House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was particular.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Liberal MP for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte (Newfoundland & Labrador)

Won his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply November 19th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the informed debate and the different views that have been expressed in the House this afternoon but as well during the course of several weeks of discussion about a very important issue that touches upon the lives of so many Canadians who are reaching out to better their own lives and to participate as full Canadians in a full society.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of one of the previous speakers, the hon. member for Winnipeg South who has been a passionate leader in speaking out on issues related to those who require assistance, those whose lives have been touched, not only by disabilities but, more important, by abilities.

The level of the discussion we are having today comes from the hard work at the committee level, the people who believe that we have a responsibility to assist people in gaining full access and full control of their own lives. I think this is what the hon. members opposite and hon. members on this side of the House have really been promoting, and it has come through loud and clear in this discussion.

It may be worthwhile to continue on with this informed debate and discussion to outline some important things that all members of the House should continue to reflect on and be aware of.

The federal government does have several tax measures that help with the costs associated with disabilities above and beyond the disability tax credit. Some provide tax assistance to caregivers while others help to reduce barriers to labour force participation for persons with disabilities.

The medical expense tax credit, for example, assists people who face above average medical expenses. In 2002 the tax credit equals 16% of the qualifying medical expenses in excess of about $1,700, or 3% of net income. It also might be worth pointing out that the list of eligible medical expenses is regularly reviewed and expanded to keep pace with new technologies and needs of Canadians. That is an important element of an evolving assistance program.

I would also like to reinforce the fact that the caregiver credit, which this government introduced in 1998, helps the many Canadians who provide in-home care to adult loved ones. For claimants, this measure alone represents an annual tax benefit of almost $600. There is also the tax assistance to individuals who care for an infirmed relative who may live in a separate residence. The amount used for calculating both this and the caregiver credit increased by almost 50% on January 1, 2001, from $2,386 to $3,500.

Perhaps bottom line figures, however, rather than examples, would better illustrate our government's commitment to persons with disabilities through the tax system. The 1996 total federal tax assistance to Canadians with disabilities amounted to some $600 million. Today the total is approximately $1.1 billion. That is an increase of almost 80%.

Clearly that is where the government's priorities are. Since assuming office back in 1993, our government has remained steadfastly committed to helping people with disabilities and using the tax system as an important element to our strategy.

However the federal government provides assistance to persons with disabilities through more than just the $1.1 billion provided through the tax system. Assistance is also provided through direct spending programs.

More than $4 billion in support is provided to Canadians with disabilities through the Canada pension plan and direct spending programs. Some $3 billion is provided annually by the Department of Human Resources Development Canada through the Canada pension plan and key departmental programs such as employability assistance for people with disabilities, the opportunities fund, the Canada study grants and the social development partnerships program.

It is also important not to forget the Department of Veterans Affairs in this role, another key federal player, which provides direct funding totalling over $1 billion annually for veterans with disabilities.

It is clear to me that when we look at the whole picture, instead of focusing on just one aspect of federal assistance to persons with disabilities, a clearer picture emerges.

This brings me directly to the disability tax credit itself. As all hon. members in the House know, the disability tax credit reduces an individual's federal income tax by up to $989 per year. In total it provides approximately $400 million a year in federal tax assistance.

Those who are proposing the motion called on the government to act on the recommendation of the standing committee report entitled “Getting It Right For Canadians: The Disability Tax Credit”, and in particular the recommendations concerning the eligibility requirements of the disability tax credit.

As all hon. members are aware, the government released its official response to the report on August 21 of this year and has indicated that it is indeed taking action on a number of recommendations. While the government' s response is not structured on a recommendation by recommendation basis, it is comprehensive and addresses all recommendations in the committee's report.

Let me highlight three specific principal committee recommendations on which the government is indeed taking firm action. First, the government has agreed to conduct an evaluation of the disability tax credit when key data become available next year.

Second, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is already expanding its consultations on improving the application form for the disability tax credit.

Third, the government will continue to consult and assess tax assistance for persons with disabilities on an ongoing basis to ensure its effectiveness.

It is important not to forget, as I mentioned earlier, that the overall tax assistance for persons with disabilities has increased about $1.1 billion per year from $600 million in 1996. Again, this is an increase of 80%. In light of the third recommendation, which I discussed a minute ago, I can assure the House that the government will continue to review tax assistance for persons with disabilities on an ongoing basis to ensure its effectiveness and its appropriateness.

No one can argue that the government has not been responsive to the priorities and needs of persons with disabilities. Think once more of the substantial enhancements to the disability tax credit, to the increased tax assistance for families caring for children with disabilities, to the increased support to caregivers and to the enhancements to the medical expense tax credit and that case is well proved.

We do recognize that there are important contributions that can be made to refine the system. I think that is why the motion from the New Democratic Party is timely and we will be reviewing that in due course.

In addition to federal tax assistance and spending, it is important not to forget that the provincial and territorial governments, as well as the voluntary sector and groups representing persons with disabilities, play an important role in helping to achieve this overall objective.

We should note that in the Speech from the Throne at the end of September the government announced that it would put in place targeted measures for low income families caring for children with severe disabilities.

The evolution continues. The priorities that were outlined in the Speech from the Throne built on the conviction that we must add to the work of our ancestors and leave a better place for future generations. That definitively includes a better place for persons with disabilities, people who have huge contributions to make to each and every one of us and to society. That is a commitment to which the federal government remains steadfast.

I want to say how much I appreciate, not only the input from the members opposite, but the members from this government, members who worked at the committee level who continue to advocate, lobby and express the need for expanded measures that really get to the core of how we ensure the complete integration of persons with disabilities into the community at large. The contribution they make equals the contribution we all make. We all grow as a nation when we have full participants, full Canadians building Canada.

Question No. 7 November 18th, 2002

With regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, attached is a table covering the period 1998 to the present, responding to the following questions: a) how many construction and/or renovation projects has ACOA approved in Prince Edward Island; b) who was the contractor for each project; c) what was the dollar amount for each project; d) in a brief narrative description, what work was carried out under the project; e) on what date was the contract awarded; f) was the contract awarded through an open competition, an advance contract award notice, ACAN, or a non-competitive award; and g) who at ACOA approved the contract.

Renovations ACOA PEI

Fiscal year 1998-99 to date

As at June 24, 2002

LPO: Local purchase order

SSA: Small Projects/Specific Service Agreements--These are for services to be provided by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC); all contracts are let and managed by PWGSC.

Number of Renovation Projects: 9

Number of Contracts: 22

Government Grants October 21st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I will speak slowly so he understands.

There is no monopoly agreement with Mr. Samson for the use of the lift, the storage area or the boat servicing area. I do understand that the president of this organization, who is a member of the Richmond County Progressive Conservative Association, did enter into a deal with Mr. Samson on an area exterior to the actual facility itself. That is between them and Mr. Samson.

Government Grants October 21st, 2002

Not a problem, Mr. Speaker. I want to say categorically there is no monopoly arrangement with Mr. Samson for the use of the lift, the storage area or the boat servicing area on Mouse Island. There is a wide range of users. In fact, Mr. Samson's company will only be a recipient of approximately 11% of its use. First nations are also major users as are tourist operators in the area.

However, there is a mouse on Mouse Island that has a penchant for Limburger not for Canadian cheddar because, while it was walking around and exploring this issue, it neglected to point out that Gabriel LeBlanc, the president of the development association, is also an executive member of the Richmond Country Progressive Conservative Riding Association.

Government Grants October 21st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance Party has said on a regular basis that Atlantic Canadians are defeatists. It has said on a regular basis that we should basically just drift away from Canada.

When it wants to say stunned or it wants to say that we are defeatists, what it really wants to do is project the image that Atlantic Canadians are second class citizens, and this side of the House will have nothing to do with that.

Government Grants October 21st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, they obviously understand the answer, the answer being of course that the grant was not provided to any family member.

An application was received by the Community Economic Development Organizations which represents community representatives from the province of Prince Edward Island. When the grant was accepted it was for a cultural initiative. It was accepted to increase tourism visitation in Prince Edward Island. That is what was done.

The continuous references to organizations being the family property of a MacAulay member is absolutely and categorically false. I encourage the hon. members opposite to reflect on the fact that Prince Edward Island has a series of non-profit organizations--

Points of Order October 11th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, earlier, in response to a question during question period, I referred to Nova Scotia. The province actually should have been noted as P.E.I. at the time. I was thinking about all the positive things that are happening in Nova Scotia, about which hon. members opposite do not want to talk. Could I have that clarification on the record that my intention was to state Prince Edward Island not Nova Scotia?

Government Contracts October 11th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, we have already said and said very clearly that it is not Alex MacAulay's college. We continually recite the facts to the opposition parties but they do not seem to want to understand.

I will tell them that there is someone who says that things are going right in P.E.I. I want to quote from the Charlottetown Guardian:

--he [the Premier of P.E.I.] does know that the projects [the MP for Cardigan] was working on were in the best interest of the province...“Because of his efforts, I think we've been able to achieve some good results for P.E.I.”

Government Contracts October 11th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw those last comments but I will ask the hon. member to please respect the people of P.E.I.

Government Contracts October 11th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member, and I use that with discretion, states that he is for P.E.I., that he is for development on P.E.I., he continuously erodes the business confidence in the people of P.E.I. In fact, Premier Binns has noted that the reputation of P.E.I. is being slandered. By whom? By the PC Party of Canada.

He rejects the notions that have been put forward and, quite frankly, the Premier of P.E.I. would prefer a more suitable, more appropriate environment to foster growth on P.E.I. and that will be accomplished by the hon. member shutting his mouth.