Leon Benoit

[Income Tax Act, June 10th, 1999]

It hurts, does it not?

[Income Tax Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am actually embarrassed to be a member of the House today because of what has just happened. It is completely unacceptable for the government House leader and those opposite to pull these kinds of shenanigans and interrupt Private Members' Business, which is important business.

This bill would allow a tax deduction for mechanics' tools for the 90,000 mechanics across this country who want to be treated fairly under our tax laws. When this issue was debated last year it was under my bill, Bill C-366. The bill which we are debating tonight is exactly the same bill, except that one number has changed, the value of the tools. When it was debated, every party in the House, except the governing party, supported that bill.

I even received letters and confirmation from many members of the governing party who supported the bill. Tonight, what do we have? We have the government House leader trying to interrupt a debate on this important bill so the government can bring forward a bill which it has had months and months to deal with. Actually, it is years. I apologize for my underestimation.

Why now is it so willing, without thought it seems, to interrupt this important private member's bill? I do not know, but it is wrong and I am embarrassed to be in the same House as these members who would try to pull that stunt. It is shocking and completely unacceptable.

Bill C-502, as I have said, is identical to Bill C-366 which was debated last year. This bill is asking for a tax deduction for mechanics' tools where it is a requirement of employment that they purchase their own tools.

Currently, mechanics, who are generally low wage earners, most of whom earn $20,000 to $25,000, and there are 90,000 of them across the country, are forced to pay thousands of dollars for tools with after tax dollars. It is double taxation.

When people in small businesses buy tools, for example farmers, they are allowed to deduct the full purchase price of any tools under $200. The value of tools over $200 can be written off and claimed under the capital cost allowance. They can write them off very quickly.

This bill would put mechanics on the same footing as small business people, musicians and several other groups which can claim and deduct, for the purposes of taxation, the cost of their tools. There are several groups who are already allowed to do that.

Why is the government speaking out against this piece of legislation? It is really hard to understand. It seems that whenever the Liberal Party or the finance minister talk about tax fairness it really means one thing. The government is very willing to look at tax fairness and implement what it calls tax fairness when it means more tax. However, in this case, if this bill were to pass, it would mean that less taxes would be taken out of the pockets of mechanics.

The House leader was willing to throw all of that aside, to interrupt the debate and to kill the debate. We will not get another chance to debate this bill before the House breaks for the summer. He was willing to just throw these 90,000 mechanics aside and say to heck with them, they are not important. It does not matter to the government if mechanics have to spend $15,000 on tools, out of their own pockets, when they cannot write off the expense. It does not seem to matter at all.

It matters to the other parties. The other parties have come out as being clearly in favour of this bill. They did when it was my bill, Bill C-366, and they have tonight. The finance committee, on at least two occasions since 1993, has clearly been in favour of this change, which would make the tax system far more fair. It would allow a deduction for mechanics who purchase tools when it is a requirement of employment that they own their own tools.

This issue came before the House last year. It came in the form of a very broad motion once or twice before. It is time we dealt with this because it is important to those 90,000 mechanics, and it is important to me. I believe that everyone should be treated fairly. Clearly, fairness in this case means that mechanics and others in similar situations should be allowed to claim this deduction.

It will amount to something like $60 million a year which the the government will not be able to grab from these people. That is why it is not supporting it, because it will lose $60 million a year in tax revenue. We know that it just cannot get enough. There have been dozens and dozens of tax increases since the government came to power in 1993. We know very well that it has increased the tax take by over $30 billion a year since 1993. It is completely unacceptable that it would try to throw this all aside and snub mechanics once again as it has done several times in the House and as it has done twice in the last year.

When I brought this bill forward the last time, I received 7,000 letters from mechanics across Canada in two months. Copies were sent to the finance minister. He knows that these letters have been received.

What kind of sincerity does the government show in debating this bill? Under access to information I received a copy of the speech that the parliamentary secretary gave when he spoke to my bill. That access to information request showed that he did not even write the speech. He did not even show the courtesy to mechanics to write his speech. The access to information request showed that a departmental official from inside the finance department wrote his speech, and he delivered the speech. He delivered it just like a good little boy should. That is the lack of respect that the parliamentary secretary has for those mechanics, who are only asking for what is fair. Government members do not even have the courtesy to write their own speeches. They get departmental officials to do that. It is disgusting.

It is time this bill passed. I am going to support this bill. We are going to support this bill. The Bloc is going to support this bill. I believe the Conservatives will. They did the last time. The NDP will support it. NDP members have received letters. There should be a lot of Liberal MPs who support this bill as well. If they do not, I can guarantee that they are going to get letters from their constituents. They will have to explain to their constituents that they would not even support this issue, which is a clear issue of tax fairness. That is all it is.

I recently came back from Prince Edward Island. I was amazed by the number of times I heard those people say that this House is no longer a democratic institution. They have seen their members vote on issues which they know they do not support. They have seen them vote in favour because their whip has told them that they are going to support the bill. They pointed to several bills, one being the old Bill C-68, the gun registration bill. They are still upset about that. They are going to continue to be upset about that until we get into power and throw that legislation out.

They are upset for several reasons. They are upset with the legislation, but they are also upset with the process. The process is no better tonight. We see tonight, again, government members opposite showing a total lack of caring, a lack of respect. The Liberals are showing arrogance, arrogance which we know comes before the fall. We are seeing a level of arrogance on that side of the House that I have never seen in this place before. I believe it will not be too far down the road when that fall comes. The Liberals have come to think that they have all the answers. They have come to think that the people they are supposed to be governing for do not matter any more.

In this case, they have sent the message very clearly to 90,000 mechanics who only want what is fair. The House of Commons finance committee has said it is fair on two occasions. Just to point out to government members, as if they do not know it, the House of Commons finance committee is controlled by a majority of government members.

It was a committee controlled by a majority of government members which said, “Yes, let's do this. Let's give these mechanics their tax deduction”. Now is the time to do it. Let us just do it, with no more stalling. Let us do it now.

[First Nations Land Management Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member rose on debate. Once he said his piece, he moved his motion, which is fine—

[First Nations Land Management Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member who is speaking, the House leader of the governing party, rose on debate. He made his motion—

[Income Tax Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating now a private member's bill on mechanics' tools. I just cannot understand the relevance of the House leader for the governing party talking about Bill C-49 during this debate.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would really love to do that. It is a great invitation and if I possibly can, I will take the member up on that.

I must remind him though that I have about 30,000 aboriginal people in my constituency. I have been on reserves. I know the conditions. I have heard from these people through the aboriginal task force process and every day of every week in my office. They need help. Things are not going well on their reserves. The leadership is not accountable. The money is not getting to the people for whom it is intended. My first responsibility is to those people and that is where I will focus.

In terms of the inequality issue, I have an interesting letter from Jack Gosnell the president of the Nisga'a Tribal Council. This letter was in response to the letter from the Reform Party member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

In the letter the question that was being answered was how will you protect the property rights other Canadian women enjoy in the event of marital breakdown? That is a concern I have. The answer is very short. I will give just a short quote from Mr. Gosnell: “The nature of the property interest to be held by Nisga'a individuals in their residential property has not yet been determined”. This was from Mr. Gosnell himself. How can the member opposite say that he can ensure that equality rights will be protected?

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has expressed a couple of more concerns about the way things are handled now. I think he would be the first to acknowledge that there is no indication whatsoever that the Nisga'a agreement will help deal with those concerns. Things will not be made better as a result of the Nisga'a agreement.

I fully agree with the member. True, maybe I have strayed slightly from the actual motion today, but I was dealing very directly with the problems with the Nisga'a agreement. How at the grassroots level, at an everyday life level will things be better for aboriginal people as a result of this agreement? I do not see any indication that this agreement will ensure that at all.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, so far in the debate we have heard Reform members talk about some important issues in a substantive way: the constitutionality of the Nisga'a agreement, the four lawsuits being pressed to try to stop the agreement from going ahead, and many other substantive issues.

On the other hand, as I have listened to the debate I have heard members of the governing party and of the New Democratic Party pretty much spend their time attacking Reform and not answering the questions put after they finished their debate. I am quite shocked at the level of debate from these two parties in particular.

The Liberals are pretty much focused on imputing the motives of the Reform Party in terms of our stand on the agreement and on the motion today. We have heard the Liberals present a lot of emotional, feel good rhetoric but not much in terms of substance. We have seen the New Democratic Party members seemingly bent on protecting the undemocratic process of their provincial colleagues in British Columbia, and I am concerned about that.

I am surprised and bewildered by what I have heard from the Liberals and the New Democrats. The government thinks it can deal with a problem of inequality by enshrining further inequality. To me it seems unfathomable to try to deal with inequality by enshrining in law another inequality. Yet that is what the agreement will do in several ways if it goes ahead.

The potential inequality when it comes to the division of property in the case of a divorce is one big problem with this piece of legislation. It is troubling to think they believe we can deal with inequalities by enshrining others. I am also concerned about that.

I will refer to an aboriginal task force process and report in which I was involved in my constituency over the past year or year and a half. The aboriginal task force was established with me as chair for the purpose of hearing from grassroots aboriginal people the things that were most troubling them about the way their governments were working.

From those people I obtained nine recommendations. There were many more I could have put in the report, but I wanted it to be something that would be read by the minister. To her credit she met with the task force and heard what we had to say. These nine recommendations were from the people who were saying that these things caused the greatest problems in their everyday lives. These were their recommendations to the Indian affairs minister which they thought would help improve their lives.

I will go through these nine recommendations very quickly and ask whether they are dealt with in the Nisga'a agreement, whether the problems that were expressed and the recommendations for solving them are dealt with in the Nisga'a agreement. In that way we could evaluate how successful the agreement has been in answering the concerns of grassroots aboriginal people.

I will start by explaining a little about the process very quickly. It was a three stage process. The first stage was private consultation where none of the information that was given to me would be repeated. It was done in strictest confidence unless there was agreement from the person who made the statements.

The second stage was the questionnaire which was sent out to all the reserves and the towns near reserves in the constituency.

The third stage of the consultation process was public meetings where some of the key issues in the earlier part of the process were discussed in a public manner. About 70 aboriginal people attended one of the public meetings in St. Paul. We had an excellent discussion on some key issues.

I will go through the recommendations and comment very quickly on whether the Nisga'a deal includes them. The first recommendation is in the area of financial accountability. It states that the government must enforce more comprehensive and transparent financial reporting by band and settlement administrators. This information must be freely available to all members and the general public. That recommendation was getting at the lack or gaps in financial accountability, the most commonly expressed concern of the people involved in the process.

Does the Nisga'a agreement ensure that there will be comprehensive and transparent financial reporting and that it will be made available to the public? It does not. The first recommendation has not been dealt with in the agreement.

The second recommendation of the aboriginal task force states that to ensure sound financial management on reserves and settlements the government must provide better financial management support for aboriginal councillors and administrators.

The recommendation is saying that leadership needs some help in doing a better job of managing. It is a complementary point to the first one but focusing on what kind of help can be offered. One person said:

Problems on reserves are the outgrowth of a system which at one time prevented people from leaving reserves, and at one time starved them.

This was stated by George Forsyth, the administrator of the Onion Lake Band. He went on to say:

You can't go from a system where people were watched over every minute to one where they are totally on their own, and expect perfect accountability. The evolutionary process should have gone from control to help. But there has been no preparation to provide an infrastructure for accountability.

Does the Nisga'a agreement deal with this concern and with this recommendation? It does not.

The third recommendation, again on fiscal accountability, states that the government together with councillors and administrators must ensure there is effective, regular and ongoing consultation of band and settlement members. In other words get the people most affected by the government, the people on the reserves, involved on a regular basis so there is openness and transparency about what is going on.

Does the Nisga'a agreement deal with this? It does not. We saw some things that were actually quite shocking, including one member of a band at one public meeting saying that the band on that reserve had not called a meeting in seven years. That is a problem. There is nothing in this agreement that will ensure there will be ongoing and open consultation when it comes to fiscal accountability.

Another member said that the solution may be to require band meetings where people approve and forecast the budget. What an idea. What a concept. A budget would actually be approved in advance. It makes sense. There is nothing to ensure that in this agreement that will be dealt with.

The fourth recommendation is on democratic accountability, a huge concern on the part of the people the Lakeland aboriginal task force heard from. The government must establish an arm's length body or an ombudsman or agency to hear and act on the confidential concerns of aboriginal Canadians.

The recommendation is getting at something that was heard from participants quite often. When things just are not going right members feel they have no one to go to. They cannot go to the council because that is where the problem is coming from. There should be an available independent ombudsman to give the people a call or have them come in to deal with the problem.

The fifth area of accountability was in terms of having fair elections. Again what in this agreement would ensure fair elections?

In conclusion, clearly the concerns that were expressed by the aboriginal task force members are not dealt with in the Nisga'a agreement. That leads me to wonder whether things will be better for the Nisga'a people and I believe they will not be.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in two cases in Nova Scotia the Minister of Human Resources Development is violating the Canada Pension Plan Act by unilaterally defining spouse for purposes of the act. The minister cites the M. v H. decision as if it has given him the power to unilaterally override every act that contains the word spouse.

The M. v H. decision is about private support payments upon the breakdown of a relationship. The Canada Pension Plan Act relates to spousal benefits which are linked to the public purse, an entirely different situation.

The Canada Pension Plan Act says spousal benefits are limited to opposite sex couples and the legal rulings at the supreme court level in the Egan decision support the constitutional validity of the act.

The minister is ignoring the law of Canada and the courts to push public benefits to relationships outside marriage, all at taxpayers expense. This is clearly wrong.

[Petitions, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition concerns spending public money on projects which are not properly scrutinized.

The petitioners refer in particular to the spending of $98,000 on a book entitled 500 of the Best Dumb Blond Jokes . Members should know that many people besides the petitioners are upset about that as well.