Bryon Wilfert

[Securities, November 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion whatsoever.

MacKay has sent out a letter saying that if after the consultations the provinces want to join in a national security commission then they are free to do so. They are not forced to do so. There is no gun to any head. I do not see where the confusion is.

[Banking Act, November 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. As I indicated the government is committed to filling these vacancies of the court in a timely and responsible manner. I am sure the member will appreciate however that we need to find the best candidates. There has to be time for consultations and a review of those qualifications. There is no question that the government is interested in filling those four vacancies. It is important to do so but, again, in a timely manner. By reviewing the appropriate qualifications and getting those positions filled the issues that the member raised could be dealt with in an expeditious manner.

[Banking Act, November 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst suggests that the Tax Court of Canada is experiencing delays in hearing appeals under the Employment Insurance Act and that the appointment of additional judges to the Tax Court would remedy this. This is an important question and I thank the member for raising it.

The Tax Court of Canada is an important national institution that prides itself on delivering consistently excellent service to Canadians. The stated mission of the Tax Court of Canada is to provide the public with an accessible and efficient appeal process, and to work together to maintain a fair and independent court.

The Tax Court has achieved its reputation for timeliness through a number of innovative approaches, including the development of an informal process for hearing matters under the Income Tax Act on an expedited basis where the amount in dispute is under a specified amount. This has contributed to the overall effectiveness of the system by ensuring that only the most complicated cases are heard.

The court has initiated a system to permit the electronic filing of a number of key documents and is committed to implementing this for all documents over the next few years. Electronic filing will allow a more rapid flow of information between the court and its clients. It will reduce the costs for appellants, facilitate document interchange between parties, and make information more readily available to all Canadians.

The Tax Court, like many courts across the country, has instituted a system of case management to ensure that cases are tracked and handled in the most expeditious manner possible. So committed is the court to ensuring the highest standard of service that it regularly conducts client satisfaction surveys so that it can continue to improve its service to the public.

In addition to these innovative and modern approaches to meeting its mandate the Tax Court is able to rely on a large network of deputy judges across Canada to supplement the full time complement of the court. The hon. member may be interested to note that the province of New Brunswick has two deputy judges, one to hear cases in English and the other in French.

As an element of the important constitutional principle of judicial independence, judicial control over matters relating to the judicial function are the responsibility of the judiciary, in particular chief justices and judges.

I want to assure the member that the Minister of Justice would give serious consideration to any objective indicators, provided either by the chief judge of the Tax Court or a representative of the tax bar, that would allot the court additional resources. I would also point out to the member that there are currently 23 judges on the Tax Court of Canada and four vacancies. The minister wants to act quickly to deal with those vacancies. An important issue has been raised by the member and I thank him for that.

[Banking Act, November 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss Bill C-229, an act to amend the Bank Act and the Statistics Act. The bill would require banks to report on investments made in electoral districts where unemployment is on par or above the national unemployment rate. It would also require that every individual bank branch set aside 5% of its income to further micro-credit financing in the electoral district where the branch is located.

In essence, the bill is an adaptation of the U.S. community reinvestment act, CRA, that the U.S. Congress passed in 1977. As such, I would like to remind hon. members that the community reinvestment act was enacted in response to concerns that American banks were redlining certain neighbourhoods; that is, accepting deposits but not authorizing loans in low and moderate income neighbourhoods.

I would like to remind all members that in 1998 the task force on the future of the Canadian financial services sector, the MacKay task force, undertook extensive research on this issue. It determined that the conditions that led to the community reinvestment act in the United States were not present in Canada. Both the House Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce supported this view.

To quote the House committee, “In an industry that is continually evolving, the application of a Canadian CRA would be extremely difficult and costly”.

The Senate committee echoes this stating, “The Committee also believes that the CRA approach would be onerous, costly and a regulatory burden on financial institutions”.

Moreover, consumer groups such as the Consumers Association of Canada generally supported this view.

The bill, which on its face may seem reasonable, creates an onerous burden on financial institutions. Every bank will need to report for every branch the amount and the distribution of deposits, loan applications, loans granted and loan recalls. Furthermore, the requirement would entail that each branch break down the numbers into groups of $10,000 increments. To top it off, the bill would require that the terms and conditions of the loans, a private matter between contracting parties, be reported upon.

All of these measures are onerous and costly to comply with. The result of implementing the bill would, to quote the MacKay task force, “add substantial regulatory burden and cost to financial institutions and government”.

I must question what benefit consumers would derive from knowing in $10,000 increments what the lending practices of the branch had been. Moreover, this type of undertaking would require a lot of time to compile the information. Who will ultimately bear the cost? Consumers.

The potential costs to financial institutions are compounded by a proposal that requires every branch to reserve 5% of its income, not profit, but income to fund microcredit lending. That is pre-tax dollars. In this respect the proposed legislation goes well beyond what the community reinvestment act requires and it does not stop there.

The clause is worded such that every designated person who applies for a microcredit loan must be provided with one regardless of the merits of the proposal. This is simply bad public policy.

What is to happen if the applications for micro-credit exceed the legislated 5% requirement? Will banks then be required to take funds from their other investments to attain this legislative requirement? Alternatively, what happens if the sum total of applications is below 5%? Furthermore, on the question of loan quality, will we end up having to force a bank to shift money from prudently sound investments to high risk investments? Do we really want them to do this? What does this mean for the other customers?

I cannot stand here and support the bill. Parliament determined that this type of legislation was unnecessary only a short while ago. Furthermore, the bill would create a very onerous financial and regulatory burden on financial institutions and could lead to a situation where banks are forced to use good money to chase riskier investments to the potential detriment of sound investments.

It is for these reasons that I cannot support this bill, and I urge my colleagues here today not to support it as well.

[Sir Wilfrid Laurier, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in 1998 I stood in the House to call for a national day of recognition for Sir Wilfrid Laurier's birthday. Today is his birthday and the House has passed a bill of recognition.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a true Canadian, a skilful and pragmatic politician with a charismatic personality. He was the dominant political figure of his era. In 1900 Laurier declared that the 20th century would belong to Canada. His vision created the country that emerged over the next hundred years, the country of which we are so proud of today. Under his leadership Canada continued its industrialization and urbanization, and was strengthened by the addition of two provinces and two million inhabitants. Laurier's vision and his determination was that Canadians, regardless of their ethnic or linguistic background, could work together toward a common goal, that of nationhood.

There is no greater gift we can give to future generations than to honour our history by leaving them a memory of our past.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, although I do not have an answer, it is my hope that it will be much sooner than later.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is I do not know. CCRA sent out the forms. At this point I do not have that information, but I certainly will attempt to find out.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, again let me emphasize that there is no intent under the proposed amendments to disenfranchise anyone who currently meets the qualifications prior to March 2002. The intent is to ensure that the support continues to be directed to those who need it most. It is certainly not the intent of the government to disenfranchise individuals in any way.

I have outlined what the government is doing. A review is taking place. One should not lead to the conclusion that what is proposed is cast in stone. That is why discussions are taking place. They are proposed amendments. Obviously we are seeking comments from members in the House, from people directly affected and from the associations.

Let me again state clearly that the objective of the proposed amendments is not to reduce the government's support for persons with disabilities. It is to ensure those who are eligible under the disability tax credit continue to receive that assistance.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Laval West.

I am pleased to address the motion put forth by the hon. member for Halifax.

An inclusive society is at the heart of Canadian values. This is why the government has taken action on a number of fronts to strengthen and support persons with disabilities.

One of the key ways in which we help people with disabilities is through the disability tax credit. For those who qualify for it, it represents a benefit of up to almost $1,000 per year. About 450,000 Canadians benefit from these measures alone. In all, the disability tax credit provides tax relief of more than $400 million per year.

An even better indication of the government's commitment to helping Canadians with disabilities is to look at how we have enhanced the disability tax credit in recent years.

In the 1997 and 1998 budgets, and again as recently as 2000, we have expanded the list of medical professionals who can certify individuals eligible for the credit.

In budget 2000 the government broadened the eligibility criteria to include individuals with severe and prolonged impairments who require extensive therapy essential to sustain their vital functions. This had the effect of extending the credit to many dialysis patients and people who suffer from cystic fibrosis.

Budget 2000 also expanded the list of relatives to whom the disability tax credit could be transferred and introduced a supplement for families caring for children with severe and prolonged impairments. In addition, budget 2000 increased to $10,000 from $7,000 the limit on the child care expense deduction for children eligible for the disability tax credit.

Finally, as part of the government's five year $100 billion tax reduction plan, the amount used to calculate the amount of credit increased to $6,000 from $4,293 as of January 2001. In fact the tax reduction plan also restored full indexation to the personal income tax system to protect Canadians from automatic tax increases caused by inflation and to preserve the real value of benefits they receive, including the disability tax credit. For 2002 the disability tax credit amount is $6,180 and will increase to $6,279 in 2003.

Individually these measures may not be the stuff of four-inch headlines, but there is no disputing what these measures together mean for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who receive this credit. The result is twofold and it can be stated quite simply: more Canadians are now eligible for this credit, and the tax credit for eligible recipients is greater than before.

The disability tax credit is only one of a number of steps the government has taken to assist people with disabilities. There are several other areas of the tax system that clearly show the direction in which the government is headed when it comes to helping those in need.

The medical expense tax credit helps people who face above average medical expenses. For 2002 the credit equals 16% of qualifying medical expenses in excess of about $1,700 per year, or 3% of net income.

The list of eligible medical expenses is regularly reviewed and expanded to keep pace with new technologies and the needs of Canadians. For example, budget 2000 recognized as an eligible expense the incremental cost of modifying new homes to assist individuals with severe mobility impairment.

In 1999 the budget expanded the list of eligible expenses to include the care and supervision of persons with severe and prolonged impairments living in a group home, tutoring for persons with learning disabilities and certain types of therapy.

In the 1997 budget sign language interpretation fees were one of several items added to the list of eligible expenses.

These examples are by no means exhaustive. Nevertheless they do give a sense of how one particular tax provision, the medical expense tax credit, responds to the vast range of needs and circumstances that Canadians face. Other measures have been enhanced too.

For example, in 1998 the government created the caregiver credit to help the many Canadians who provide in-home care to adult loved ones. For claimants this measure also represents an annual tax benefit of almost $600.

The infirm dependant credit provides tax assistance to individuals caring for an infirm relative who lives in a separate residence. Effective January 1, 2001 the amount used for calculating both this and the caregiver credit rose to $3,500 from $2,386, an increase of almost 50%.

Again, I must emphasize that this list of enhancements to the tax system aimed at helping persons with disabilities is instructive but is not exhaustive. Perhaps the best way for me to sum up what the government has done on the tax side to help Canadians with disabilities and their loved ones is to look at what has happened to the total bottom line benefits for these individuals during the last year.

In 1996 the federal tax assistance for these individuals amounted to $600 million. Today the total is $1.1 billion, an increase of 80%. This is a significant increase and is a clear sign of the government's priorities. The $1.1 billion per year in tax assistance is in turn only a fraction of the more than $4 billion we provide in support of Canadians with disabilities through the Canada pension plan and direct federal spending programs.

Human Resources Development Canada is the lead federal department on disability issues. It invests or delivers approximately $3 billion annually through the Canada pension plan and key departmental programs for persons with disabilities. These include programs designed to reduce barriers to labour force participation such as employability assistance for people with disabilities and the opportunities fund.

In addition, Canada study grants help reduce barriers to post-secondary education for students with disabilities. The social development partnerships program supports disability organizations, which have a crucial role to play in advancing issues of concern to Canadians with disabilities.

On that note I would like to return to the disability tax credit to discuss another aspect. In fact, the member for Halifax mentioned the August 30 proposed amendments to the disability tax credit.

In March this year the Federal Court of Appeal rendered a decision that would have expanded the eligibility for credit far beyond its policy intent. The decision would expand access to the disability tax credit to individuals who, because of food allergies or other similar medical conditions, must spend an inordinate amount of time to find, procure and prepare sustainable food. Such an expansion of eligibility would have resulted in fewer resources being available to individuals with severe impairments, an outcome that would obviously be unacceptable.

I would point out however that these are only proposals. The government is engaged currently with organizations to seek their comments with regard to the proposals, such proposals as an amendment to ensure that individuals would not be eligible for the credit solely on the basis of dietary restriction that results in an extraordinary amount of time being spent on choosing, shopping for, preparing or cooking food.

Similarly, the proposed amendments also clarify the intended meaning of being markedly restricted in dressing oneself as being unable, or taking an inordinate amount of time, to put on or remove one's clothes.

It is important however to remind the House that the objective of the proposed amendments, and they only are proposed, is not to reduce the government's support for persons with disabilities but rather to ensure that the support continues to be provided to those most in need based on sound medical diagnosis.

Even more to the point, I would emphasize that no one who was receiving the disability tax credit in accordance with its policy intent prior to the Federal Court of Appeal decision will be disqualified as a result of the amendments which are proposed and which we are seeking public comment on. Again, I would emphasize that no one who was receiving the disability tax credit in accordance with its policy intent prior to the Federal Court of Appeal decision in March will be disqualified as a result of these proposed amendments, should they go forth.

In short, these amendments punish no one. Nevertheless, we recognize that some people are concerned that they may be adversely affected by these amendments. That is why the minister and the department are in consultation.

I thank the member opposite for the issues that she has raised. We take these concerns very seriously. Officials are meeting and continue to meet with regard to this. The government is committed to ensuring that any unintended consequences which may surface, either now or in the future, are dealt with in a manner that is reasonable and compassionate.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I am honoured to present to the House, in both official languages, the report following the 12th annual bilateral meeting of the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group, held in Japan from September 24 to 29, 2002.