John Manley

[Points of Order, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood what you were saying, you are quite right. Nothing was tabled in the House to withdraw. A press release that was put out by the Department of Finance dealing very specifically with a case that was determined by the Federal Court of Appeal.

From my understanding, in discussion with representatives of various persons concerned with this, the issue really is how we can ensure that the disability tax credit is extended to all those for whom it should be available.

There is an issue around the Hamilton case. If the hon. member will be fair, he will recognize that there may be some implications to the Hamilton case that ought to be taken into account. Quite frankly, it was of concern to me that the proposed amendment, which was offered in response to the Hamilton case, may have gone too far. That is why I indicated to our members that it was fine with me if they wished to vote for the resolution.

However, I think--

[Persons with Disabilities, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, size is always a matter of perspective, I remind the hon. member.

I would say to him that I am not rejecting it. I have said that we will take the resolution based upon what it said. We will review the change. I remind the members of what was at stake here, which was a question of whether certain dietary restrictions gave rise to the disability tax credit. We think, and we think most members agree, that the credit should go to the people who most need it and not to those who do not.

[Persons with Disabilities, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this was asked earlier today.

[Airline Industry, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear on what the hon. member is asking for. First, he does not acknowledge that $70 million of expense was transferred from the carriers to the government when the assumption of the responsibility for security occurred.

Second, what he is saying is that people who do not use air service should pay for those who do. It is a different approach. I am not saying that it is illegitimate but we do not agree with it.

We think that people who fly should pay the expense of the additional security measures that are being implemented. We said that we would review the charge and we are doing it.

[Securities Industry, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, public confidence in capital markets and public companies is obviously critical to a well functioning economy. I am very pleased with the cooperation that has been demonstrated to date by federal and provincial regulators and the private sector to implement an appropriate Canadian response to the issues highlighted by several recent U.S. corporate scandals.

The government is reviewing legislation to ensure that governance standards remain of the highest order. It is also reviewing the criminal law framework and the effectiveness of enforcement related to corporate fraud.

[Budget Surplus, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, why does the member insist on using the wrong figures? She has it wrong. She is not including tax credits. She is not taking into account equalization payments. In her figures on provincial spending, she is including all social spending, including education.

Is she including education as a federal government responsibility? Her figures are completely wrong.

[Budget Surplus, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, our accounts are determined in an annual system, in other words, at the end of the year, the books are closed. A few months later, the Auditor General gives us the year-end figures. I do not see how we could go back to the previous year and spend more money.

The accounts are closed. After March 31, that is it.

[Persons with Disabilities, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, just so that we are clear what we are talking about here. We are talking about the effect of the Hamilton decision which strictly affected some people who may have certain dietary restrictions which may cause them to apply for the disability tax credit. That is specifically what we are referring to.

We are working as quickly as possible with representatives of the disabled community. We hope that we can give them the required clarification very quickly.

[Persons with Disabilities, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all be clear that the objective of the proposed amendments was, very specifically, not to reduce the government's support for persons with disabilities. Rather it was to ensure that it goes to the persons who most need it, which is in line with the intention of the disability tax credit.

However, a number of people have been very concerned about the proposed amendments. I have asked my officials to meet with the representatives of the disabled community to hear their concerns and to ensure that proposed amendments will not have unintended consequences.

[Airline Industry, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have already announced that we are reviewing the security charge. It must be noted that when the government took over the responsibility for airport security, it reduced airline costs by some $70 million per year. We believe that users should be the ones to pay for airline services.