Derrek Konrad

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party puts out a frequent publication called “The Waste Report” which talks about how our tax dollars are handled. I bring to the attention of every member of this House that it is available from our revenue critic. Members can supply them to all their constituencies. Liberal members are also welcome to have them.

The collection of tax dollars is one thing which really frustrates people when the get “The Waste Report” or reports from the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation outlining how their tax dollars are frequently abused.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have had bad experiences. Some have had better experiences and some have not, which illustrates the need for taxpayer protection provision in the new act.

Because these responsibilities are going to be transferred to an arm's length agency, we are certain to see cases increasing where arbitrary decisions are going to happen. Rather than having some on and some off, we should have legislation in place that allows the individual taxpayer to know what his or her rights are and to know that there is an ombudsman like person there to interpret his rights and to make sure they are fairly and evenly applied across the board.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to speak to Bill C-43, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act, an act that affects all Canadians and is extremely important to the House as taxation is the primary reason for the existence of government.

I would like to change the direction of the debate a little to how the legislation itself will be considered. It is being debated in the lower House and will probably be passed by the Liberal majority. After it goes through second reading, it leaves the House and goes to the other place, a place of unbiased sober second thought which is not in any sense subject to partisan consideration. We do not really believe that. We know the only piece of equipment required over there is the rubber stamp that is issued without any delay when a senator is appointed and not elected to that place.

While it may seem an aside in the discussion of Bill C-43, I would like members of the House to consider that for the last two federal elections there has not been a single Progressive Conservative elected west of the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border. Yet the Prime Minister recently appointed a senator for Alberta who was not from the Reform Party, which has the bulk of support in Alberta, and not from the Liberal Party which has marginal support but from the PC Party which has no support.

Does anyone believe that a place of sober second thought will represent the so-called regions, the regions being the provinces? Several provinces have already indicated they do not support the legislation. How are their concerns to be heard in that place?

What do they have at the present time? They have members of parliament, the bulk of whom are Liberals, who will vote for the legislation, probably denying any proposed amendments set out by any of the opposition parties. They have premiers who have moral suasion but do not have legislative power.

Parliament needs a triple-E Senate that has the power which flows from elections, the people's choice, effected senators able to act independent of the Prime Minister and equal in that each province has its own senators who will represent the province's point of view in debates like this one and others. They will represent their provinces in parliament. They will not represent the governing party in the House of Commons. That is some of the background I wanted to set. As we consider this matter we know the provinces will not be heard in this place.

Turning to consideration of the actual bill, we understand that debate is important in that various perspectives on tax collection policy are at issue. The balance is between increased efficiency in the collection of taxes owed to the government and the potential for abuse by the government of the centralized tax collection power.

Few people would admit to being happy to pay taxes. The dissatisfaction with paying taxes is largely due to perceived government waste and the inefficiencies in the use of the tax dollars collected. In a civilized society no one would acknowledge that a world without taxes is possible since taxes are used to provide services of benefit to all as well as services that benefit those particularly in need.

Dissatisfaction with paying taxes should lead. though, to actions to lower tax levels and to make the government more accountable for the use of tax dollars. Dissatisfaction with paying taxes cannot justify the evasion of taxes properly owed. Dissatisfaction with paying taxes should also not lead to unreasonable delays in paying taxes properly owed.

The position of the official opposition on Bill C-43 is essentially that there should be greater safeguards for citizens with respect to the centralized tax collection power of government. It must acknowledge that concerns about the tax collection practices of government assumed public prominence in the early 1980s.

Some in the House will remember that the Conservatives then in opposition conducted public hearings into the fairness of tax collection policies. The parliamentarian conducting those hearings, Mr. Perrin Beatty, later became the Minister of National Revenue during the Conservatives' term of government.

At that time comparisons were made between tax collection policies in the United States and Canada. I believe it is fair to state that tax collection policies in the United States, notably through the actions of the IRS, have always been regarded as significantly more aggressive than they are in Canada, perhaps due to national differences in perspective as much as to the benevolence of government.

In the United States the government and its citizenry often assume adversarial roles whereas in Canada the consensus appears to be that citizens are less inclined to regard government as the enemy. We must be very cautious with respect to any criticism of initiatives to make tax collection more efficient. After all, it is well known that those least able to avoid paying taxes are the salaried employees throughout Canada. Those most able to avoid paying taxes are self-employed persons and businesses.

Everyone should pay taxes justly owed. The requirement for instalment tax payments on the part of business and the self-employed is to avoid unwelcome tax liabilities and collection difficulties.

There is a further difficulty that the government faces in collecting taxes and that is the elimination of its priority under the Bankruptcy Act.

For better or for worse it was determined that the government did not merit the status of preferred creditor under the Bankruptcy Act, meaning that for many people the easiest answer to tax collection problems is simply to go bankrupt. Given this trend some might argue that it is in the larger public interest that tax debts survive a bankruptcy, not unlike family support obligations.

Why this is important can be seen in the experiences of countries where there is widespread public contempt for tax collection, which is usually tied to great public lack of confidence in government. Our most recent example is that of Russia where the outgoing head of tax collection has predicted this week that his successor will soon fail, given that the government is bankrupt and likely to fall within weeks.

These types of attitudes cannot gain a strong foothold in Canada lest it be to widespread resistance to paying taxes justly owed. The appropriate response in a civilized society is political action to change dimensions of the tax system considered to be objectionable.

I might add again that political action should involve creating a House of Commons and a Senate that are workable. The proposals of my colleague from Calgary Southeast, who is also the official opposition critic for national revenue, appear to be aimed at balancing the need for the efficient collection of taxes justly owed with protections to curb the potential for abuse of the collection power.

This balancing of interests would occur through the legislative enactment of a taxpayers' bill of rights combined with the creation of an office for taxpayer protection. This office for taxpayer protection would involve an independent taxpayer advocate who would report to parliament in a similar fashion to that of the auditor general. We have recently seen why the need for independence in reporting is important in terms of the assertions now made by the recently dismissed chief actuary of Canada.

Some may ask why a taxpayer's bill of rights. We know that the tax department collection policies are generally asserted to be far more considerate of taxpayer concerns than in years previously. There is a similar bill of rights approach communicated by the tax department to taxpayers. However, with the centralized collection power of the new agency the position of the official opposition is that Canadians should never be subjected to the abuses of power and summary treatment that has made the internal revenue service the most feared institution in the United States.

What is a primary constraint on the abuse of a centralized tax collection power? As proposed by my colleague from Calgary Southeast, the office for taxpayer protection represented by a chief advocate would have the power to issue taxpayer protection orders to protect taxpayers from arbitrary treatment or treatment that could lead to undue financial hardship. The office of taxpayer protection would also have an ombudsman-like role with respect to assisting taxpayers in resolving disputes with the Canada customs and revenue agency.

To those who are concerned that this proposal would increase costs without any demonstrated benefit in terms of increased efficiencies in tax collection, I wish to point out that there is no intention to create another government bureaucracy in the office for taxpayer protection. Rather, this office would be funded primarily from an appropriation to general revenues from Revenue Canada's current budget.

In terms of the taxpayer rights that are being referenced in the proposed taxpayer's bill of rights some of the more important dimensions concern circumstances where a taxpayer acted in good faith and without the intention to evade taxes, which are more or less synonymous terms. Another circumstance is where a taxpayer relied upon incorrect advice provided by a Revenue Canada official or an official of the Canada customs and revenue agency. In these circumstances penalties and interest otherwise payable must be waived.

In addition, in cases where penalties and interest may cause severe financial hardship or in cases where reassessments can be proven to cause severe financial hardship, the Canada customs and revenue agency must make alternative payment arrangements. This could be by way of negotiated repayment schedules or in certain cases abatements of amounts owed.

Many will argue that current tax practice incorporates these elements in any event. So what is the problem? The fact that tax collection practices in Canada are not regarded with great disfavour does not minimize the potential for future abuse. By formalizing a good practice as a taxpayer right one is ensuring that a social good will be preserved, notwithstanding changes in governments or government debt positions.

One area involving a particular compassion relates to the effects of the seizure of assets on employees or family members not involved with a particular tax transgression. We know the actions of wrongdoers frequently have negative consequences far beyond their own persons. Families can be destroyed by wrongful acts over which they have little or no control. The sensitivity of the tax department in this area is a matter of discretion on the part of particular officials.

What is proposed under the taxpayer's bill of rights is that the office of taxpayer protection can advocate fairness in seizure practices, making a protection order, for example, in cases where undue hardship is caused to third parties. In a general sense the office of taxpayer protection acts as an intervener and moderator with respect to government seizure practices.

I emphasize that the official opposition's concerns primarily relate to the protection of individual taxpayer rights. No one, absolutely no one, can be seen to be an advocate of letting those who justly owe taxes to the government avoid their obligations to pay such tax.

[Gun Registration, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with a delegation of concerned gun owners who have travelled from my riding of Prince Albert to take part in today's Fed Up rally against Bill C-68.

In response to pressure from people like these and with less than 10 days remaining, the minister finally caved in to common sense and postponed the implementation date until December 1.

Now if the government, which has had three years to hear objections to this legislation, remains committed to it, here is what millions of law-abiding Canadians can expect: criminal charges for failure to comply; seizure of private property without compensation; padlocks on the doors of legitimate businesses.

Clearly this piece of legislation is unworkable.

We call on the minister now to commit to withholding implementation until the courts can rule on the legality of Bill C-68.

[The Senate, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have now been working together in this House since September and I must say it has been a pleasure working with everyone here over this period of time.

But as I say this on what appears to be our last day in this House before a three month recess, still nothing has been done about Senate reform. The Reform Party has remained committed to the idea of a triple E Senate and will continue to push for Senate reform.

The Prime Minister said that he is in favour of Senate reform, but yet just last night he snuck in five new senators. Shame. A whole session has gone by and still the Prime Minister has done nothing on the matter.

The vast majority of Canadians want Senate reform and want to be able to have a say in who represents them in the upper chamber, no matter how popular they may be. Canadians must have a voice.

Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree that it is time for the government to start listening to Canadians and to get real.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the name of the party of the hon. member who just spoke, we do not think it is as democratic as its name might imply.

I said that there did not seem to be the level of consultation necessary for a bill termed important and historic. Nobody is denying that we can move power down particularly from the government to the people. We want enough people to have a say and express their opinions to be sure that is the direction in which they want to go.

As to whether or not the current system has worked, in places it does and in places it does not. A number of chiefs, their executive assistants and education people appeared before us. They were well educated, well spoken individuals under the current system. To think that we could put all the people into a basket and say they are poorly educated because they were educated under a system that is foreign to what we experienced in our past is ridiculous. People will flourish under a multiplicity of systems.

This is one that may work very well for these people. When something is as important and historic as the bill—and it may well prove to be one of the more important ones when it comes to how an entire generation is raised—it is surely not too much to expect real consultation so that we are sure we have democracy.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues to address the Mi'kmaq education bill. We are now at third reading and still I find myself in the position of being unable to support the bill.

As was pointed out, all members in committee made positive contributions in the spirit of co-operation and respectfully hearing one another out. There was not this bitter attitude that seems to creep into this place all the time.

The fact that we did not manage to have the important amendment adopted that my party and I thought was necessary to offer support to the bill, which we would have liked to have supported had our amendment been adopted, is regrettable, but that is the way it is.

This bill would implement an agreement signed by the Government of Canada and 9 of the 13 Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia.

Its purpose is to set up a corporation that has no share capital called Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey. It exercises control over primary and secondary education. It is in effect more or less a school board.

The purpose of the corporation is to support delivery of educational programs and services under the proposed act. The members of the board will be the chiefs of the nine participating communities and are elected ex officio by virtue of their office.

They together will constitute the board of directors and will ultimately be responsible for management and conduct of the corporation.

The Reform Party cannot put its support behind this bill because we have one major problem with the bill. The chiefs themselves are automatically the members of Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey established by this bill.

In my previous speech on this I explained that we wanted to see the bill changed in order that we may offer our support to it. We wanted it amended so rather than the chiefs of the nine signatory communities ex officio members of the board, they would be nominated and possibly elected if that was the purpose of the members of those communities. We wanted to open it up to other people as well.

We have no problem with the view that chiefs are politicians. It is their job to be visionaries, to see a position they can push to improve the life of their communities. In this case control of education for their communities was their vision. For that we commend them, that they should want to move control over education into the community. After all, it is their job to promote, to protect and to provide a legislative framework for things to happen.

It is my view also that politicians themselves probably should not be involved in the daily delivery of programs, the delivery of their own product. It just does not work that way in other areas. Why in this one?

We feel this board could be consisting of qualified professionals, experienced people who want to run for the board who have an interest in education, who want to make a positive contribution to their communities. This would be one way of doing it.

It may be housewives, businessmen or workers who want to make a positive contribution as grassroots people in their communities. They are denied unless they run for chief with all the additional responsibilities that being a chief implies.

For the chiefs being ex officio members, because they are dealing with millions and millions of dollars to manage the affairs of the board, it is another paycheque. We want to see economic activity spread around. There is concentration of paycheque. There is concentration of responsibilities on top of an already busy job and in an area in which the chiefs maybe are not necessarily expert. They will be involved in the delivery of educational products and services.

This may result in overall poor management and results even if the chiefs put in good will and hard work. It also makes sense that the members of the education board should have to be dealt with at the polls on the matter of education only and not on a wide variety of topics unrelated to education.

Why should the voter have to decide on an issue that is unrelated to their performance as chief whether or not they are returned? Certainly the chiefs I met are good people.

I must say when we got to this standing committee meeting we had quite a chorus of leaders from the participating communities. They were all chiefs or people who worked with chiefs.

An elected board dedicated to one purpose we believe is in the best interests of the people, in this case the people of the community themselves. They would want to deal with education boards on the basis of education.

The chief's have a broader outlook. It was their vision, as those people elected to lead their bands, that developed a police force and the education board. They should raise their sights to other things important to their communities and maintain contact with people on those issues. They should leave behind the management of the things which they have established by their hard work, initiative and vision.

We feel that it concentrates too much power and too much work in the hands of the chiefs. That is why we want to see this bill amended. Obviously it is not going to be amended but that was our desire.

Our support on this bill was contingent on having this basic and fundamental amendment passed. We know what happened in committee. The Liberals voted it down. They lined up against it, as did members of other parties who do not have the strong democratic tradition the Reform Party is developing in this country and which is attracting voters from coast to coast.

We asked why would they vote against such a common sense amendment. They do not have the democratic and accountability tradition that comes with being a Reformer and growing a party based on those principles that the Reform Party is based on and grew from. They would like things to continue the way they are.

We have a number of other problems with the bill. It does not have the full backing of all the communities. Four of the thirteen bands in the province did not sign on to the agreement. During the committee stage these people came forward as witnesses and expressed some serious concerns regarding this bill. It was the grassroots people from the communities who expressed reservations.

The chiefs and their people who were fully on side. There was a major concern with the Nova Scotia board of education. It would have liked to see this amendment.

Band members who are not in leadership in a band gave a much different point of view. There was a concern with consultation. People did not understand the implications of the bill that was being put forward to them. Their concern also was too much power in the hands of a small group of people.

Is that not what democracy is about, giving power to the people, the people at the bottom end, the people who require and receive the services on a daily basis for their quality of life? The people who are affected are not certain they will receive the benefits of the education programs the board will administer. They do not want to see the chiefs constitute the members of the board.

We have seen these cases before. Funding is put in at the top but it does not seem to get down to the people who need it. We do not have to look very far to see that happen. I am not saying it will happen in this case but the potential is there because of the concentration of power.

We think it would be wise for the government to pull back on pushing this bill through and take time to investigate properly some democratic amendments and see if they cannot be made to work. The issue was raised in the House and in committee that people will not listen to an elected person who does not happen to be a chief. But we all know that if a chief did not seek re-election or did not get elected he would not lose all his standing in the community by that one simple election. He would be considered an elder in his community forever. He would have a lot of standing and a lot of status and people would look to him for leadership, although not in a legislative sense.

We reject the premise that the people would not listen or care what was said by an elected board. We believe there are enough people in these communities who can provide leadership and are willing to provide leadership, capable people who could take up the leadership available to them if this bill is amended to provide for an elected board of education.

In this party we are great advocates of the equality of all citizens and our ultimate goal is that all aboriginal people fully participate in society, their own included, that they would not be denied because they were not chiefs of a band.

Our party regretfully does not support this bill because it grants special powers and rights to the chiefs rather than spreading it out throughout the band. We have expressed concern that the people who are served by the bill could be separated further from mainstream Canadian society by retreating into an education system set up particularly for native people.

We think all Nova Scotians should have the opportunity to hear how the Mi'kmaq governed themselves, how they lived before we came here, how they live now, how they have evolved in their society, their governing structures, their families. All the things that matter to Canadians and to Nova Scotians and to the Mi'kmaq should be available to them through the regular school system.

We are not opposed to the entire concept of the Mi'kmaq's having control over their education. We just want to see that control diffused a bit, not so concentrated in one group.

The bill has been referred to on occasions by the department of Indian affairs and the Assembly of First Nations as important and historic. Those words are important to burn into our consciousness, this important and historic piece of legislation that will establish a new relationship between aboriginal people and the federal government.

When it is brand new there cannot be any excuse for rushing it through to royal assent. We need to take the full time and if people are raising legitimate concerns, we need to hear them. If they said they had not properly involved themselves in the consultation process, it is their responsibility to get there but it is our responsibility to ensure they get there and that they raise their concerns.

The reason this is important and historic is this is a blueprint for further action by other bands. It will not be the end of the road for this bill. While it was stated that this bill is sure to increase educational opportunities for Mi'kmaq, it is really only as we have concrete evidence that it makes a difference, that we will be able to make those assertions. Otherwise they are merely educated guesses at best and the proof will be found out only when we have gone several years down this road. It is a road that we cannot come back from, so I urge the government to put some more thought into this thing and not rush ahead.

Let us get it right the first time and not have to go back and try to figure out a way to amend a bill that we see is flawed in such a fundamental way.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Delgamuukw decision, the entire land mass of British Columbia is now subject to land claims.

The entire legal jurisdiction of the B.C. government over its aboriginal citizens and its natural resources has been challenged. In other words, the foundations of the provincial government have been shaken. What is the federal government doing?

The budgetary estimates for the coming years show reduced spending on land claims by the department of Indian affairs in the order of over $200 million by the year 2001. These estimates do not show one single dollar being allotted for any contingent liability which might arise from the Delgamuukw decision.

I urge the government to address this problem as soon as possible. Get on with the job.

[Access To Information, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in his final report the access to information commissioner slammed the government's system-wide chronic problem of non-compliance with the act.

To underscore the problem he included this quote in his report to characterize the government's attitude: “Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink”.

When will the government stop winking at the law and start complying with access to information requests?

[Employment Insurance, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's own mother goose egg, the finance minister, has added a new nursery rhyme to the repertoire for our children and it goes like this:

Old McMartin had an EI fund E-I-E-I-O With that fund he had some fun E-I-E-I-O With patronage here, patronage there, Liberal spending everywhere Old McMartin spent that fund I-O-I-O-U

Members will see that in this rewrite of the old nursery rhyme that EI fund now equals IOU. I am sure members will agree this non-existent fund for a rainy day rates a place with the best fairy tales of our time.