Leon Benoit

[Motions For Papers, February 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like this motion transferred for debate.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We can stray a little in debate but I would question the relevance of the comments the member is making.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

The Prime Minister runs the show over there. What would be the difference if you weren't here?

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the member is too kind in his comments but, believe me, I always appreciate that.

In terms of accountability, when the minister referred to the three or four million people who supported the Canadian Alliance as racists, bigots and Holocaust deniers, she lost her credibility, and it is clear that she should not be in this position.

In terms of the system, the auditor general made some interesting comments less than a year ago in his report on the immigration system. He made a lot of statements that were profound, but I will quote from one. He said:

On the whole, we are very concerned about the Department's ability to ensure compliance with legislative requirements in this area. We noted serious deficiencies in the way it applies admissibility criteria related to health, criminality and security. It is somewhat disappointing to note the limited progress it has made since our 1990 Report.

The auditor general made almost an identical report in many areas back in 1990 and he noted in his 2000 report that many of the same problems are still there.

The accountability is not there in legislation, it is not there in practice and it is not there in the way the department administers it. It is one my biggest concerns. Even if it were a good piece of legislation, if the administration does not improve and if the accountability does not improve then our immigration system will not be any better. That answers the first question.

In terms of abuse of the system, it was interesting to hear an NDP member refer earlier to the roughly 6,000 people who came from China by boat the summer before last. She said they were economic refugees, that they had come here to better their situation. If they wanted to come as economic immigrants they should have come through our immigration system, but she seemed to think it was fine that they came claiming to be refugees when they clearly were not.

The UN convention definition of a refugee says clearly that someone coming to improve his or her economic situation is not a refugee. I was shocked to hear the member's statement. If a person comes here claiming to be a refugee he or she should be a refugee as laid out in the UN convention. Canada has expanded that quite broadly.

These people did not fall under any definition and the member seemed to think that was fine. I have a huge problem with that. I call that abuse of the system.

To the third question on the loopholes in our foreign offices and so on, there was a document leaked to me about a year ago when I was immigration critic that made it very clear that there were many problems in our foreign offices that have to be dealt with, and the auditor general agreed.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member asking this question. It gives me a chance to clarify a large misunderstanding that I left in place.

I am talking about having a system which targets people who can add very quickly to our system and to our economy. This is one of the stated goals of the current immigration system. It is a stated goal in the new bill. There is nothing there to indicate that anything would be improved.

In answering the question I refer to the ninth recommendation of the immigration task force report. The information came from people who came to Canada over the last 20 or 30 years and some who came in the last year or less. They are the people who have dealt with the system in a way that leads them to understand what some of the problems are.

They put forth a specific recommendation which I think would be of huge benefit. I see nothing innovative in the legislation that reflects what these people put forth. They described the following common problem.

Immigration consultants, be they lawyers or non-lawyer consultants, go to Pakistan or India, two major countries from which we accept immigrants, and put on a seminar for maybe 300 or 400 people. They tell people that Canada is a great country, which is true, and they also say some things that are not quite as true. They say, for example, that engineers in Pakistan or in India can just come over to Canada and immediately become engineers. That is simply not true.

I will never forget as long as I live an experience I had. Three or four people told me that if they could find the consultant who told them that, they would do serious damage to the individual because it had made their lives hell.

It would improve the system if people coming to Canada knew what they were coming to. They should understand the workplace in Canada and what is expected there. The task force recommended that as part of the immigration act there should be a requirement that people immigrating to Canada in economic categories, not as refugees, which is another issue, be tested on their knowledge of the Canadian workplace. I suggest this would save a lot of heartache and would actually increase the economic benefits that we receive from immigrants. This is one of the recommendations that would have a huge impact. We would not have people coming here expecting to be engineers and finding out that they have to work at Future Shop and, in many cases, never becoming engineers.

Many of us who have made a point of talking to cab drivers in Ottawa and in the greater Toronto area have heard a lot of stories about people who came to Canada expecting to take a top end job but ended up driving cabs. There is nothing wrong with driving a cab but when one expects to be an engineer or in another profession and one is forced to drive a cab to make a living, it is very painful. It often tears the family apart.

Once people have immigrated to Canada or to any other country, there is no going home. They have cut their ties and often have sold their properties. They have told the people around them, their family and friends, that what they have is not good enough and that they want better.

If we ensure that people have a clear understanding and can accept what they are coming to then I think we will have a much better immigration system and one which will lead to maximum economic benefits for the country, but we need to make that one change. There are many other innovative changes that could have been made but none are in the legislation.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will start by congratulating you on your appointment to the chair. It is a real honour for me to be able to speak to this piece of legislation, Bill C-11.

I will first talk about what Canadians want from an immigration system. Second, I will address what they do not want. Then I will go through the legislation and point out 28 different areas that must be focused on and seriously looked at, at committee level. Those areas must be examined and in many cases modified through amendments to make the legislation something which serves what Canadians want and helps prevent what they do not want.

What do Canadians want? They want a system that works first for economic and independent immigrants. The current system clearly does not work well. Any one of us as members of parliament could point to individual cases and lots of them. In each constituency across the country there are hundreds of cases where the system has failed people and where it has taken them too long to work their way through it. The result has not made sense. These are not isolated cases. They are very common.

Our system in the past worked extremely well. I think about my constituency. I think about the immigrants who developed the area of Lakeland constituency. In the latter part of the 19th century immigration to Canada began with immigrants from Britain and then expanded to include Germany and almost every country in western Europe.

In the late part of the 19th century we had a Lebanese settlement which is still prominent in Lac La Biche and in parts of our constituency. They are a well established part of the community. They have helped build the community. In the late 19th century and in two other instances, after the first world war and the second world war, we had Ukrainian immigration from eastern Europe.

These immigrants have built our country. I think we all recognize this point. Every member of parliament could point to his or her constituency and to how immigration has worked in the past.

Why do we not learn from what has happened and what has worked in the past so that we can build a system that will work better in the future? That is what Canadians want in terms of independent categories.

Canadians also want a system which will reunite families quickly. When families are separated, either because family members have come as refugee claimants or have come under the independent categories, Canadians want a system which will reunite families quickly.

Again, every member of parliament in his or her constituency can point to dozens of situations where a member of a family came to the country and where a spouse or dependent children have not been allowed to come. The process has taken months and even years in many cases.

I can point to situations in my own constituency where husbands and wives have been waiting to be reunited for more than three years. Canadians want a system which will allow that to happen much more quickly and in a fashion that is expected from a well developed country like Canada.

Canadians also want a system which will accept genuine refugees. There is no doubt that Canadians support accepting genuine refugees. I have heard nothing but support for that from people from across the country. They want it right now. They know our system is failing genuine refugees.

For example, fewer than 5,000 of the 23,000 refugees that we accept each year are actually chosen from camps overseas where they have been designated as refugees by the United Nations. We bring in fewer than 5,000 of those people a year, and most of the people we bring in are not actually from camps. They are brought in from overseas, but they have been rejected by the system in another country. Very few actually come in from camps each year. Canadians want the system to focus on genuine refugees, and it is not doing that.

Canadians do not want a system which would allow abuse of our immigration system. Canadians do not want that. They do not want queue jumpers abusing the goodwill of our country and pushing aside others who would go through the system properly. That happens all too often. We all know that and I do not think there is any real doubt about it.

Canadians do not want people, who are not genuine refugees and who have been rejected by the system, to be allowed to stay in our country. Yet that happens. While our official acceptance rate for refugees is something like 50%, which is many times higher than the rate of most other countries, only 15% of all people who come to Canada claiming to be refugees are ever known to leave the country. That is what makes Canadians angry about our system and about the way the government allowed our system to fail. That is what Canadians do not want.

I want to read into the record the Canadian Alliance policy on immigration. The Canadian Alliance is a new political party. We are only slightly over a year old, so we do not have policy that is completely fleshed out in a lot of areas. There is a lot of work to be done. We are looking forward to our convention about a year from now where we will have a lot of policy fleshed out in a lot more detail.

Here is exactly what the Canadian Alliance policy book says about immigration. I am proud of it and I want Canadians to know about it. I do not want the misinterpretations and the false statements made by members of other political parties, by the media or anyone else to be allowed to stand, because they should not stand. Here is our policy:

We see Canada as a land built by immigrants and will continue to welcome new immigrants. We support sponsorship for immediate family members. Our immigration policy will take into account Canada's economic needs and we will introduce greater fairness and security into the system, including enforcement of sponsorship obligations. We will work co-operatively with the provinces on the settlement of immigrants.

We want to protect the integrity of the valuable contribution made to the fabric of Canada by millions of law abiding immigrants. We will not allow their good reputation to be jeopardized by non-citizens who engage in criminal activity and will speedily deport such individuals once their sentence has been served.

We affirm Canada's humanitarian obligation to welcome genuine refugees and are proud that our country has provided a safe haven for distressed people from across the world. To ensure fairness and end queue jumping, we will immediately deport bogus refugees and other illegal entrants, and will severely penalize those who organize abuse of the system.

That refers to people smugglers, people traffickers and that kind of thing. It continues:

We will ensure that refugee status is arbitrated expeditiously, consistently and professionally. We will end the abuse of refugee claims as a fast track to gain the benefits of landed immigrant status.

That is the Canadian Alliance policy on immigration, and I am proud of it. This policy came from the membership and all our members support it. I think we had the support of roughly three million Canadians in the last election. I am not sure of the numbers but 25% of all Canadians supported us in the last election. I think every one of them would be proud of our immigration policy. It is something we should all be proud of and I do take pride in it.

I will now get a little more specific. There are 28 areas of the bill that I believe require careful scrutiny by the committee. Now 28 is a large number, and every one of them is important, but I have only targeted the ones that I feel are important. As my time allows, I will quickly go through and point out the areas that must be carefully scrutinized by the committee. The committee must also have expert witnesses come in to present their views. This information will be valuable to make the legislation better.

First, the objective section of the bill, which is at the very beginning, says, in general terms, that what the immigration act is based on is new. That is one of the things that is new about the legislation. It is important that it is carefully discussed and scrutinized by the committee.

Some of the aspects of the new bill concern some very specific areas while other areas are very general and cover many different clauses of the bill. I wanted people to understand that as they are listening to these comments.

Second, I will deal with charter considerations. Clause 33(d), without much doubt, seems to be offering Canadian charter protection to non-citizens. No other country in the world does that. People who are not Canadian citizens and who do not even live in our country would be granted protection under our charter. How could a country do that? That protection is in the bill and it needs to be carefully scrutinized and changed as required. I encourage the committee to look at that.

A third very broad aspect of the legislation deals with what is actually in the legislation and what is left to regulation. A regulation can be changed by a minister or by department officials who tell the minister to change it. It can also be changed through order in council at any time without ever passing through the House.

This piece of legislation is very general and leaves far too much to regulation. There would be a void of accountability resulting from the legislation. That will become very obvious as I move ahead in my comments.

The fourth general area is the federal-provincial agreements and the consultations with the provinces. The agreements are referred to in the bill but there are no assurances that the provinces will have to go along with what the federal government proposes and what is put forth in regulation. The government only says that it will listen to the provinces on these issues. It will not necessarily demand the approval of the provinces. I think that is a concern. When we have an issue such as this, which has such a profound and direct impact on each province, the provinces should have a real say in what is in the immigration law.

The fifth point is the whole area of economic immigration which is the backbone of our immigration system. The independent categories of immigration consist of people who can very quickly add to our economy and make our country a stronger and better place to live. It is the guiding principle in the selection process that I will refer to first.

I find it of great concern that the single most important and a valuable component of Canadian immigration, the economic category, is only dealt with by a single sentence in the bill. It is hard to believe that there is only one sentence.

The single sentence in clause 12(1) would be the guiding principle on which countless regulations would be developed. The law in fact would be created through regulation. It is not in the bill. This is a real concern to me. How can we hold departmental officials, the minister and the cabinet accountable if there is no assurance that changes will be made by passing them through parliament?

I fully understand and accept that certain aspects of any legislation have to be left to regulation, but the balance in this legislation is way out of line.

The sixth area deals with the attempts made to streamline the immigration process. I have listened to new immigrants from one end of the country to the other, particularly from the greater Toronto area. Half of all immigrants settle in the greater Toronto area.

I actually set up a task force there over the past few years and had input from hundreds of new immigrants. Having listened to them, I found there was a recurring theme. People said that immigrating to Canada takes a painfully long time; the system does not work well; it is bureaucratic; and the people they deal with just do not seem to care. These were common sentiments. I am sure every member has heard these sentiments from people they have met or helped who had gone through the system.

The bill does not address in any way the effectiveness of the immigration department. It places no legislative requirement for setting or meeting stated immigration goals. How do we know whether we are succeeding if we do not have the goals clearly laid out in the legislation? It is not here and I think that certainly creates a real problem.

Guiding principles on family class immigration is the seventh point. The bill is excessively vague on who could be considered family. Only clause 12 actually defines family. The details are left to regulation through clause 14. That is the fact of the bill. As with the economic class, there are a few guiding principles regarding the family, which are laid out pretty much in one sentence in the legislation. Subsequently everything else would be left to the interpretation of the bureaucrats, the minister and the cabinet of the day.

Relying on regulation to guide Canada's immigration policy has failed thus far. It has failed Canadians and the people applying to come to our country alike. We must change the system so that we have clear principles laid out in the legislation which define the family, and I would encourage the committee to ensure that happens.

The eighth point is family class immigration reunification. It is important and goes along with defining a family and family reunification. It is important to determine whether a situation is actually a case of family reunification. If grandparents are brought to Canada, for example, when the majority of the family still lives in the country of origin or in another country, is it family reunification to bring the grandparents over to live with one child in Canada? That question has to be examined very carefully. It will be important for the committee to look at it and determine that.

The ninth point is a more narrow one. It is the issue of the common law spouse provision. In keeping with the first draft of the bill, Bill C-23, and this is the third draft, the minister has included a provision to define a family member as a common law spouse. This raises more questions than it answers.

Presently the immigration department has a very difficult time verifying a legitimate marriage. The department cannot deal with the huge problem of verifying whether a marriage is a marriage of convenience to accommodate immigration or whether it is a genuine marriage. How on earth would we deal with that when we allow a common law marriage to be used under the bill? It is an administrative impossibility and an administrative nightmare.

The tenth point is the authorization to enter and remain in Canada, the dual intent as it is laid out in the bill or the in Canada landing class. The legislation outlines a provision which would allow for that depending on the regulation. We do not know how wide or narrow it might be. It would allow a foreign national to enter Canada with the dual intent of visiting and then immigrating later.

Furthermore, the same section of the bill would create an in Canada landing class. This was taken out several years back because when it was in place it created a nightmare. It is exactly the same as it was 15 or 20 years ago in the old Immigration Act. The last major situation was created about 11 years ago in 1990. This exact situation led to a mass amnesty for anyone who came into the country illegally by the immigration department. These amnesties have not served us well. We are letting everyone in those situations, no matter what their background and without scrutiny, come into the country. This change would lead to the need for another amnesty.

I have only dealt with 10 out of 23, but I know I will have a chance to deal with the legislation in the future. I will close with a 30 second comment which has to do with the suitability of the current immigration minister to remain as minister.

She made comments about three million or more Canadians who supported the Canadian Alliance. She referred to Canadian Alliance members as racists, bigots and Holocaust deniers. I question whether that person has any right to remain as a minister of the crown, particularly the minister of immigration. I want her fired. I expect nothing less.

[Income Tax Act, February 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking not only my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance but also the members of all other political parties for giving resounding support for the legislation, with the exception of the governing party.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary, puppet to the finance minister. It is interesting that almost all members of the governing party voted in favour of the legislation just before the election. There were 11 ministers, if I am not mistaken, who voted against it. Some ministers supported the bill before the election. Of course now it is a different ball game.

That is how the governing party views democracy. It is wrong and improper. It is undemocratic and unacceptable.

The parliamentary secretary to the finance minister stood up today and gave a speech, probably prepared by the finance minister—and a sad speech it was—arguing against the bill on the grounds that a personal exemption was already in place to cover those things. He said that the bill would create inequity in the Income Tax Act. He also said that it would allow mechanics to deduct even small costs. He went on to say that tools may be used for non-work purposes. In other words, he was saying that mechanics would cheat and claim tools that were being used for personal use.

I will respond to some of the things the parliamentary secretary has stated. Regarding his statement on personal exemptions, a personal exemption is not there to cover things like this. Employees who do not have to buy anything as a condition of employment, which is most employees, get the personal exemption. Every employee gets the personal exemption. It is a nonsensical argument, and I cannot believe that the parliamentary secretary came up with it.

The Canadian Alliance has been campaigning on increasing personal exemptions some $3,000 more than the government and $4,000 more in the case of spousal exemption. The government has been very weak on that, but it has nothing to do with the issue. It is an important issue, something the Canadian Alliance feels is important, to increase personal exemptions, but the government is not doing that at any meaningful rate. It has nothing at all to do with the issue, so I cannot understand the parliamentary secretary.

He went on to say that the bill would create inequity. I would like the parliamentary secretary to think about that comment. When mechanics or technicians choose to work on their own they can claim all the costs. They can claim the cost of the tools they buy and any other costs related to the business. However, if they work as an employee, maybe in the same shop, even if it is a condition of employment that they purchase their own tools they are not allowed to deduct the cost. How is the bill leading to more inequity? It is leading to equity and fairness under the tax act. That was another absolutely ill conceived answer.

The parliamentary secretary argued against allowing mechanics to deduct small costs. What is wrong with that? Mechanics use a lot of things that as individual items do not cost a lot, but they add up to thousands and thousands of dollars. That is exactly what the bill is intended to deal with. What is wrong with that?

He went on to say that tools may be used for non-work issues. That is the case in every area of the tax act. If someone is prone to cheating, and I guess the parliamentary secretary believes that perhaps all taxpayers are cheats and we should watch against that, of course they could be used for personal use. However, most technicians are honest, hard working people and they should be respected for that. It is disgusting for the parliamentary secretary to indicate otherwise. I think that is completely unacceptable.

What will happen with the bill in the House? Before the election almost all government members, along with all members of the opposition, voted in favour of the same bill. However now the parliamentary secretary is saying something entirely different.

I wonder if backbench members of the governing party will vote against the bill this time, now that the election is over. I really wonder. I cannot believe they would do that, but they did vote against their red book promise, a promise taken from the red book and put forward as a motion from the official opposition. They voted against that, so who knows what they will do? They may well vote against the bill. That would be very unfortunate.

What about tax fairness for technicians and mechanics who as a condition of employment must buy their own tools? They have to pay for $15,000 to $70,000 worth of tools with before tax dollars. It is unfair. This is an issue of fairness. Let the government bring the issue forward as soon as possible.

I ask now for unanimous consent of the House to make the bill votable.

[Income Tax Act, February 26th, 2001]

moved that Bill C-244, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of mechanics' tool expenses) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am truly delighted to be able to rise to debate this bill once again. I first introduced it in the House in 1997, four years ago. It has been debated on at least five days since then and I have spoken on it myself four or five times.

In spite of that we have had no action from the government, but I am quite confident that we will have after today's debate. I believe it will go to committee at some time in the near future and some action will be taken. However, it will certainly require the continued efforts of mechanics, technicians and others across the country to ensure that this happens. It is not something we can take for granted.

Since I introduced my bill four years ago and in fact in the two months immediately following that, I received over 7,000 letters from technicians and from people who owned businesses that did mechanical repairs on vehicles and so on, from right across the country, from British Columbia to Newfoundland. The support for that bill was widespread indeed. Since the member from the Bloc introduced the same bill just before the last election, we have received over 70,000 postcards from right across the country. The support for the bill is undeniable. I will talk about that later.

The issue of the bill is that technicians and mechanics who, as a condition of employment, are required to purchase tools and to maintain a line of tools are not allowed to deduct for tax purposes the cost of these tools. That is the issue.

It seems completely inconsistent when we have other groups of people such as artists and others who are allowed to deduct from their incomes the cost of the equipment they purchase to carry out their occupations. It is also inconsistent when we see that business people are allowed to claim these expenses as the cost of doing business, whether they run the corner garage, a large machinery dealership or a farm implement dealership. They are of course allowed to claim all the costs of doing business and that includes the cost of tools.

I guess the problem arises from the disappearance of tools. As a farmer, I have done a lot of mechanical work and I have seen a lot of tools disappear. That was okay until my kids were old enough so that I could kind of point the finger of blame at them; every time a tool disappeared I could say my kids walked away with it, that it was not my own carelessness. The problem is that with the kinds of conditions we work in, tools do disappear, and if the tools are owned by the business owner, they probably disappear a little more often, because someone is not quite careful enough to collect them after finishing a motor job or something else.

In some cases no doubt they are stolen, but in most cases it is just a matter of carelessness. Sometimes they are left on a vehicle and when it is taken out for a test drive or when farm equipment is taken out to be tested or used again, the tools are gone. It adds up to thousands of dollars. It is a serious cost.

For that reason, we have seen right across the country a common requirement of employment that mechanics purchase their own tools. That is a condition of employment, so there is the problem. Business people do what makes sense, because they know that technicians and mechanics will be a little more vigilant when they are dealing with their own tools and when they have to purchase out of their own pockets any tools lost. Yet in spite of that, technicians and mechanics are just not allowed to claim the cost for tax purposes.

That is the issue here and it is a serious one. Because of this there is a shortage of mechanics and technicians right across the country right now, with no indication that the shortage will be reduced in any way. It is a serious problem.

What I want to do with the rest of my presentation today is to demonstrate that there is broad support for this change and to explain how it is an issue of tax fairness and how the finance committee of the House, on different occasions, has indicated that this is a change which should be made because it is an issue of tax fairness.

I then want to close by talking a bit about the process to date with the bill in the House, to explain to Canadians and to technicians that it has been a long process, too long, I would argue.

I want to carry on by talking about the support. I have already referred to over 7,000 letters that I personally received from technicians on this issue, and the 70,000 postcards. I know that every member of parliament in the House has received letters and phone calls from technicians about this piece of legislation. I doubt that there is one who has not.

When the bill was introduced by the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans and made votable in the last parliament, it was widely supported by members of every political party in the House, including the governing party. There is support for the piece of legislation in every way imaginable. There is no need to belabour the point.

The bill is about tax fairness. It is about giving mechanics what is already available to certain other groups in society and what is already available to the business people who hire mechanics, if they choose to purchase tools for their use. Clearly it is a matter of fairness.

I would like to quote from the December 1997 House of Commons finance committee prebudget report which stated:

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.

The finance committee was very clear, and it was repeated later by the finance committee. The finance committee is controlled by a majority of members from the governing side. They recognize that this change should happen. I do not understand where the resistance is coming from.

It is funny that the government only seems to act on a situation of tax fairness when it means more revenue and when it means that it can raise the taxes of a particular group in society. In this case we are talking about lowering the tax load of technicians and mechanics. Under those circumstances the government really does not seem that keen to act at all. Sad as it is, that is the situation.

I normally would quote from some of the people who have written to me on this issue, but I want to leave some time to explain what has happened with this piece of legislation in the House to date. It is worth pointing out.

I first brought the bill forward in 1997. A couple of weeks ago I found out that in 1992 a Liberal member when in opposition brought forth a similar bill except that it had no specifics attached to it. It was a general statement indicating that mechanics or technicians should be allowed to deduct the cost of purchasing tools. It had been put before the House in 1992. I introduced it and debated it in the House in 1997. I debated it when the Bloc MP had his name drawn and his bill was chosen. Only the dollar value was changed somewhat in his piece of legislation.

He indicated that tools which cost $225 or less should be fully written off in the particular year for tax purposes and tools above $225 should be claimed through capital cost allowance. The figures were changed slightly, but that bill was debated a couple of months before the last election and passed by the House. This shows there is support for the legislation in the House. I do not think we should have to argue the point anymore.

Here we are again with the bill before the House. This time it is Bill C-244. The figures I have used in the bill are the same ones I used when I first introduced and debated the bill in 1997. Tools under $200 could be fully claimed in that year and tools valued at $200 or more could be claimed through capital cost allowance. Insurance and so on could be claimed as business expenses. That is completely consistent with what happens with farmers and other small businesses. My bill is completely consistent with the Income Tax Act.

I have chosen this bill on two occasions when my name has been drawn. I do not understand why it has not been made votable. Yet when the Bloc member introduced substantially the same bill, in fact it was identical except the number was slightly changed, it was made votable on two occasions. I cannot understand that.

Now is the time to deal with the piece of legislation. I know my time is up, but I should like to close my presentation by asking for unanimous consent of the House to refer the bill to the finance committee.

Then we could deal with the issue in committee. It would not be held up any longer. Finally we could end the government's balking on the issue. We could have it put before the committee to amend it or draft its own legislation so that it could be carried forward on behalf of technicians and mechanics across the country, and indeed on behalf of all of us who depend upon them to keep us going, whether it is by air, by car or by rail.

We should act on it quickly so that they will be treated fairly under the tax laws. I ask for unanimous consent for Bill C-244 to be referred to committee so that there will be no more hesitation on this issue.

[Agriculture, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great difficulty that I rise in the House again for another emergency debate on agriculture. This is the sixth or seventh emergency debate that I have been involved in on issues involving agriculture in the seven or eight years I have been in the House.

For all of that, can we honestly say that things are any better? The answer is no. In fact things are worse than they have ever been in grain farming. Things have not improved.

Is the problem that members on this side of the House, on the opposition side, just do not care? No, that is not the problem.

Is the problem that members on this side of the House in the opposition parties do not work hard? No, that is not the problem.

Is it that we on this side of the House do not try? No, it is not.

We have just heard from my colleague who gave her presentation. We can tell from what she said that she cares, that she is working hard, and that she has tried. Opposition members of parliament have done their job and they will continue to do their job.

Is the problem that members on the government side do not care? No, I do not believe that for a minute. I do not believe there is one member of parliament in the House who does not care about the situation farmers are in right now.

Is the problem that members on the government side do not work hard? No, that is not the problem. I know and appreciate that members on the government side work very hard.

Is the problem that they do not try? No, it is not. Members on the government side work hard and they do care and they do try.

What is the problem? The problem is for all we care, for all we work hard, for all we try, it does precious little good because the fact is that the government is run by one man. It is run by the Prime Minister. What the Prime Minister says goes. The Prime Minister has not taken it to heart to do something about agriculture.

I heard the member for Malpeque talk earlier about the problems in the department and how public servants are not doing their job. I have some information for him. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that public servants in the departments do their jobs. Public servants work for the government. The problem is that the Prime Minister runs the show and he does not understand what is going on in agriculture.

It is time for members on the government side to take a stand, not just to try hard, not just to care, but to finally take a stand. This is the issue they must take a stand on. We have farmers, as other members have said, who will lose their farms this year. We have thousands who have lost their farms over the past few years.

I farmed for about 25 years. I still have my land. I rent it out on a crop share. I still depend on grain sales to make my payments on the mortgage on my land. I worked as a farm economist with Alberta agriculture for years, along with farming, to help support the farm and because I liked working with farmers.

It was during that time in the late eighties that I sat at the kitchen table with many farmers who were losing their farms. I saw the farm wife and the children in tears because they knew they were about to lose their farm. On many occasions I saw the husband in those situations with a blank look in his eyes because he knew he was about to lose the farm that had been in his family for three or more generations. I lived through this and I hoped and I prayed that I would never live to see it happen again.

I got into politics so I could try to change this situation and do my part to ensure that it would never happen again. I have offered suggestions to the government over and over again. These suggestions have come from farmers across the country, particularly my constituency in Alberta, and from my background in farming and working as a farm economist. Those suggestions have been ignored. My colleagues have done also brought forward suggestions.

It is time for government MPs to take a stand on this issue. This issue is important. The pain that farm families are living through once again is something that should not be happening. We cannot go back, but it is time that members on the government side tell the Prime Minister and cabinet that they are not putting up with it any more.

They should have a say in what the government does and their first say will be on agriculture. It is time for that to happen. I pray that members across the floor will finally take that stand. That is my hope and that is my prayer. I offer that not only from myself, my colleagues and members of the other opposition parties, but from farmers in my constituency, from farmers I have talked with from across Alberta, and from farmers who have contacted me and to whom I have listened from across the country.

It is long enough. It has been eight years. It is long enough. Many members of the governing party have been here eight years. They have been involved in the six, seven or eight emergency debates. They know in their hearts that things are not getting better. I think they know in their hearts that government could do many things that will help make things better. They know that they could act on some of the recommendations that have been made not only by opposition members but by their own members as well.

It is time. Eight years is enough. I encourage and I extend my hand to members of the governing party to stand up on this issue, not to let it just end with the emergency debate but to take the issue to their caucus meeting tomorrow and to the Prime Minister and to say that it is time. On behalf of the farmers who will suffer more and who could be prevented from losing their farms, on behalf of farmers who want to farm for years to come, I ask that all members in the government party now take their stand.

I cannot do more. I have offered what I believe are substantial, very useful solutions for eight years and years before that when I was not here as a member of parliament. Those solutions have not been acted on. All that is left is the members of the governing party. That is all that is left here now. They are the only people who could finally make the change which will keep farmers on the farm. They should make it happen. They are the only ones. I close by asking them to take that stand.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting against the motion.