The hon. member says it hurts. If the hon. member had any sense at all, he would perhaps deal with some of the facts rather than deal with this kind of back and forth taunting that he is so accustomed to. It is too bad he had to bring it to the House as well. I unfortunately cannot apologize to his constituents. Hopefully when he goes back he will do that himself.
What I would like to do is basically deal with this particular matter. As members have indicated in the House, this issue has come before the House and members have commented on this. The finance committee has looked at it, has listened to witnesses and has included this particular measure in its report as part of a prebudget consultation.
I just want to go back to some of the comments made by the Reform Party member earlier and restate the state of confusion that he is in. He seems to be confused about the types of employment that people are involved in. He confuses self-employment with working for an employer. He talked about the ability of farmers to deduct versus the ability of individuals who are employees of a particular corporation to not be able to deduct certain expenses.
There is no question that work related employees' expense deductions are not available because employers normally provide items required for employees to perform their duties. It is true in large part, but the hon. member across the way, the mover of this particular motion, is also correct that in some occupations it is not true. In fact, automobile mechanics do incur substantial expenses as a condition of employment.
We also know from the hon. members who spoke on this issue earlier, that it is also a complex issue. I would therefore like to frame the issue with respect to a number of tax policy principles. I think all members would agree that any change in tax policy needs to be fair and that the changes would also need to be relatively simple to administer and easy to comply with for the taxpayers. They should also be consistent with respect to the government's overall fiscal situation.
The task of finding appropriate tax treatment for mechanics' tools is difficult. I often welcome this type of debate because it gives members on both sides of the House the opportunity to put forward their perspectives on certain issues. I do want to highlight some of the challenges that we would face as a government with respect to this particular issue.
I meet with mechanics in my riding and I often look forward to that opportunity. We do engage in an exchange that is usually a healthy exchange, unlike the exchange that takes place between the Reform Party and ourselves.
Given that mechanics are not the only occupation in which employees incur substantial expenses as a requirement of employment, it would difficult to justify providing tax relief solely to mechanics to the exclusion of all others, which is in fact what this private member's bill proposes.
Tax relief has been requested for work related expenses and it has been sought to include individual personal computers purchased by employees, reading materials or professional journals, other general costs associated with skills upgrading, as well as tools for employee tradespersons, which is essentially another very important aspect to look at.
In extending tax relief to many equally deserving taxpayers, or as the hon. members across the way would say, just extend it to everyone, it is also important to recognize that it would certainly incur substantial expenses. We would need to look at it.
The hon. member for Kings—Hants talks about looking at this issue and says that we are not really in agreement with it because it would complicate the tax system even further. I am in agreement with that. We need to provide some greater reduction in taxes and to ensure that tax reduction simplifies the tax system and does not in any way complicate it.
We need to ensure that when any tax relief is provided it is only for items required as a condition of employment and not for personal use. I mentioned earlier in my speech that there are other areas for which people have requested tax relief which would involve personal use.
It is fair to say that the provisions we need to address with respect to these issues would inevitably be complex since they would need to account for a large variety of items for which tax recognition may be claimed.
I point to one and how difficult it often is to audit this type of expense. Let us consider the extensive provisions needed just to ensure the equitable recognition of automobile expenses. This type of tax relief would complicate the tax system even further and involve a whole bunch of regulatory burden and other measures which would not in any way simplify the system but rather complicate it.
In light of what I have mentioned, I think hon. members would agree that the bill does not properly take into account issues which need to be considered before tax recognition could be provided for employee expenses, and in particular mechanics' tools.
The complexities associated with the proposed measure and the small size of the fiscal surplus lead us to a point where we feel that tax relief—and I know all members are in agreement with tax relief—should be directed toward broad tax relief to all Canadians. We have a challenge with our personal income tax system. We recognize that it is the highest in terms of the G-7 countries. We recognize that. We have begun to reduce personal income taxes. Obviously members opposite do not think it is enough. They do not mind going back into a deficit position.
Most Canadians insist that governments maintain balanced books and demand that governments provide priority spending, provide tax relief and ensure that the debt continues to be paid down. That is the program we have embarked upon and one that we will continue to put forward.
When we talk about tax relief, certainly I would not be an advocate of tax relief which would complicate the tax system even further. I would advocate tax relief for Canadians at all levels of income.
This is why we started to provide tax relief by increasing the basic exemption, ensuring that all Canadians would benefit from it. We have eliminated the 3% surtax for those Canadians who were paying it, because that surtax was directed specifically to paying down the deficit. Since we have eliminated the deficit the 3% surtax has now been eliminated.
We need to go further. We also have to look at employment insurance. Most members opposite complain that employment insurance premiums are too high, but they very rarely mention that employment insurance premiums have been reduced by billions of dollars since we have come to office and will continue to be reduced. I find it quite ironic that often members opposite—
