Gerald Keddy

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. Peninsula Farm, Canada's smallest yogurt maker--

[Committees of the House, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have been anxious to get up to debate this subject for some time. I thank my hon. colleague from Richmond--Arthabaska for sharing his time with me. I thank the hon. member who moved the motion today.

A couple of things about the disability tax credit need to be explained to the Canadian public and put to rest. First, everyone should know exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about a disability tax credit for individuals deemed eligible to receive it. They may claim a non-refundable tax credit worth $960 or 16% of their $6,000. The October 2000 budget statement indexed the disability tax credit to inflation. An individual who supports a person entitled to a disability tax credit may under certain circumstances claim any unused portions of the credit.

The fact that we are debating this in the House of Commons speaks volumes. It is absolutely scandalous that in a time of surplus the Government of Canada is doing little more than deliberately bullying and picking on some of the most vulnerable people in society. It speaks volumes about a government that has lost its direction and sense of responsibility to the most vulnerable in society

All members here, government and opposition, have had dozens and sometimes hundreds of people in their offices who have been refused the disability tax credit. The rules Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has set down for people to qualify for the credit are obscene in every extent of the expression. The first rule is that an individual claiming the tax credit must be examined by a medical doctor to determine whether he or she is able to walk 100 metres.

The hon. member for Blackstrap spoke about a young man with one leg who came to her office. He had been doing a good Samaritan act, helping change a tire. Through no fault of his own he was hit by a car, lost his leg and had his disability tax credit reviewed.

A young woman came to my office, a single mother who has worked every day of her life and is still working today. She had her disability tax credit reviewed. The government decided she could continue receiving it. However because she was a single mother and the disability tax credit meant a lot to her, she was extremely upset at being reviewed. She was another individual with only one leg. She said she goes to work every day, is ambulatory, gets around and does her job.

How many Canadians understand that someone with the use of only one leg must spend 20% more energy to get from point A to point B than a Canadian with the use of both limbs? Most amputees spend on average 20% more energy to do the same jobs and live the same lives we live.

The disability tax credit is not something that says a person is disabled and cannot work. That is what it has become. The disability tax credit should recognize that it is more difficult for people with disabilities to do the same job and perform the same role in society as those of us without disabilities.

People should not have to be quadriplegic, and heaven protect those who are, to get the disability tax credit. They should automatically should get it. There are a lot of other people who have lost an arm or a leg or who suffer from mental impairment who should receive the disability tax credit, because it is in recognition of the fact that they have a disability. This is not a pension and this is not about someone looking after them for life. This is simply in recognition of the fact that they have an impairment which makes it more difficult for them to do the same jobs the rest of us take for granted.

A young lady who is an amputee came to my office. She said “I could walk 100 metres, but it is more difficult for me when it is snowing. It is more difficult for me if it is uphill. It is more difficult for me if it is raining. It is more difficult for me if it is level ground and perfect conditions, because it will cost me 20% more energy to walk the same 100 metres that it takes the rest of you”.

I agree with my hon. colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska that this is a regulation, it was a mistake, it needs to be reviewed and reversed and absolutely the sooner the better.

This is an immense pressure upon medical professionals, upon the doctors who have to review this for their patients. I was trying to go over the list of criteria. I do not have it in front of me, but I have handled enough of these in my office that I believe I can remember the criteria. The first criteria of this meanspirited change in the regulations is, can the patient walk 100 metres? There are others. Can the patients think, perceive and remember? Can the patients feed themselves? Can the patients use the washroom by themselves?

This is an embarrassment to members of parliament. It should be an embarrassment to CCRA. It should be reversed immediately. It is absolutely scandalous that for lack of foresight we would pick on the most vulnerable section of society. It is absolutely scandalous.

Not only is it arbitrary and insensitive, it goes a step further than that. The issue is that people were able to access the system in recognition of a disability and now we are debating that disability, front and centre in the House of Commons and so it is on every TV screen in the nation, as to whether or not we should be giving this tax credit for this disability. People who are disabled, who are unable to work or able to work, do not want this debate to be occurring in the nation.

There is a very, very small percentage of individuals who receive a disability tax credit without good reason. That less than 1% who may have actually received something from the system and did not deserve it is not a reason to reverse the entire process.

As a member of parliament, I am appalled that we are debating this piece of legislation. It needs to be reversed immediately. We should be ashamed of the fact that we cannot do a better job than we have done as members of parliament to defend the most vulnerable in society.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the debate on Motion No. 116 moved by the member for Winnipeg—Transcona. The closing comments by my colleague from the Bloc were apropos to the debate. He said that amending the criminal code would be a very drastic measure to take for this type of infraction. We should expect Canadians to rely on sound common sense and good judgment before we go about trying to amend the criminal code.

Since this is private members' business and it is a non-votable motion—and even if it was a votable motion—members may speak their own mind. In my mind this is not the type of motion that should be enacted into legislation at this stage of the evolution of cellphone use in Canada.

There are two sides to the argument. I do not have a difficulty with having the debate. There is an argument that says cellphone use should be regulated to the point that it does not cause unsafe or dangerous driving.

If we wanted we could look at the lighter side of the argument, but I am not saying in any way, shape or form that accidents that have been caused by cellphone use are somehow humourous. Quite frankly a number of things, including cellphone use, are illegal now if they cause an accident or if they cause a criminal infraction. If it is looked at by a police officer as dangerous driving, it is illegal now. We do not have to put it in the criminal code to make it illegal.

By the way, a number of other things that people do while driving are illegal too. We see people shaving; putting on makeup, especially lipstick at stop signs; drinking coffee; reading the paper; or looking for change if the person lives in Cumberland--Colchester and has to take the toll highway that the federal government helped to build. All those actions are dangerous and all of them are regulated now by the criminal code.

We do not have to have a police state that would regulate what should be common sense and should be looked after through an education process. That does not take away the importance of the debate. It does not take away the fact that it is probably time that we had this debate and that we looked at some way to change driver behaviour.

I would argue very strenuously that changing the Criminal Code of Canada may or may not change that behaviour, but that is not the first step I would take. That step is a long way down the road, and please excuse the analogy.

The ability is in the code now to sentence people if they drive dangerously or if their driving causes death or injury. We do not have to adjust the code to put in that ability.

I would rather put a challenge out to the cellphone companies. I have a cellphone and I recognize the importance of the tool. Most of us have used our cellphones to report car accidents, to report dangerous objects lying on the road and sometimes even to report drivers who we suspect are under the influence. Certainly cellphones are useful.

We all know that we cannot dial a cellphone and drive at the same time. That is dangerous. Common sense will tell us that. A driver who is looking at his or her cellphone obviously is not looking at the road any more than when the driver is looking at the radio or CD player or is trying to find something under the dashboard. A little common sense needs to be applied.

Rather than changing the criminal code, I suggest that we seriously look at the way we use cellphones in cars.

The first thing we need to look at is voice activated, hands free cellphones. That type of technology is available now and will be even better and more refined in the future.

There is no reason that we as parliamentarians cannot put that challenge out to the cellphone producers and suppliers on the planet. I say to the Motorolas and Nokias of the world to simply find a better way to make cellphones and to find a safer way to use cellphones in the car.

A person should be able to set the cellphone on a stand in the vehicle and automatically it should become a hands free, voice activated phone. If the driver wanted to call the office he or she would simply say “Call the office”. The key word would dial the office number. There could be a mike on the sun visor and the driver could speak on the cellphone and drive at the same time.

We should not think for a moment that we will be able to tell people in Canada that they cannot use cellphones in their cars. Newfoundland and Labrador may be discussing it but it has not been implemented to my knowledge. Alberta has said it does not want to do it.

I agree with the member from the Bloc. It is a provincial jurisdiction, unless we decide that somehow this has broader application across the country and that we should change the criminal code. Two years down the road if nothing is done, maybe that is a discussion worth having. I do not think it is a discussion worth having at this time.

I would ask everyone to look at the least drastic measures a public education program, a better way of limiting cellphone use in cars. Certainly I think the best way to do that is to challenge the suppliers of cellphones to produce an easy to use, voice activated, hands-free cellphone because we will not convince drivers not to use cellphones, especially on the highways.

We all spend too much time in our automobiles not to use the cellphones. Sometimes people pull off the road and sometimes they do not. That is a fact of life. Should people be using them in stop and go traffic? Should people be using them at stop signs and pedestrian crosswalks? Of course not.

There are provisions in the criminal code that can be enforced to prevent that if it causes dangerous driving. This is a worthwhile debate, but I personally would not support a piece of legislation at this time. However like all legislation, certainly there is a place for it in the House of Commons. I was particularly interested in the debate.

[Petitions, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of the citizens of Canada, mainly from the Guelph area. The petitioners call upon parliament to ask the Minister of Justice to undertake a further re-examination of the Steven Truscott case within a reasonable time period and to ensure that justice be restored to Mr. Truscott.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what this comes down to, quite simply, is untendered contracts to Liberal friends. The government received no value for many of those contracts. We cannot even find the contracts. Some of them do not even exist. For many of them we only received a photocopy.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Another $7 billion worth of government money is in foundations. The right hon. member for Calgary Centre asked today in the House about the foundations and the refusal and inability of the auditor general to look at those foundations. The auditor general has the power to look at the foundations as well as at the untendered contracts if the government uses section 11 under the Financial Services Act.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this late show question concerns questions I asked in the House on June 10 of last week. At that time the Minister of Public Works and Government Services replied that he was seriously dealing with the problem of untendered contracts and a number of other contracting scandals in which the government found itself.

During the minister's reply he said that he had been asked by the Prime Minister to solve the issues in his portfolio and that he intended to do so. He also said that he would not allow idle speculation to interfere with the process.

The main concern I have is with what the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is actually calling idle speculation.

I have tried to total up the contracting scandals. We get a new scandal every day so the total is growing as we speak. If we add all the scandals together, it amounts to $55 million. Never has a government in the history of Canada thrown away or given away to friends $55 million of the public purse.

If we were to add the $101 million Challenger contract, that would make $156 million of untendered contracts.

The Department of National Defence alone has had $30,600,000 in questionable contracts looked at by the auditor general without being called on the mat by the minister. VIA Rail has $1 million. Attractions Canada or Groupe Everest has a $22 million untendered contract. The Groupe Polygone sportsman show that never happened had a $333,000 contract. We just found another contract with Groupaction, a company that is already into the public purse for $1.6 million. Today in the Toronto Sun we read about another $330,000 contract for the gun registry that never happened.

This is not idle speculation by members of the opposition. These are serious complaints about serious issues that in any other time and in any other government people would, quite frankly, be in jail. It is a terrible waste of public office and a waste of public funds.

If we look at the sponsorship program since 1997, $232 million has been paid out and much of that money went to friends of the Liberal Party. That is just wrong.

I am not trying to deny the fact that those of us in the House are partisan politicians but we cannot give contracts out to our friends. If we look at the amount of money that has gone out and what the auditor general has said about it, it is time for immediate and direct action from the government.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members vote yes to this motion.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative Party members vote yes.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members vote no.

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote no.