House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 1997, with 44% of the vote.
Taxation December 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in response to a question about the need to reduce taxes for the working poor, the Minister of Human Resources Development said: "Very often low income families do not pay taxes which is the reason we are looking for a more sophisticated system".
A single income family of four earning less than $23,000 now pays over $1,700 in federal taxes. Why will the minister not do something to help these families and lower their taxes?
Persons With Disabilities December 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today on behalf of my party, the Reform Party, on this international day to recognize persons with disabilities, particularly in Canada.
Many Canadians with disabilities face many unique challenges each day of their lives. Even in Canada where many external changes have been made to facilitate life for persons with disabilities it takes a level of courage for persons with disabilities to accomplish many of the tasks that other Canadians too often take for granted.
Today I pause as I talk about a faceless mask called persons with disabilities because, as is the case with all Canadians, each of these people with disabilities is unique, and each one has their own disability with its own individual challenges.
When developing public policy we typically talk only about a group of people called persons with disabilities. In that it is too easy to develop one program or one system which is supposed to help that faceless group which has been classified as disabled rather than recognizing the uniqueness of each person's circumstance.
Unfortunately this appears to be the way Ottawa has treated persons with disabilities for decades. It is hardly surprising that a recent report released by the federal task force on disability issues discovered a high level of frustration and some anger among persons with disabilities in Canada.
Lately we have heard the needs of the disabled are being addressed as a priority in the deliberations of the federal-provincial-territorial council on social policy renewal. I believe the needs of disabled persons are far more likely to be met by provinces or levels closer to those individuals that can tailor those services more specifically to the needs of those citizens.
The direction for the solutions for the disabled should be in the hands of provinces or levels even lower than that. The control of and the decisions on these important issues should be made as close to the people as possible to avoid the duplication of bureaucratic costs, needless costs which we too often see in this place.
We need to empower communities. We need to empower families in order that they may address the uniqueness of the disability and of the individual.
Not so long ago in this House we voted on a private member's motion, Motion No. 30. That motion stated that the government should consider amending the Income Tax Act to provide a caregiver tax credit for those who provide care in the home for preschool children and the disabled. That motion looked to the specific needs of the disabled in order to empower the family looking after the disabled person, which in turn would empower that individual. Unfortunately, the front benches of the government rejected that motion outright. The government said that was not in its plans.
This government refuses to leave money in the hands of the people who can use it with the greatest wisdom. The government continues to believe that it has the solutions for the problems in the homes of this country and for the challenges which disabled people face. I disagree with the government, which feels that all solutions in this nation must come from Ottawa and all solutions must be determined by bureaucracy.
Typically, Ottawa is the source of well intentioned programs, in most cases, but it has the mindset that it is only the federal government which can solve problems. Typically the programs are pulled in a myriad of directions and at the end of the day most programs that are developed lack a substantive review to actually determine if they work. The purpose is too often fuzzy to start with, too influenced by short term demand, perhaps an election call, or perhaps it is a program which reflects the flavour of the month for social programs.
We saw that in the development of the Canada pension plan, which was originally designed to give security to Canadians. That plan has led to untold frustration for the disabled people who must apply for it. It has placed an expense on a public system, which was not originally intended. Again it is an example of a program that has not worked as originally intended. Perhaps governments did not think through the plan and address their real intention.
Government does not solve the problems. Individual Canadians must be allowed to address these problems with a level of support which is closest to their needs.
The report that was mentioned earlier was called "A Will to Act". My hon. colleague in the official opposition mentioned his frustration. I would like to mention my frustration that too often Ottawa acts without achieving the desired results. It is too willing to act without proper evaluation and the end result does not reflect the original intention.
What we need for all Canadians is the will to succeed. We must find the solutions. I believe those solutions are best found not in this place but in the decisions which are made by individual Canadians.
Child Poverty December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, bigger and better government programs may be well-intentioned but have left a very poor track record. We will thank the minister when he actually accomplishes something. However, statistics tell another story of the past.
One in five Canadian children live in poverty. That is 1.4 million children in all. The most recent increase is among children who
live in families with working parents. Families have suffered a $3,000 national pay cut since 1993 due to tax increases. Rising taxes are exactly why the working poor have less money for their children.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development not see that it makes more sense to cut taxes to the working poor? That would leave more money in each pay cheque rather than giving them a government cheque through another big government program?
Child Poverty December 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is rumoured that the government will be introducing a new government program to deal with the problem of child poverty.
The Reform Party agrees that something must be done to address this issue. Will the Minister of Human Resources Development consider giving low income Canadians tax relief as an approach to child poverty rather than create another big government program?
Child Poverty November 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, today I want to speak briefly to the issue of child poverty.
Recently the Liberals have awakened to the human consequence of their misguided social and fiscal policies of the last quarter century: hungry children, fractured homes and hopeless youth.
A federal debt of over $600 billion is not just a number. It is $26 billion in increased annual tax grabs since the last election. It is an average family with $3,000 less than in 1993 to meet their needs. It is skyrocketing divorce, unchecked poverty, teen suicides and violence. It is the working poor working poorer.
More money and more Liberal programs with more bureaucracy will only perpetuate the failure.
Reform policies will leave hard earned money where it belongs, in the hands of families. Reform policies will remove over one million Canadians from the tax rolls altogether. Reform policies will allow parents to direct their attention to their children instead of the tax man.
Judges Act November 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my hon. colleague's presentation. Certainly he reviewed not only the Judges Act as it relates to Bill C-42, but the very effect of that act on the appointments that are made and the results of those appointments. The hon. member gave us an indication of what is happening in the courtrooms across this land.
I was particularly interested in a situation he referred to with regard to an Aaron Stewart. I know my colleague's interest and I know that he works with people on the ground. Is my colleague aware of how the victims in that situation have responded to what has happened? How do they feel about this country's judicial system?
Supply November 21st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I still did not hear his answer. I assume from his non-answer to my two questions that he agrees with my answer, which rather flies in the face of everything we have heard in question period lately from a finance minister who rails on other parties and perhaps even casts us as a party that speaks for the wealthy, when in fact it is his very party in the present circumstances that gives the advantage to the higher income earner. That is yet another example of the spin or the duplicity of some of the comments made in the House. I find it most notable.
In our fresh start program we have outlined where government expenditures can be reduced. The government continues to require in excess of $150 billion a year in order to operate. That figure is far higher than we feel is necessary. Without undue stress on the population our fresh start program outlines where the cuts can be made to government and indeed would put more money in the hands of the tax paying public and not in the hands of government bureaucrats.
Again, does the member feel that money is better in the hands of bureaucrats than in the hands of taxpayers? What we propose would take approximately $5 billion out of the hands of government and put that $5 billion directly into the hands of families across the country.
Supply November 21st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, earlier I addressed questions to the hon. member's colleague. I would like to repeat them so I can clarify what the actual answer would be from the Liberal side.
I do want to make a comment before I ask the questions though. The member mentioned that he does not know a politician who does not want to lower taxes. I happen to know a bunch of politicians who do not want to lower government spending and that is a problem. They sit on the Liberal benches. They refuse to reduce the size of government and so refuse to allow the relief that Canadians need and want both in their personal lives and in their businesses.
Could the member please tell me who benefits the most from the existing child care tax deduction? Would it be someone earning
$20,000 or someone earning $60,000? Who benefits most from the present tax system: a dual wage earner family earning $60,000 or a single wage earner family earning $60,000?
As I may not have time to reply to his answer, I would say that it is the rich who benefit most from the present child care tax deduction and it is the dual parent family that benefits most by the income tax system.
Supply November 21st, 1996
Madam Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment and then pose a short question to the member. I thank him for his intervention on this issue.
He mentioned toward the beginning of his speech refundable and non-refundable tax credits. I thought I would speak to that for a moment to clarify the issue.
I believe that most people, certainly those who look to fairness and equity within the system, would agree that the present system of a child care tax deduction is not equitable and not fair to Canadian families. In fact, the benefit of that system goes to the more wealthy who pay the greatest amount of income tax.
The reverse of that would be a tax credit which would give an equitable benefit to all Canadians no matter what their income level might be.
A non-refundable tax credit could be used to reduce the amount of federal tax a person pays. However, it could not be used for a refund. For example, if someone were required to pay a tax of $2,000 and a credit were determined to be $2,500, that taxpayer would not receive a refund nor would they be taxed. The tax would be eliminated and they would not receive a refund. However, if the tax credit were deemed to be refundable, they would have a tax levy of zero and they would receive a payment of $500 in addition to that. That is the difference between a non-refundable tax credit and a refundable tax credit.
In our proposal we have not specifically said what kind of credit we would put forward. We are looking at the issue of a refundable versus a non-refundable tax credit. Assuming this is accepted by the House, we would lean toward a refundable tax credit for Canadian families. Indeed that would be our preference.
Either way, refundable or non-refundable, the issue of a tax credit over deduction would certainly be the choice of Canadian families.
My question to the hon. member is quite specific. Could he tell me what he feels is more important? In his speech he mentioned that he thought it more important to provide more day care for families. He thought this was a priority in the province of Quebec. Would he think it more important to provide day care spaces for families or to provide a choice for families as to whether they want day care or whether they want to stay at home with their children? Which would be the more important policy that a government should look at, simply providing day care or providing choice for parents?
Supply November 21st, 1996
Madam Speaker, I must admit that what I am hearing today boggles my mind. I listened to the hon. member and most of what he said goes completely against the facts and figures I have here.
I certainly have some questions to ask him. Before I do, I want to make a quick comment. He mentioned the expensive tax cuts and went on about the low interest rates which we now have. Yes, we do have low interest rates, but we also have a 10 per cent unemployment rate. That is a scourge on the Canadian population. If low interest rates create jobs, what happened?
I would also like to put to him that rather than low interest rates we also need an economy that has a future, that has hope and has jobs. Tax cuts are what we need in this country more than anything else. We need tax relief for overtaxed families, overtaxed and over-regulated businesses. That is where there is a blind spot within that party.
When the member talks about reverse pandering and who gets the benefits as to what the programs are, can he tell me, yes or no, does the child care tax deduction give more benefits to a higher income earner or a lower one? In the present system put forward by this government, someone making $100,000 and someone making $20,000, who would get the larger benefit from the present child care deduction?
The member also made the point that dual parent families have less ability to pay their taxes and therefore need added benefits. Can he tell me which kind of family would pay the higher taxes: one with an income of $60,000 from two wage earners, or one with an income of $60,000 from one wage earner? I would like to put to him that it is the dual earner family that has the benefit in our present tax system.