Rick Casson

[Human Resources Development, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were rightly outraged when they learned of this government's big brother database. In the last week, because of a lack of trust in this HRDC minister, over 30,000 Canadians have written asking for their own personal files, files which they have every legal right to see.

Does the dismantling of the minister's database affect those 30,000 requests for Canadians' personal information?

[Income Tax Act, May 29th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this private member's bill. I commend my colleague from the Bloc for bringing it forward.

The bill was introduced in the last session by the member for Lakeland. He did a lot of work on the background of this and I am glad to see that it has been carried forward. The last time it was debated it was a non-votable. This time it is votable.

I believe this is an issue of which everyone in the House is aware. It has been brought to their attention that this is an inequity in our tax laws that needs to be addressed. At a time when we are seeing surpluses in our revenues, the government needs to take a look at our tax laws and change the areas that need to be changed, address the inequities and recognize a trade that has been singled out to not receive the same treatment as others.

I am glad the bill is before the House and that it is votable. I hope all members in the House will support it.

The message is clear. The member for Lakeland has received 7,000 letters from mechanics from across the country who have pointed out the shortcomings of this part of the tax laws and that in this day of changing technologies it is becoming more and more onerous, because of the amount of money it takes to buy the tools, to get into the trade.

The trade is changing rapidly. The technology and equipment these people have to repair, whether it is heavy-duty tractors, large machinery, automobiles or whatever, is changing. It is computerized now. There are fewer people who can even look under the hood of a vehicle and do anything with it. It takes specialized people and specialized equipment.

Some mechanics estimate they need to invest $20,000 to $30,000 into equipment just to do their jobs. Having their own tools is one of the conditions of employment.

As recently as two weeks ago, I visited a young man in a shop in my riding. He informed me that it was necessary for him to supply $5,000 to $10,000 worth of tools to move into a journeyman position. He told me that was a big hurdle to overcome and that he may not be able to do that. This is an example of a trained and eager young man who is interested in getting into the workforce but because of the amount of money it will take for him to invest he may not be able to do that.

The government needs to look at the fact that this is happening. It needs to offer these people a tax credit for the tools they have to purchase as a condition of employment.

The last time this bill was brought forward there were a number of issues raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Minister and some of the statements need to be clarified or argued with. One statement that he made was that:

—mechanics are not the only occupation that incurs substantial expenses as a requirement of employment.

Of course not. There are many. However they are the ones who cannot use this purchase of equipment as a deduction in their business. What we are saying is that farmers and other businessmen, as well as artists, musicians and chainsaw operators, incur substantial expenses as a requirement of employment but they are able to deduct these costs. Why can mechanics not also be added to this group? The government could then ensure that other groups that incur expenses as a requirement of employment will be treated fairly by the tax system.

We are now in a position where we can step back and have a look at our tax system to see where we could improve it. There are many ways to improve our tax system and mechanics' tools is one area that needs to be looked at.

The policy is supported by the all party House of Commons finance committee. In its last report it stated:

The committee recommends that the government provide targeted tax relief for all those who must bear large expenses as a condition of employment, such as is the case with mechanics' tools.

All opposition parties are supportive, and I hope members of the government, when it comes time to stand to vote on this issue, will support it as well. I am sure they are aware that this situation exists and that it needs to be changed.

The parliamentary secretary also stated that:

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.

That is a pretty poor statement. As we know, businessmen, farmers, all people who are involved in a business, are able to deduct their expenditures so why should mechanics be treated differently? Not being compensated for small expenditures, whatever the level, is a matter for regulation that could be sorted out rather easily.

He also stated that:

—provisions would need to be developed to ensure that tax relief is provided only for those items genuinely required as a condition of employment and not for those purchased for personal use.

That applies everywhere. If we are buying something to carry on our business, that is separate from our personal lives. That is minute nitpicking. The true issue is that we have people who are putting out tens of thousands of dollars to get started and then supplementing that every year by $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 per year in purchases of specialized equipment to keep their jobs and they are not able to deduct that expense. That is totally unfair.

When the bill was brought forward in 1998 by the member for Lakeland it received overwhelming support from people in the industry. I have quotes from mechanics, people who hire mechanics and general managers of automotive dealerships who say that this is something that would go a long way in helping to improve the ability of their people to do a decent job.

The minor change in Bill C-205 from the previous bill is that the amount of the deduction be changed to $250 from $200. It is just a minor tweaking to bring it back. This time it was brought back as a votable bill which will give it more debate in the House and more time for people to put their ideas forward.

I had a private member's bill drawn last week, thank goodness. It is like winning a lottery. The whole scheme of things here is to get a private member's bill drawn and to have it made votable. To bring it to the House to make members stand on the issue is important. This bill has made that one hurdle and has gone that one step further.

We will be supporting this initiative by the member. We believe it is an inequity that needs to be addressed. The overwhelming positive response by people in the industry to this bill is a clear indication that it is needed. I hope that government members of the House, when the bill comes to a vote, will realize that, will listen to the people and will support the bill.

[Motions For Papers, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the government's efforts in researching that project for us. Certainly, I will withdraw that motion.

[Petitions, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with the definition of marriage.

These petitioners pray that parliament withdraw Bill C-23, affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.

[Petitions, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions today from the good folks in southern Alberta.

The first petition deals with child pornography. The signatories are horrified by pornography which depicts children and are astounded by legal determinations that the possession of child pornography is not criminal.

They call upon parliament, which has the duty to enact and enforce the criminal code, to take all measures necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it has been four months since Canadians first learned that the Liberal government bungled $1 billion of their tax dollars. That is a disturbing thought for the millions of hardworking Canadians who just filed their tax returns.

Since then there has not been a single resignation, there has not been a cabinet shuffle, and there has not even been an admission of guilt. Instead Canadians have been subjected to a steady stream of arrogant abuse from the government.

The Prime Minister tells us he is only doing a good job as an MP, despite numerous RCMP investigations into HRDC grants in his riding.

We have discovered that one Liberal member after another benefited from well timed government grants. In a glaring conflict of interest the HRDC minister approved three grants totalling over $700,000 in her own riding which went against the rules of the transitional jobs fund. Even more shocking was the news that she had approved an additional $840,000 in grants the day after her officials told her about the bungled funds.

Every week new details surface about more improprieties in how the HRDC grant money was doled out. Just this week we heard how the Deputy Prime Minister took advantage of Canadian taxpayers by directing $1.6 million into his riding and skirting the rules by spending only a paltry 20% of the funds on wages for employees.

The government fails to understand that the money it so callously threw around is not its money. It enrages Canadians when they realize that the government has yet to understand this concept, continuing to bungle billions of tax dollars on boondoggle spending while hardworking Canadians suffer because of deteriorating health care systems.

Instead of treating this health care emergency the Liberals patted themselves on the back, increasing the 2000 budget for federal grants and contributions by a further $1.5 billion.

The Canadian Alliance believes that Canadians would rather see money spent on improving the quality of health care than see it lining the pockets of the Prime Minister's friends. We believe that this funding is better spent upgrading the quality of health care. We are deeply concerned about the future of our health care system. No one wants to see people suffer when they fall ill. No one wants an American style health care system in Canada. We believe that health care should not be based on financial status and that all Canadians should have timely access to essential health care services.

When we form government we will provide greater freedom of choice when it comes to ensuring well-being and access to medical care and medical facilities. We believe that the needs of patients must come first in the delivery of health services. We will work together with the provinces so that they have the resources and flexibility to find more effective approaches to the financing, management and delivery of health care, thereby ensuring that patient choice and quality of care are maximized.

It is time for the government to go. It becomes clearer every day that the government is incapable of offering solutions to these problems. It has become detached from the concerns of Canadians and cares only about feeding its own inflated ego.

Canadians can be assured that the Canadian Alliance is ready and willing to tackle the ongoing problems of high taxes and substandard health care. We can no longer afford to become complaisant as our country falls to pieces under the Liberal government.

How much longer will long suffering, overtaxed Canadians have to put up with this Liberal arrogance instead of getting reasonable value for their tax dollars?

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a bit about labelling products that are produced on Canadian farms so that Canadian consumers would know that. He feels there would be a willingness by the Canadian public to pay a little extra for that.

One reason our farm community is in trouble is low commodity prices, and those prices are being driven by subsidized products from around the world. It seems that every time the agriculture community wakes up in the morning there is a new challenge facing it. Fuel costs are up. The government announced that transportation rates are up for shipping grain off the prairies. The issue of species at risk legislation could affect agriculture producers, as well as the idea of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. These are all issues of concern to the agriculture community. To say that we would label food produced in Canada so that the consumer would pay a little more might come up against some opposition. There are a lot of consumers who cannot afford to pay any more for food. We would somehow have to do it in a way that would benefit all of society, the farmer at one end and the consumer at the other.

I want to be get back to the labelling. A lot of products are labelled “made in Canada” now. How in the member's mind would something like that be structured to ensure that the benefit of such a program would return to the producer?

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I too thank the minister for being here this morning to take part in this debate, and certainly the member of the Bloc Quebecois for bringing forward this motion.

Genetically modified organisms and what effect they have on people have been a topic of debate across the country and around the world. We need to have more research and we need to know more about what is going on.

There are many questions I want to pose to the minister this morning about grain transportation, increased fuel costs and increased input costs to farmers, but I will stick to the issue at hand.

As the minister is aware, there have been suggestions that a joint subcommittee of the agriculture committee and health committee be struck to study this issue. If this does happen, I would like him, as the agriculture minister for Canada, to assure the agricultural community that it will be well represented as the witnesses come forward to bring testimony to that subcommittee.

[Taxpayers' Rights, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on January 30, 1994, Deborah Starr-Stephan, a mother of 10 and beloved wife of Tony Stephan, took her life. In 1993 her husband, after exhausting all other options, was forced to declare bankruptcy. From that point forward his family was unceasingly harassed by overzealous Canada customs and revenue agents. With her family driven into extreme hardship, unable to cope with the immense stress she was under, Deborah Stephan committed suicide. This should never have happened.

In the fall of 1997 the official opposition proposed a taxpayers' bill of rights and an office for the taxpayers' protection. The government needs to adopt this proposal so Canadians such as the Stephan family are protected from the summary treatment and abusive actions of CCRA agents.

Without enacting a strong taxpayers' bill of rights, the CCRA could be plagued with the same accountability problems that makes the IRS the most hated agency in the United States.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, while it is reassuring that the member opposite admits that everyone in this country is a taxpayer, or will be a taxpayer, and this is important, he is missing the point.

The point is that Canadian taxpayers are concerned. Certainly when a bill comes before the House they have the right to know what component it is, how much their taxes are going to rise to support that initiative, whether it is this initiative or whatever ministry it comes from. They have a right to know what the cost is going to be to them through the tax system.

I think he missed the point. Canadians have a right to know what this is going to cost.