Leon Benoit

[Immigration, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, now the minister says that it is okay to read the mail. In a recent immigration standing committee, the minister stated “Canadians love the fact that we are free. Nobody monitors our movements. Nobody checks our whereabouts in a way which makes us feel like big brother is watching us”.

That is what she said but it flies in the face of what she actually does. She acts like big brother when she opens our mail. When will the minister end this practice?

[Immigration, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, regarding documents moving in and out of Canada, the immigration minister stated that her officials look at the documents but they do not read them.

How does the minister know and, more important, how can Canadians be sure that her officials only look at the documents and do not read them?

[Criminal Code, April 4th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-328, an act to amend the Criminal Code (theft over $100,000).

Mr. Speaker, the title of the bill is an act to amend the Criminal Code for theft over $100,000.

The purpose of the bill is to do two things. First, to allow a penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment for theft over $100,000. Second, to allow the same 14 year maximum penalty for people who would bring property obtained through crime into the country.

This is long overdue. This change would encourage police officers to carry through on investigations involving white collar crime, such as embezzlement, when there are large amounts of money involved. In the United States, there is grand theft in place, which is a special charge allowing a higher penalty than other theft charges.

It is long overdue in Canada and I look forward to debating the bill in the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Income Tax Act, April 3rd, 2001]

He said he is not, but he should be. I think that is an awfully sad commentary.

Let us look at what this is all about. We are talking about providing tax fairness for technicians and mechanics who as a condition of employment must provide their own tools.

The parliamentary secretary said the annual fees are what we should be looking at, that the cost of purchasing the tools, which may be anywhere from $20,000 to $70,000 for the total tool package, is not that important because it is a cost over 40 years. If the member knew anything at all about mechanics he would know that, first, tools wear out and, second, get lost. That is why employers make it a condition of employment for mechanics to buy their own tools. If mechanics do not have their own tools, what shop owners have found over the years is that the tools disappear. They are left on vehicles. Maybe some walk out of the shop with the mechanics, although I suggest that is not the most common problem. They are just not as careful with them as they are when the tolls are their own.

The issue is that it is a requirement of employment. We already have others under the tax act who in fact can write off the cost of their tools. The member knows that. We are talking about tax fairness.

For example, artists, chainsaw operators and musicians can already do that. Besides that, any small business person, someone on a farm or in a small town who may even be the only employee working in the shop, under that situation, he or she can write off all the costs of providing tools, no matter what the value of the tools is. Any business person can do that.

If people choose to organize in that fashion, where they have their own shop and are doing work for customers out of their own shop, they can write everything off. They should be able to. It is a cost of doing business.

Mechanics and technicians operate under a unusual set of circumstances where there is a high cost to tools provided. It is not like plumbers and carpenters, I suggest. I would suggest that the parliamentary secretary is right in one regard and that is that everyone who has a high cost of purchasing tools should be allowed to write it off. However, I suggest there are extremely few tradespeople in the same position.

Mechanics are indeed in a very unusual position in that the cost of their tools is extremely high. The $1,300 or whatever the annual fee was that the member talked about is only one part of it. When the tool package commonly reaches $30,000 to $50,000 in total, it is very difficult for a mechanic.

I have a bit of a problem when I hear the member from Etobicoke, the parliamentary secretary, saying that mechanics are not doing so bad, that they earn $50,000 and therefore we should not grant them the same fairness that is granted to private business people or to chainsaw operators and the other select group.

Perhaps he should be thinking about his own salary. As a member of parliament, the member makes about $68,000 a year, which is about the same as a teacher in Ontario who is at the top end of the salary range, but he also earns a supplement for being a parliamentary secretary. That is quite substantial. As well, he gets a tax free allowance, much of which is not used for what would be considered legitimate business expenses if he were a person working for a company and had an expense account. Much of that tax free allowance—much more than five years ago certainly—is an income top-up.

The member is talking about $50,000 being a high income and therefore we should forget about what is fair. It bothers me. Look at who is saying that: a person collecting a very healthy salary. I do have a real problem with that.

This is not an issue of some mechanics making a pretty good income so we should give them some scraps here and there. This is about tax fairness.

The finance committee, which is controlled by Liberal members, has on different occasions said this is the right thing to do. In its prebudget report in December 1997, the House of Commons finance committee, consisting of a majority of Liberal members, this parliamentary secretary's colleagues, said:

The Committee believes that all Canadian employees should be allowed to deduct from their income the cost of large mandatory employment expenses. Special provisions in the Income Tax Act already apply to artists, chainsaw operators and musicians. To deny this tax treatment to apprentices and technicians in the automotive industry is not only unfair, it also imposes an impediment to employment, especially for the young who might choose to work as apprentices. Revising the tax treatment of such expenses would remove the impediment that exists under the present tax rules.

This is a quote from the report of the finance committee from 1997. This member's own colleagues certainly held a majority of positions on that committee. That was supported by the members of the Reform Party at the time, now the Canadian Alliance.

It is something that was supported in debate by all political parties in the House, including colleagues of the parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretaries to the finance minister seem to be the only people who speak out against the bill. As the Bloc member who sponsored the bill has said, we had a vote in the House of Commons just before the election was called. The unnecessary early call of the election interfered with its passing. Only 11 people in the House voted against it. Most of the parliamentary secretary's colleagues, including some cabinet ministers, supported this bill.

So what are we doing? There should be no resistance to the bill. It has been well supported and it is time that it was implemented. I speak fully in support of the bill and I know all of my colleagues support it. They think it is an issue of tax fairness.

It is funny how tax fairness for the government only seems to be talked about, considered and implemented when that tax fairness means raising taxes to one group so that it is fair relative to everyone else. Only when the government can get its mitts on more taxes is it an issue of tax fairness. I say that is not the way the country should be going. We should be looking for substantial tax reductions. Unfortunately, that just is not happening.

This is leading to several very serious problems. First of all, people who may otherwise become technicians and keep the country moving with cars, trucks, airplanes and so on are looking elsewhere for employment. Who is going to keep our country going as this shortage increases? The blame should be laid squarely on the shoulders of the government, which refused to act in this issue of tax fairness.

I would encourage members of the House, when the bill does come up for vote after the third hour of debate, to once again unanimously support the bill. It is a very good bill, which is almost identical to the bill I presented, was debated on at least two occasions in the House and introduced on more occasions.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the bill. I am very disappointed with the parliamentary secretary and his comments. He made a whole new set of excuses, as I have said. I would be happy to go through the excuses from last time, but let us move ahead, support the bill, get it to committee and implement it so that technicians and mechanics across this country are treated fairly under the Income Tax Act.

[Income Tax Act, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy indeed to rise to speak to this bill. This probably makes half a dozen times or so in the seven years I have been here that I have risen to speak to it, and it is an important enough issue that I am pleased to speak to it every time I get a chance.

I just listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance make his comments as the member for Etobicoke North. Last time, about two weeks ago when it was my private member's bill, which is essentially the same bill that the member was responding to, he had a whole different set of excuses. These clearly are excuses and it is some of the dumbest reasoning for not supporting the bill that I have ever heard in the House.

It is some of the dumbest indeed. He says mechanics do all right, that some make $50,000 or more a year, and for that reason they are not in need of a write-off. It has nothing to do with what they are in need of. It has to do with what is fair under the tax act. It has everything to do with what is fair compared to the way others are treated.

It is not an issue that mechanics are making low incomes and therefore they are charity cases so let us throw them a few crumbs. That is not what it is about. The member should know that. He should be disgusted with himself for making that kind of presentation.

[Health, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, foot and mouth disease is one of the most serious threats this country has faced in the past 50 years. It is serious for cattlemen, hog producers, elk ranchers and others.

It is also serious for all taxpayers, who could be asked to pay up to $20 billion to cover the losses, and to thousands who could lose their jobs as a result of this infection.

The government is not doing enough to prevent this potential disaster. People and meat products are still arriving unchecked into this country from infected areas. This must stop. Inspections must be improved.

It is a very real possibility that this devastating disease will infect Canadian herds, yet no plan of action has been presented by the government. It is time now for the government to make public a comprehensive plan for minimizing the damage so that all involved are ready to act should the worst happen.

[Health, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, foot and mouth disease, if it entered Canada, would devastate our livestock industry, tear farm families apart and cost up to $20 billion. We must ensure that every effort is made by all branches of government to keep this disease out of Canada.

Could the minister responsible for customs and revenue tell the House and farmers across the country what specific measures he has taken to educate customs officials on the seriousness of foot and mouth disease, and how he personally is monitoring the preventive measures taken?

[Farm Income Protection Act, March 28th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-321, an act to amend the Farm Income Protection Act (crop damage by gophers).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being given a second chance today on this bill because it is an important bill to farmers, ranchers and others in western Canada.

The bill entitled “an act to amend the Farm Income Protection Act (crop damage by gophers), would hopefully lead to restoring the effective poison that really works to control gophers, but which costs farmers tens of millions of dollars a year. It is an important bill for farmers, ranchers and others. I am sure the House will fully support the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's well stated comments in this debate.

It is interesting that members of the New Democratic Party have talked about winners and loser in these trade deals. They fear that Canada will be the loser and have sided with the protesters, which is a sad commentary.

If we think back to the pre-1988 years, we remember that several members of this government opposed the free trade agreement that the Conservatives brought forth. Members, including the Prime Minister, the industry minister and the heritage minister, sided with the protesters against that agreement. They protested against a free trade agreement that has brought much wealth and prosperity to our country. It is an agreement that has allowed our cattle industry to more than double in Alberta, the high tech industry to develop in Ottawa and the financial and service industries to develop in Toronto and Vancouver.

All those things brought prosperity right across the country. However, many members of the government spoke out against that agreement and protested side by side with protesters in 1988. Is it not funny what a few years have done?

Why does my colleague think there has apparently been a change in heart from those cabinet ministers and other members of the government on this fundamental and very important issue of free trade?

[Indian Act, March 21st, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-307, an act to amend the Indian Act (election of chiefs and councils).

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed delighted to introduce this bill which would ensure that Elections Canada monitors elections of chiefs and councils on reserves right across the country. Many people who live on reserves have expressed to me a concern about the elections of chiefs and councils on their reserves. All the bill would do is ensure that elections would be fair and votes would be respected, and it would do so in a logical way by having Elections Canada monitor the elections.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)