Ken Epp

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of clarification. It could be that the motion was read too fast for the interpreters, but in the English there was no mention of Prince Edward Island as in my printed copy and I just want to confirm that it was included.

[Criminal Code, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to hear what the parliamentary secretary has to say. Could we have unanimous consent to hear him to the end of his speech? That would be a great idea.

[Supply, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week when it went to -37

o

in my riding I promised some of my friends if they voted for me I would solve the mosquito problem. Lo and behold, we saw no mosquitoes last week. That is the same as the hon. member claiming the government did such wonderful fiscal work in balancing the budget, posting surpluses and making a mediocre paydown of the debt. It is exactly the same as the Liberals claiming they have done a great job. They had no more influence on the deficit than I did in solving the mosquito problem in Alberta. The economy was flying. We would have done a lot better if the tax and spend Liberals had not been in power.

The Liberals took $30 billion in EI surpluses. They took $30 billion out of the pension funds of civil servants. Some $60 billion is missing. Where did it go?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, natives who are poor do not pay taxes because they have the same exemption that other poor people have. Natives who have higher income should pay taxes at the same level as their next door neighbours. This is not about on reserve treaty rights. It is about two businesses side by side in one of our cities or two families side by side in one of our towns. One pays taxes, the other is exempt.

When will the government begin implementing policies which treat Canadians equally and stop differentiating based on race?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope people watching us on television do not get the impression I am the only opposition member here. There are many others but I guess they are not ready to engage the hon. member.

I have a second question about the topic. If we look at making rules that follow certain principles, which is a good idea, it seems the Liberal government drafts so much hodgepodge legislation. When an issue comes along they make up a rule. They have no principles to guide them. The principle should be that a deduction, capital cost allowance or something like that should be available.

If the principle for mechanics is that we give them a deduction while they are in training, why do we not do it for dentists? Why do we not say dentists can deduct all the expenses they incur while buying equipment for their offices when they are in training but when the training is over we will end the deduction?

One principle should drive how we arrange deductions and capital cost allowances: they should apply equally to all Canadians irrespective of how they earn their living. The hon. member presumably created hope for the future by saying the government would go forward with the measure and possibly expand it. I must admit my expectations are not all that high. However we will continue to push the measure and work on it.

My next question has to do with the air travel tax. The hon. member did not dwell on it a great deal but he said the security tax for air travellers would fill an important need. I will pose a situation to him. I used to do a lot of my own mechanical work. I often worried while working on the transmission or something that it would fall on me and I would not be able to breathe unless it were quickly taken off my chest. I was always careful to use props and things that would prevent that from happening while I was under the vehicle. I was a Saturday mechanic and did not have all the fancy tools people have.

The government is looking at the airline industry and saying “We will drop a transmission on this guy's chest. We will come back tomorrow and if he is not breathing we will take it off.” That is not the proper way to look at the issue.

We have economists in the finance department who are supposed to be able to look to the future and estimate the effects of different measures. We were told in the finance committee that in this case it was not done. No study was done on the effects of the air travel tax.

I am concerned that by the time the finance minister looked at the issue in the fall to see if the government was getting too much revenue the answer would be no because many small businesses which attracted air travellers and paid the tax would have gone belly up or stopped their services. Revenues would go down on that account. The tax would not be reduced because there would be fewer people paying it. In the meantime we would have lost many valuable services.

Why is the government not doing a study prior to implementing such a devastating tax?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 15th, 2002]

Liberals can do it. However mechanics have not been able to. The government says it is responding to this with a new exemption that would allow deductions for tools used by mechanics. Yet when we read the fine print we find it would only apply while they were in their apprentice year. That is unrealistic. First, in their early training and apprentice years mechanics have very low incomes and do not have enough money to fully fund the cache of tools they need.

Second, if we look at it we realize the exemption would only cover up to $1,000 worth of tools. If their income was greater than $20,000 that would be the cap. If it was less than $20,000 they could only claim 5% of their income.

The amount of tools required by new mechanics is not related to how much money they make. They need the money. Why the government would not give them at least a $1,000 deduction irrespective of their income is a mystery to me. It wants to milk the maximum out of an announcement that does very little for the people involved.

Can the hon. member stand and defend the government's answer as to why the exemption is so mediocre, inadequate and inept? I would like the answer on the record because I will make sure it is duplicated and sent to the people who have made representations to me.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I pretty well knew everything the hon. member would say in advance because I have heard it from the other side over and over. I will ask a question about one of the items. If no other members rise I will come back with a second question.

The Liberals seem to be experts at maximizing the political spin from the announcement of things which have little effect or in many cases no effect. One of these is the tool tax exemption for mechanics. As long as I have been here, which is more than eight years, we have had representations from mechanics who in some cases are required to invest up to $40,000 or $50,000 in tools to do their work. Other individuals who need to make investments to earn a living are able to claim exemptions. Doctors, lawyers and dentists can do this.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, probably my colleague and I share the concern about the effectiveness of the committee on Bill C-49. I would like to have the member state his position on this issue.

The committee at some expense had a number of witnesses come before it, both in the prebudget consultations and also on Bill C-49 specifically.

During the prebudget consultations there were numerous witnesses who said that the donations to private charities should receive the same tax treatment as those to public charities. The witnesses were unanimous in their statements on that. The committee recommended it to the finance minister, but it is nowhere to be seen in the budget implementation act.

During the discussion on Bill C-49 witnesses unanimously said that the structure of the security tax would be devastating to the small carriers. Again, the committee in this case chose to ignore it with highhandedness from the Prime Minister's Office. Other coercive tactics were used as well.

I would like the hon. member to comment on that. I hope he is as angry about that as I am.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 13th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I know the member who just spoke has a compelling interest in the rights and advantages to workers as I do. I grew up in Saskatchewan, good CCF country when I was a kid and later NDP country.

I have always felt that it was important to fight for the little guy, the one struggling to make ends meet. In fact what brought me into parliament was observing so many people struggling to make ends meet because of their high tax load.

The question I wish to ask the hon. member has to do with this new exemption for tools for mechanics. I do not how aware she is of this. I know she is not a regular member of the finance committee but I am wondering if she has had some input from her constituents on this issue.

In my view that measure in the bill is completely inadequate. It has a $1,000 ceiling on the amount of expenses that can be claimed to reduce one's taxable income. It is even lower than that if one's income is less than $20,000. It would only apply to apprentice students and not to people who work as mechanics day after day and suffer the long term losses of their tools or needing to replace them because of obsolescence.

Has the hon. member had any input from her constituents on that question?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Notwithstanding the standing orders, I wonder whether there would be unanimous consent for us to engage the member in questions and comments for up to 10 minutes.