike goes on. My constituents are fed up.

All levels of government must take some responsibility for the health care system and work cooperatively toward making our system more efficient.

In her recent report, the Auditor General said that Canadians do not know how much the federal government contributes to health care because the CHST is a block fund which the provinces are free to spend as desired.

By conveniently lumping its CHS transfers, the federal government is avoiding scrutiny on how much money it is really giving to health care. The government should stop hiding behind the CHST and provide Canadians with the real amount that it is giving for health care.

The Canadian Alliance is calling for adequate, stable and transparent federal funding for health care. Canadian families deserve nothing less.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague from Yorkton--Melville, like me, would abhor any kind of family violence. In the throne speech it sounds like the government is going to be protecting children from forces within the family. I would like to ask the hon. member if he agrees that there should have been more specific references to the protection of children from forces outside the family when in fact they are relatively safe within most families.