Leon Benoit

[Immigration, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want an immigration system that will accommodate independent immigrants who will quickly add to our economy, which will welcome genuine refugees and which will reunite these people with their families as soon as possible. The government has failed to deliver what Canadians want in the new immigration act.

The immigration minister says that she has brought in tough new measures to deal with people smugglers and illegal migrants. The finance minister has said three years in a row that he has substantially lowered taxes to Canadians, but have they looked at their paycheques lately? The minister has not delivered what she says.

The new act does provide for higher maximum penalties for people smugglers. However, it is important to note that under the current act the maximum sentence is 10 years. As of the end of 1999, the maximum penalty ever handed out was 10 months, so how much good will a higher maximum penalty do?

Unfortunately the new immigration act will not help the very people that it should help. It will not keep people smugglers from operating into Canada.

[First Nations Ombudsman Act, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I understood the debate would be over at 5.45 p.m. I really appreciate having this chance to speak.

Bill C-222 was presented to the House by the member for Wild Rose. If this bill passes, it will put in place the position of ombudsman for aboriginal people to go to if they are having difficulties dealing with their leadership or a band dealing with another or situations like that. The member is to be commended for bringing this piece of legislation forward.

This was one of the recommendations of the Lakeland aboriginal task force which I set up in my constituency in 1997 shortly after the election. After the election, the new part of my constituency took in eight Indian reserves and four Metis settlements for a total aboriginal population of about 30,000 people. I immediately started getting phone calls from people who had real concerns about issues like housing, alcohol and drug abuse on their reserve and the lack of accountability as they saw it on the part of chiefs and councils on their reserves. It was not just one or two isolated calls.

As a result, I set up a task force made up of four aboriginal people and myself. Over the next several months we met with people in a three step process. First, we met confidentially, one on one. Second, we sent out questionnaires and had several returned. Third, we had three public meetings in the constituency. Some very interesting things came out of this process.

I will refer particularly to the recommendation which deals directly with what we are talking about. That is recommendation number four under the category of democratic accountability. It says that “the government must establish an arm's length body, an ombudsman or agency to hear and act on the confidential concerns of aboriginal Canadians”. This proposal came from people who made presentations to us throughout this process. It was a recommendation that was almost unanimously supported by the hundreds of people who took part in this process.

The suggestion came up because there were many people who felt alienated from their band or settlement leadership, as well as from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Some speakers at this meetings said they did not feel comfortable in approaching Indian Affairs and Northern Development because they had seen people who had felt negative repercussions when they did so in the past. Even when they approached Indian affairs in confidence, often the exact message that they took to it got back to the chief and council. They did not feel they could trust Indian affairs to keep their confidential issues confidential. That is why they felt they needed an ombudsman.

In many cases, they felt the problem was with the leadership of the chiefs and councils. That is not the situation in every case, nor would I ever say that is the case. However, it is a very common problem and we cannot ignore that.

The Liberal member who spoke previously said that it was very unusual to have problems of the lack of accountability on reserves. He either does not understand the reality or he is trying to minimize the problem. It is a very common problem across the country. It is not only the eight reserves in my constituency.

This is what was said in one presentation:

“A lot of people in my community have been discriminated against (by chief and council),” said one participant. “Where do you go in your community for help? Higher government just refers it down to the local elected officials. We need something for grassroots people who can't speak out right now, because they know there is a price to be paid. An advocate, or an arm's-length agency. A hearer of all injustices within the aboriginal community.”

That is what this person said when presenting to the aboriginal task force.

They did acknowledge that the logistics of setting up the ombudsman position might be quite difficult, but it is something they felt was worth the effort. That was a point which was made very clear.

They suggested that the ombudsman should be in place for a time period very similar to what this private member's bill suggests. That is part of the reason I suggest this is a good bill.

The minister of Indian affairs on several occasions has said in the House that he really cannot deal with issues when they arise on reserves. He cannot deal with problems on reserves because that is the responsibility of the leadership on the reserves.

It is an interesting point because the first thing is that the minister of Indian affairs absolutely has responsibility for what happens on reserves. It is clear in Canadian law. He is abdicating his responsibility.

Second, how is it that the chiefs and council members are going to deal with problems brought to them when the problem in many cases is themselves? It is the chief and council. That is where so many members who presented before the task force made the point as strongly as they possibly could.

“It seems like a hopeless situation”, they said. “We can see a situation where our council, including the chief, is misspending money. We know this is happening and we have nowhere to go. We see situations where we know elections have been unfair and we can point to particular problems in the election process, but we feel we have nowhere to go.”

This is the type of feeling which came up again and again. I believe this ombudsman position will help deal with part of that problem.

I congratulate the member for Wild Rose for bringing this forth. I know that he brought this bill forth because he heard from grassroots aboriginal people right across the country, including the members in the gallery. He heard from them that the situation is desperate, that they do need someone to go to, that they cannot always go to leadership because in many cases the leadership is the problem.

What does the minister of Indian affairs suggest when we bring these problems to him? He says, “Well, you know, you have to leave it up to the band because we have self-government”. He talks as if the bands in this country are a separate level of government, that they are somehow an equal government, to be treated equally with the federal government. That is the way he talks.

When we raise these issues, he says that he has no way he can deal with the problem. He says that the answer to the problem is self-government and more responsibility to chiefs and councils. I believe that that is the case. That is part of the answer, more ability on the part of leadership to deal with the problem, but in terms of fiscal accountability, electoral accountability and fair elections on reserves, we can only go to a system where there is more self-government where these issues are dealt with. They have not been dealt with.

It is interesting what people at one of the public meetings said on exactly this issue. One member speaking at one of the public meetings, and this was covered on television, said, “Ron Irwin has sent a memo out to reserves saying that no one would be forced to take self-government until everyone was ready. We had a referendum and said no. Now Jane Stewart, we are feeling, is being pushed into it.”

At a public meeting of about 70 people in St. Paul, Alberta, I asked this question. I asked, “How many of you think that we should be moving to a system of self-government now?”. One hand out of the 70 went up.

I asked the question another way: “How many of you feel we should not be going to self-government until the problems of accountability are dealt with?” All the hands went up except one.

Self-government is not the answer until accountability is put in place. This ombudsman will help deal with the situation of a lack of accountability. I applaud the member and I will support this bill. I hope everyone in the House will support this bill.

[First Nations Ombudsman Act, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, do I have a minute or so to make my presentation?

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

No, it was $13 billion.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

No, the government is mismanaging $13 billion.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The last presentation was made by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. Any member who would like to make a comment or ask a question should be referring to the presentation made by him, not by the former speaker. If the member wants to make political cheap shots at least they should be directed at what the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan said.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-23, in Clause 72, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 39 the following:

“(2) For the purposes of this Act, “spouse” means either a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage, which is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

[Income Tax Act, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, maybe not this year. That is a close call. But every year up until this year the government has raised taxes, and always it declares that the reason is tax fairness. Often we hear the Liberals say “We are increasing taxes to this group of people by $1 billion because it makes it fair”. Why is it that tax fairness cannot also lead to a lowering of taxes? In this case, that is exactly what would be done. We would lower taxes, allowing mechanics to deduct the cost of tools used for business in the name of tax fairness. Why is it that the government cannot understand the concept that tax fairness can also mean lowering taxes to a particular group of people?

I would encourage the government to understand that that is exactly what would happen. This is a fair measure. In the information I have received under access to information as to why the finance department will not go along with this, it indicated that it would cost the department somewhere around $60 million a year. In the name of tax fairness, why can we not have this reduction of $60 million a year? It is money that really should be left in the pockets of mechanics. This is long overdue.

The member across the floor may think it is funny, but with more than 7,000 letters from mechanics saying “We want tax fairness”, the government should listen. I would encourage the government to support the bill, as it is a votable bill.

[Income Tax Act, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill on mechanics tools. I do appreciate the Bloc member bringing this forward.

Bill C-205 is a carbon copy of the private member's bill that I put forth in the last parliament, Bill C-366. During that process, I received over 7,000 letters from mechanics across the country on that bill. I am sure the Bloc member has no doubt received thousands of letters from people across the country in response to his bill.

The only difference in the Bloc bill from the bill that I presented in the last parliament is the price for individual tools that are purchased by the mechanic. The amount has been increased from the $200 that I had recommended. If the mechanic's tool is below $200 the full cost can be deducted. If it is above $200 it will be depreciated and a capital cost allowance will be deducted for income taxes purposes. That is the only change. It is an excellent bill and I sincerely thank the Bloc member for bringing it forward again.

I was very pleased that this time the bill has been made votable. When I presented the same bill to the committee, it unfortunately did not allow the bill to be voted on in the House. I believe that every private member's bill that comes before the House should be votable, particularly a practical bill like this.

The purpose of this bill is to allow mechanics to deduct the cost of their tools on the condition that the tools are a requirement of their employment.

The mechanic has to buy his own tools and then bring them to his place of employment. If tools are lost or damaged, he has to replace them from his own pocketbook.

At the present time mechanics have an incredibly large cost, often $15,000 to $30,000 in tools, which they have to pay for with after tax dollars, and yet it is a requirement of employment that the mechanics have those tools to use them on the job.

It is very important that this issue be dealt with. I would assume that this time it will have the full support of every party in the House.

The costs I am talking about are the costs of maintaining the tools, renting the tools, in cases where the mechanic chooses to rent, and insurance costs, because of course with the high value involved the loss of the tools would be devastating. It would be quite devastating to lose $30,000 worth of tools.

The mechanic could also deduct the cost of the insurance. The mechanic would be allowed to claim capital cost allowance on tools over $250 and, therefore, over time deduct the full cost of the tools for income tax purposes. That is the purpose of the bill.

When I introduced Bill C-366 I received over 7,000 letters from mechanics across the country. On this bill, in spite of the fact that it is not my bill, I have received hundreds and hundreds more letters. We have not even counted them yet, although I do appreciate the mechanics and the owners of the businesses for sending the letters to me. I know that copies of the letters have been sent to the finance minister. The finance minister has to understand how important it is that he deal with the situation.

During the debate on Bill C-366 members of all political parties supported the bill except the Liberals. The parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance at that time came up with a whole list of excuses for not supporting the bill. I would suggest that they were excuses.

I will go through what the parliamentary secretary said and I will respond to what I consider to be excuses in most cases. First, I want to say a little about what some MPs from all of the political parties said about this bill and what they are saying about the Bloc member's bill which is now before the House.

A Bloc MP said “I think this bill is good for the economy and for the creation of jobs. The Bloc Quebecois and myself support the measures proposed in this bill”.

A member of the NDP from Saskatchewan said “I want to congratulate the member for Lakeland for bringing this legislation forward and tell him and members of the House that the New Democratic Party fully supports this concept and we will be supporting this bill”.

A member of the Progressive Conservative Party from Manitoba said “I would like to pass my thanks on to the member for Lakeland who has once again brought forward a private member's bill to deal with what I consider to be an injustice and an inequality that has been around for too long”. I think it is a fair comment that this injustice has been around for too long.

Reform MPs fully supported the bill. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster and the member for Elk Island indicated that the bill was long overdue.

Then we come to the government side, the Liberals. The parliamentary secretary came up with numerous excuses, and I want to go through some of the key ones. He said “Mechanics are not the only occupation that incur substantial expenses as a requirement of employment”. I agree with that. That statement is correct. Farmers and other businessmen, as well as artists, musicians and chainsaw operators incur substantial expenses as a requirement of employment.

Farmers, of course, are business people and they are handled differently, but artists, musicians, chainsaw operators and others are employees in many cases who are allowed to deduct the cost of the tools of their trade. I believe that is a bogus issue which the parliamentary secretary brought forward.

The parliamentary secretary also said “This private member's bill would also provide tax relief to all mechanics, irrespective of the size of their expenditures, instead of targeting relief to those incurring extraordinary expenses”.

I would suggest that, indeed, that is an odd statement. Farmers and other business people, as well as the others I have mentioned, can claim their expenses no matter how large they are. That is not a criterion that is used to judge whether any of these other people can write something off for tax purposes. That was a very odd statement.

He also said “Provisions would need to be developed to ensure that tax relief was provided only for those items genuinely required as a condition of employment and not for those purchased for personal use”. That is true. That is a fair enough statement, but throughout all our tax system, for anyone claiming, the same is true. In other words, the onus is on the person making the claim to ensure that he or she is only claiming expenses which are allowed under the act. Taxpayers are trusted to do that. We have routine audits and we have special audits to check to ensure that people are being honest. Again, this was another bogus excuse.

The parliamentary secretary made several other, what I would consider to be, excuses and I do not believe that any one of them could not be dealt with by the government if it believed it was something that should be done.

The parliamentary secretary at the time, and I hear the same thing again from across the floor, said that somehow, and for different reasons, the deduction of the cost of purchasing, owning and maintaining a line of tools could not be done for several reasons. It is interesting that this government, which has raised taxes every year over the past seven years, since 1993—

[Immigration, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let us examine the government's record in dealing with the issue of illegal migration.

Eight months after 600 illegal migrants arrived by boat, only 5% have had their cases finalized. Does the government send a strong message to illegal migrants that people smuggling will not be tolerated? No, quite the opposite. It allows 80% of those who come to Canada illegally to stay, whether they have been accepted as refugees or not. It seems that the government will make it easier for people smugglers by allowing certain groups from certain countries to stay no matter what.

While other countries carefully respect the UN's definition of a refugee, this government will greatly expand that definition.

As unbelievable as it might sound, the government will give full charter protection even to those who may seek to enter our country.

What this hard-hearted government is doing is entrenching a system where queue jumpers and people smugglers must be rubbing their hands in delight while genuine refugees are left out in the cold.