Leon Benoit

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 10th, 1998]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I did not realize the member had grown any grain, but I do know he does not market any of it through the wheat board. I wonder why that is. I have not heard the member lobbying for the wheat board jurisdiction to be expanded into his province. If he did he would not last long as the member for Malpeque.

The member talked about how he was a spokesperson for a farm group. He was. I remember well something he said about 17 years as a member of the National Farmers Union. I would like to ask him a question. I know he cannot reply, which is good. I know the answer anyway. How did membership of the National Farmers Union change under his presidency and beyond? The answer is that it declined steadily, to the point that it moved from a fairly substantial farm group to a very small farm group.

The member sings the praises of the Canadian Wheat Board. I want to make a message very clear once again, which I have done I do not know how many times, because it seems like the hon. member for Malpeque and some of his comrades in the Liberal Party did not get the message. The message is that the issue never has been whether or not the wheat board functions well in terms of providing a service for farmers. I do not think that has ever been the key issue.

The key issue has been that the wheat board functions as a monopoly and farmers have no choice. That is by far the most important issue that has been taking up the debate regarding the wheat board.

Again and again, in spite of my having clarified it dozens of times in the House even while the member for Malpeque was here, he still tries to say that the debate is about getting rid of the wheat board. It is not about getting rid of the wheat board. It is about giving farmers the choice either to market through the board or somewhere other than through the board. That is the issue. I wish he would not try to distort it. The issue is choice, that it be a voluntary board.

He is someone who claims that he supports the wheat board. How on earth can he go against the original principle of the wheat board which was to be a voluntary organization? That was only changed in 1942-43 under the War Measures Act when the monopoly was put in place. It is interesting how the member conveniently forgets that fact.

I will now talk about the three issues I mentioned before. The first is the key issue, the issue of putting an end to the wheat board monopoly. That is what the debate has been about for some time in western Canada and in Ontario. It was fortunate enough to have a vote on it and choose to sweep the monopoly aside and give farmers a choice. That is what there will be in Ontario as a result of the changes made. Why that cannot happen in western Canada, why that vote will never be allowed, as is apparent under the government, I cannot answer.

We need to end the monopoly to give farmers the freedom to choose, to put in place a dual market or an opt out clause or some mechanism to give them a choice. That is what the Reform agriculture critic, the member for Prince George—Peace River, stated in his amendment. It is crucial and it is in the amendment. For that reason alone the amendment should be supported.

As to whether that is what farmers want is not an issue of debate any more. We have had the polls and we have indication after indication in every province in western Canada and in my constituency that says farmers want a choice. It is not an issue any more. I do not know why the member for Malpeque keeps saying that is somehow the issue.

The second issue is more transparency within the board. I say within the board because I believe probably a majority of western Canadian farmers want the wheat board to continue to exist. That is not the issue. Most farmers would say they want the wheat board. They think it is a useful body. They think they would use it sometimes but would like the option not to use it if they so choose. We need change within the board that will make it more transparent and more accountable. I wish members would listen to that.

The member for Prince George—Peace River, the Reform agriculture critic, dealt with the issue of transparency and accountability in his amendment, two more good reasons to support the amendment. The Conservative Party which has not exactly been supportive of Reform is to support these amendments. The member who spoke knows that western farmers want these changes. He has no doubt about it, just as I do not and just as the other 20 plus Reformers who are and have been farmers know these changes are wanted.

The Senate proposed to have the auditor general look at the books. There are a few things wrong with that. First, we do not know that the auditor general would have access to everything he wanted access to. Second, would he report to parliament? No. He would report to the minister or to the board of directors which is partly appointed.

We are waiting for a ruling on what the auditor general said, that it may not be legal. This amendment the Senate has proposed and we support may not be legal. It may be outside what the auditor general is legally mandated to do. That is another concern. Parliament gets a limited report from the auditor general which is not made public, and what have we gained? I suggest probably not very much.

Another issue of accountability to farmers is to have a completely farmer elected board of directors with real control. If that is combined with a voluntary board as it originally operated in western Canada and transparency so we know what is going on inside the board, we will have a wheat board that will be supported by western farmers. A vast majority of western farmers would support and use the wheat board under the conditions that it is voluntary, transparent and more accountable.

Those are the comments. We are going through this debate again. I do not think there is any need for me to comment further. I look forward to questions from members of the other parties.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what I will comment on in my presentation are the amendment presented by the Reform agriculture critic under three headings, the ending of the wheat board monopoly, more transparency within the board, and the accountability to farmers.

I have to comment on some of the things that have been said by members from other political parties. I will start with the member from the Conservative Party who spoke earlier. He said he would reluctantly support these amendments even though he agreed with them wholeheartedly. I wonder why that would be.

I believe the reason is that member has Conservative comrades in the Senate and those Conservative senators may be pulling his string a bit. They are kind of saying support what they said. I give the member some credit that he is not just going to have his strings jerked completely by the Senate. I thought I would make that comment.

I have to make some comments about what the member for Malpeque said, and he is a dairy farmer, not a grain farmer. We have in the Reform Party over 20 farmers.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will cover later some of the comments the member made. My question to the member for Malpeque is quite simple and straightforward. How is it that he, a dairy farmer from Prince Edward Island, thinks he knows better than farmers of Ontario who have opted clearly for a voluntary and accountable wheat board?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 10th, 1998]

You have made that point before.

[National Defence Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this legislation. I will talk a bit about the reforms in this legislation but unfortunately much more about what was not included in this legislation, in particular the position of ombudsman and independent inspector general. I will make some general comments about the men and women who serve in our forces.

What is in the legislation has been talked about to some extent but what we have in the legislation are some changes to the office of the judge advocate general. There are some positive changes in that but by and large the positive changes laid out in this area are nullified because the judge advocate general is left within the chain of command. There is not enough independence.

Some of the improvements that have been made have lost their value because the independence is limited. The military police is another area where there was reform in this legislation. There are some positive changes but again these positive changes are largely overridden because this office really is not made independent enough. That is still a concern regarding that position and really limits to a great extent the value that could have been presented in this legislation had it been done properly.

That is what is in this legislation. What is not in the legislation? The position of ombudsman is not mentioned in the legislation. The position of independent inspector general has been completely left out. There is no mentioned whatsoever and seems to be rejected by this legislation, and certainly was rejected by the minister's announcement of the ombudsman yesterday.

The parliamentary secretary in his opening comments said there is no need for an independent inspector general and his quote is that all the bases are covered by what is presented in this legislation and by the position of ombudsman. The ombudsman was announced yesterday. I am going to point out as clearly as I can that all the bases are not covered.

Because independence is not given to any of those involved in this military justice system the reality is if any gains have been made they are very small.

Let us look at the position of ombudsman. There is no mention of it in this legislation. The interesting thing is that in spite of the fact that the ombudsman was announced by the minister yesterday, there is no legislation to establish a position of ombudsman. What does that mean? We have an ombudsman appointed. There is no legislation. To me that means absolutely no power. That was something made very clear in the press conference yesterday. The ombudsman who was appointed has no power.

The only real power this ombudsman has is in presenting information to the public about what is going on inside the department. That is very limited because the ombudsman does not really present the information that he might have on a situation that is not being dealt with properly to the public. The ombudsman rather presents the information to the minister. It will be up to the minister to decide whether anything is done with the information presented to him. What really has been accomplished with that? I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain how all the bases have been covered.

I want to read some of the things that have been said by the minister and General Kinsman, former ADM of personnel. They were talking about the position of ombudsman and what it would and would not do. It is important to note here that this is an organizational ombudsman, not the ombudsman that people are used to when they hear about an ombudsman who is set out to deal with a particular problem by a provincial government or some other organization.

General Kinsman said: “Typical functions of an organizational ombudsman would include listening to members' complaints and providing an opportunity for ventilation; providing information to members on policies, how to take action, where to find information and so on; reframing issues and developing options for members; referring people to help themselves with advice or coaching; making informal, third party interventions”. As he goes down the line he makes it clear that this position does carry with it absolutely no power. That was reinforced yesterday with the minister's announcement.

General Kinsman goes on to say: “Because of objections in the operational commands to the proposal as tabled a compromise option was developed which would limit members' direct access to the ombudsman office, to administrative actions only, but would authorize secondary access on all other matters after first attempting resolution within the chain of command”.

People who have a complaint that is not being dealt with still have to go through the chain of command and only then can it be dealt with in some way by the ombudsman. The ombudsman, having no power because there has been no legislation introduced to give that power, has a very limited capability. The minister in yesterday's press conference really reinforced that.

I would like the parliamentary secretary and the minister to show how all the bases have been covered. It is clear that very little progress has been made.

The most disturbing thing of all was said by the parliamentary secretary today and the minister yesterday at the press conference. They said that because this ombudsman has been appointed there is no need for an independent inspector general. We had proposals again and again by the Somalia commission and by several other people who have done reviews of the military system that call for the appointment of an independent inspector general who would report to parliament completely outside the chain of command. That is what people have called for. That is what is needed and it is completely absent from this legislation. It is a glaring hole.

All bases covered, I suggest the government does not get to first base with this legislation. I am extremely concerned about that because of the impact on our men and women who serve so well in the Canadian forces and their need now for someone to go to when their concerns are not dealt with properly.

I want to make it clear that when I am talking about the position of ombudsman and the lack of authority and legislation to even establish the position, I am not criticizing the gentleman who was appointed, André Marin. He seems like a bright young man and has great qualifications when one looks at what he has done. He has been successful at what he has done. In terms of the person appointed I do not have a concern.

However, I think Mr. Marin is headed for frustration. He goes into this position for six months and he is then going to realize he has been given an impossible task. There are high expectations of what he would do but there is no authority granted to allow him to do it.

I will close by commenting on the impact of this legislation which is very weak, on the ombudsman position which is very weak, and on the impact of that on the men and women who serve so well in our forces.

As the House of Commons defence committee found out, it is clear that there are very good people serving in the Canadian forces. They are dedicated. They are certainly not there for the money. They are there because they want to serve this country. They are proud of what they do, but they do need someone to help them when they have a problem that is not dealt with by the chain of command. They need someone.

Presenting legislation like this and saying that all bases are covered is completely letting down the men and women who serve this country so well. It is sad that has happened. Something else has to happen to make up for the wrong that is being done in presenting this legislation and nothing more.

[Immigration, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in fact this is a very simple matter. I am shocked that this minister is laughing about an issue as important as this one.

We have a convicted drug dealer. Why will the minister and the government not just throw that drug dealer out of the country?

[Immigration, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is a convicted drug dealer selling $10 million worth of drugs. What about our children?

Why will this government not just simply throw this drug dealer out of the country?

[Income Tax Act, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the members from all political parties who have spoken in support of this bill. I thank the parliamentary secretary who gave general support and some good reasons to support the bill but who also unfortunately came up with a few excuses as to why it has not happened, one being that other technicians should be included.

I agree with that but the government has had five years to make that happen. The parliamentary secretary also showed a concern regarding personal use of tools. That is an issue regarding any item that is allowed for deduction under tax regulations, so it just does not wash at all.

I thank the member from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke on this, gave his full support and made some very good comments. The member from the New Democratic Party said this is not a partisan issue, that it has been brought up before, which is the case. I thank the member for that.

I thank the member from the Conservative Party who gave full support and hit on several of the key issues. This member also pointed out that the government has been very tardy on this. I thank them all for their comments.

Our finance critic, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, a member of the finance committee, pointed out reasons employers require mechanics to own tools, which I think is a very important point. Anyone who has employed mechanics or who has worked with tools knows that tools tend to walk. This is not only because people steal them but tools get left on a piece of equipment, the equipment gets driven away and the tools disappear. Certainly they would pay extra attention if they were their own tools. I thank the member for making that important point and the member for Elk Island who showed his support for this bill.

We have what appears to be unanimous consent from the people who presented on this bill. I cannot understand why it has not happened before now. This is not a new issue. This issue has come up from MPs from all parties in the past, MPs such as Joy Langan, NDP, in 1992 and the Liberal member for Saint-Boniface. A Bloc MP in 1996 put forth a bill that would at least do some of these things.

This is not a new issue. This government has had five years to act on it. It has not acted and it is too bad. It is very unfortunate, particularly for the mechanics who really need this piece of legislation. I do not think we can wait any longer.

This is clearly a tax fairness issue. I find it surprising that just because it is a tax fairness issue that actually requires a reduction in taxation, it is not going to be acted on, at least through this bill.

I want to tell mechanics this issue is not dead. I have the 6,000 to 7,000 letters. I have the lists of groups and businesses that have supported this. I am going to keep going with this.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to make Bill C-366 votable.

[Income Tax Act, June 3rd, 1998]

moved that Bill C-366, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of mechanics' tool expenses), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely delighted today to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the 100,000 or so Canadian mechanics who pretty much keep our world turning.

Most little children by the time they are two or three years old have figured out that wheels make the world go round. Wheels get things moving and keep them moving. Anyone who has watched a child grow up would realize that at a very early age they figure out that engines make cars, trucks and airplanes move.

The private members' bill which I have prepared and presented and on which I speak today is about keeping engines on which we depend so much moving. More specifically Bill C-366 is dedicated to the mechanics or technicians who assemble, maintain and repair the cars, trucks, heavy equipment, recreation equipment, airplanes, trains and items of convenience which add so much to enriching our lives every day. If anyone has any doubt about that they should just ask their 16-year old son or daughter who has just received their driver's licence what their wheels mean to them.

Every one of us depends on the work mechanics do every day of our lives. We depend on them to keep the wheels turning so that we can go to and from work. We depend on their work to keep the wheels turning so that we can get our groceries delivered from the supermarket, go to the hospital, bring our families together, grow our food and so much more. Now because of unfair tax treatment we may well face a shortage of mechanics which may keep us waiting for all of these things. The passage of legislation as outlined in Bill C-366, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, deduction of mechanics' tool expenses, could help to ensure that this does not happen.

Since introducing Bill C-366 in March I have received over 6,000 letters of support for this bill. I am sure many members of the House have received letters of support as well. The letters are from mechanics, from various types of motor vehicle dealers and from many other companies and organizations involved in the automotive industry, with heavy equipment, any kind of equipment that requires mechanics to maintain and repair to keep them on the road or in the air.

I have received many thousands of letters from mechanics from every province, from British Columbia to Newfoundland. These people are frustrated that even though mechanics are required to spend huge amounts on purchasing tools to get and keep a job, they are not receiving a tax deduction for these costs. As a result there is a growing shortage of mechanics, a problem that will increasingly affect all Canadians who own or lease vehicles or any equipment for that matter.

I will explain what this bill does. Bill C-366 amends the Income Tax Act to allow mechanics to deduct the cost of providing the tools for their employment if they are required as a condition of employment. The deduction encompasses maintenance, rental and insurance costs, the full cost of tools purchased for under $200, inflation adjusted, and the capital cost allowance for tools over $200.

During my presentation I will explain what my bill would do if implemented. I will demonstrate the broad support for this change. I will explain how this more than anything else is an issue of tax fairness.

This bill is necessary for several reasons. First there is the investment needed to get and keep a job. To get and keep a job, mechanics must invest an average of $15,000 in tools. Some may invest as much as $40,000. We have heard from some of these people. They must make annual replacement purchases of up to $1,000. For example, the purchase of diagnostic hand tools which are required to work on anything newer than a mid-1980s vehicle would cost between $1,000 to $1,500. Regular upgrading of software for these tools alone may cost $300 a year. This amount is disproportionate in comparison with amounts in other employee groups that are required to provide their tools as a condition of employment.

The extent of this expense is exacerbated by the relatively modest wage level of mechanics. The average income for mechanics in Canada today is $29,000 a year. Clearly this kind of extra expense without the corresponding tax deduction is a great burden. If anyone needs convincing of this I will quote from a few of the letters I have received from mechanics.

Blair McKinnon, a mechanic from Lloydminster, Alberta said “A mechanic without tools is like a secretary without computer skills. Presently, I have about $7,000 in tools. To move up in my career, in two years the amount would double. As technology changes, tools change at my expense. The tool becomes a special tool and the price goes up”.

Eddie Sagal, president of Sagal Brothers Sales Limited, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan said “I am the New Holland dealer in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. I employ about 10 service technicians, depending on the vagaries of business. These technicians have a great deal of money tied up in their tools. They can easily have $10,000 invested in a starter kit, while most have $15,000 to $20,000 worth of tools. They have to buy these tools themselves and they need them for their employment.

Jay Sinclair of Clandonald, Alberta said “I have been in the automotive trade for seven years now and plan to continue for several more. I have purchased approximately $8,000 in new tools, not including replacements. Due to the rise of electronics in newer vehicles, not only is there a call for more specialized tools but also more costs in the necessary tools. I feel it is unfair that the trade that requires the most tools purchased to stay employed is not considered as an expense on an income tax form. I know my employer does not adjust my wage or any others due to the purchasing of tools”.

We clearly have a problem: low wages combined with the high cost of purchasing tools which is not deductible.

This is a tax fairness issue. In its prebudget report in December 1997 the House of Commons finance committee 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, chain saw 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.

That is from the finance committee. It fully supports this move.

As well, this legislation is also completely consistent with the treatment of others, for example, small business people, including farmers and other independent business people. Farmers can claim for maintenance, rental, insurance and the full cost of tools under $200 and a capital cost allowance of tools over $200. That is what I used as the model for this bill. The mechanism for handling this is already in the tax system. This change will clearly make the system more fair.

Is it not funny, is it not interesting that with this government and with this finance minister tax fairness always means an increase in taxation. Tax fairness always seems to mean a tax hike. This is one case where tax fairness should mean less taxes for mechanics who need to have this tax deduction available to them.

Again, referring to some of these letters that I received on the issue of tax fairness, I will quote Richard Gauthier, president of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association “The Canadian Automobile Dealers Association was disappointed that the 1998 federal budget did not provide technicians with the tax changes that they deserve. We will continue to work with all stakeholders to ensure that equity and fairness is restored to the Income Tax Act by providing technicians the ability to deduct the cost of their tools as an employment expense”.

Ross Ulmer, the general manager of Ulmer Chev Olds in Lloydminster said “Every journeyman mechanic is required to have from $8,000 to $15,000 of owned tools in order to continue their trade. Most other professions, from musicians through plumbers and doctors, which require this amount of investment to continue their profession have tax incentives to allow them to deduct capital cost allowance on those items that are essential to the employment in their profession. These men and women are not asking for a break to take advantage of the tax system; they are simply asking for fair consideration given most other Canadians in similar circumstances”.

I have a whole stack of other people I could refer to, but obviously I do not have time.

The third issue is the shortage of skilled mechanics. The automotive industry is predicting that the lower enrolment rates in apprenticeship programs combined with high attrition rates in the existing workforce will soon place the industry in a severe shortage of skilled labour. Because employers require mechanics to supply their tools and because of the size of the required investment, it is difficult for young graduate mechanics to enter the labour market.

Can we really take a chance on allowing the wheels to stop? Many say no, including the House of Commons finance committee. The finance committee has stated that allowing mechanics to deduct the costs of their tools would increase enrolment rates in apprenticeship programs and would reduce what the industry considers to be a severe shortage of skilled labour.

With youth unemployment as high as it is and the fact that there is a real shortage of skilled mechanics, talented young Canadians should be able to see a career in the automotive industry. It is unfortunate a change which could be made by this government will not be put in place to ensure that this can happen.

I will quote from a letter I received from Ken Myhre, president of the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology. He says that students who enter the automotive programs at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology and other technical institutes in Canada face a significant outlay in tool costs as a part of their training program. Only when fairness is restored to these new entrants in the workforce will we see the technicians needed to meet Canada's workforce in the automotive sector.

Farmers and other businessmen and workers employed as artists, musicians and chainsaw operators can claim their tools. They are deductible. Obviously mechanics should be able to do so. The frustration felt by mechanics across the country is highlighted by the fact that I have received well over 6,000 letters in support of the bill in about two months.

Bill C-366 gives mechanics fair tax treatment and in so doing helps to reverse the shortage of skilled labour in the automotive industry and other industries requiring mechanics.

I conclude with a quote from a letter by Sandy Warrington of Paradise Valley, Alberta, who is writing on behalf of her son Scott who has just completed his apprentice motor mechanic papers after four years. Four years ago when she and her son went to the office in Vermilion they were warned that as a parent she would have to help support Scott since as a starting mechanic he could not afford to buy his tools. No kidding. That was the understatement of the year.

I will get five minutes at the end of this hour to wrap u[. I am looking forward to hearing the members who will speak on the bill.

[Canada Labour Code, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to give the speaker who just spoke an indefinite amount of time to continue. I think he is probably doing us a lot of good.