Lost his last election, in 2008, with 38% of the vote.
Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers December 3rd, 1998
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to consultations with all House leaders, I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent for the Reform members to split their speaking time on this important issue. I would ask therefore for unanimous consent.
Division No. 298 December 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency.
It is a rare honour to witness a government bill that we believe is moving in the right direction. I am pleased to see that Bill C-43 may reduce tax collection, administration and compliance costs, particularly if the provinces decide to opt in. My understanding at this time is that there is some interest by the provinces in these revisions. However, none of them has yet made any kind of formal commitment. Let us hope we can get them on board.
Corporations, businesses and individuals alike will be pleased that they will no longer have to deal with a plethora of agencies. By focusing the tax collection needs with the Canada customs and revenue agency, overall costs should be reduced. I believe all Canadians would be in favour of reducing the cost of government and its associated departments.
While I believe there are some significant steps forward in this bill, there is a a lack of autonomous accountability in both the existing and the proposed bills.
The proposed role of the agency is to be responsible to the Minister of National Revenue. I believe we can do better than this. When we deal with taxpayer money individuals want to be assured there is full accountability and redress if and whenever necessary. If we want to upset someone we can be successful by telling him or her that they owe the government X number of dollars and that their options for disagreement are limited. This is true of people whether they be small business owners, corporations or individual taxpayers. Financial accountability is very important to all Canadians.
The Reform Party is very much in favour of a cost efficient use of Canadian taxpayer dollars. This is one of our basic principles. It is a grassroots principle that remains very important to all our constituents and to all Canadians. The inefficient use and waste of tax dollars may be seen in many different examples at almost every level of government today. Citizens are always pleased to hear of positive changes and improvements to the government's use of their financial resources.
What appears to be lacking in the proposed revisions in an accountability process for the taxpayers. We have heard it said already today but I believe there should be in place a taxpayer bill of rights. Why would we need a taxpayer bill of rights? The answer may be seen in a letter I received from a constituent who had difficulties with Revenue Canada. I will read his letter for members and see if they do not agree that a multitude of problems exist with this situation. The letter is dated August 27, 1998, addressed to the hon. Minister of Finance:
I am writing you this letter because I have run into a problem with Revenue Canada which I hope you can help me with, as I feel you may have inadvertently caused this. Approximately 4 years ago when the Liberal Party first came into power, you and [the Prime Minister] requested the Canadian public to check their income tax for possible mistakes, as the country was severally in debt and could use any extra income it could find to help pay off the debt. If there were mistakes found there would be no penalties charged.
Since I had never filled out my income tax, I felt that this would be an excellent opportunity to have the company who always does my taxes checked out. So I requested Revenue Canada audit 4 years of my taxes. They found one error and charged $700.00.
I then took this information to my tax preparation company, who admitted to the error, however, there was supposed to be a deduction from the $700.00 which Revenue Canada had not credited to my account, which would have reduced this amount by $350.00, leaving a balance owing of $350.00 which I paid. It seems that even Revenue Canada can make errors.
I returned to Revenue Canada to inform them that they had made an error and stated what my tax prep person had told me. I then received a phone call from a lady from Revenue Canada. She informed me that Revenue Canada only gave one free audit and that they had decided that my penalty would be $350.00, the exact figure of the error that Revenue Canada had made, so that would leave me owing another $350.00.
I phoned Revenue Canada in Victoria to complain. I was then informed by a gentleman from Victoria that “If I was stupid enough to request an audit then I got what I deserved”. I was really angry after that. I went to my Liberal member of parliament for my riding and complained about the whole situation. I was told they would look into the situation. After 3 months when I returned to his office, they stated that they were unable to help. The only way that they could see (a solution) would be to write to the appeals office in Victoria, which I did. I then sat waiting.
I informed the MP's office that I wanted to take this to the media as I did not want to see anyone else get shafted. They stated I should wait and see (what) would happen as they were sure that things would be straightened out.
I waited a year and the only thing that changed was the balance owing to Revenue Canada, as I had refused to pay this penalty. I returned to my MP's office and they stated that they would see what happened. I was informed a month later that the appeals office (had) never received the information from them and I should write you first.
However, an election was called and I did not feel that this would be an appropriate time for you to look into this or (for me) to go to the media. Now that the election is over and everything is settled in, I would like you to again look into this matter. I now see that Revenue Canada has a program for doing personal income tax. With the problem I have had with Revenue Canada, I would not recommend anyone have Revenue Canada do their income tax and then charge them a penalty. They would have no recourse and be stuck in the same position that I am in, as I would go to court before I would pay this penalty.
I have been disabled now for the past two years and have not been able to work. I now do not have the money to fight this in court, so I would have to go public and ask for money to fight this penalty, which I feel was unfair.
Would you look into this as they have taken my last GST cheque and the interest is mounting?
Thank you,
Mr. George Gravonic
Shawnigan Lake, B.C.
I sincerely hope that no one else has to endure what Mr. Gravonic has gone through. However, I am sure they do.
I think we would all agree this case would make anyone angry and very untrustworthy of the tax system. I am thankful and hopeful that not every tax situation is like this one. However, even one case is one too many.
A taxpayer bill of rights would ensure that Mr. Gravonic and people like him would have recourse within the system rather than spending hard earned dollars on court appeals. In order to be effective, the taxpayer bill of rights must include several key points.
Taxpayers must be able to read and understand the tax laws in plain language terms. Legal double talk only confuses the situation. Taxpayers must be treated professionally and with courtesy.
Taxpayers must have a recourse method that allows them to complain about service and treatment that is below standard. This process must allow the taxpayer the right to move up the seniority roster and be heard by a senior official and in turn their superior if the answer is not satisfactory.
Taxpayers need the right to only pay the amount of tax due, no more, no less. Taxpayers need to know what any collected information will be used for.
When dealing with the proposed Canada customs and revenue agency, taxpayers need the opportunity to represent themselves or to have someone represent them through any dispute resolution process. Those people who are in dispute with the CCRA need the opportunity to record any meetings. All disputed claimants need the right to appeal first administratively and then, if necessary, legally.
When taxpayers have acted in good faith and without any intention to evade, the proposed CCRA shall waive penalties and interest. In cases where reassessments will cause severe and undue hardships, alternative repayment methods shall be made.
The proposed CCRA will be entitled to seize or freeze assets when fraud and/or evasion is suspected, but only when the CCRA can show why such action should be taken.
That is a long list but I believe they are all necessary. They will only be strong when there is an autonomous office willing and able to stand up and support them. This office needs to be an independent voice for the Canadian taxpayer which will represent and fully support the interests of all Canadians.
This office should be set up as an independent voice of the taxpayer, an office for taxpayer protection that represents the interests of the Canadian taxpayer. I see this office being set up similar to the role of the auditor general, a role that would report annually to parliament on the status of taxpayer and CCRA relations.
Do we need a taxpayer bill of rights in conjunction with the changes proposed by Bill C-43? I believe so. I believe that the 53,500 taxpayers who filed appeals and objections last year all believe we need such a process in place.
For the above reasons I find that unfortunately at this point I must oppose Bill C-43 unless the government commits to passing the taxpayer bill of rights with an office for taxpayer protection.
Focus On The Family November 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, today is UN Universal Children's Day. On such a day it is a sad comment that Focus on the Family, an organization devoted to children and Christian family values, was censured earlier this year by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
The CBSC condemned Focus on the Family and has been the witness, prosecutor, judge and jury.
I understood that all Canadians had the right to freedom of religion, freedom of thought and expression, freedom of the press and communications. I ask the government has this changed?
The CBSC listened to one complaint, made no attempt to contact the source of the broadcast and ruled against radio station CKRD.
There was no opportunity for the presentation of supporting documents, opposing views, appeal or even notification of the decision.
Clearly the broadcast industry's self-regulation process leaves much to be desired. This judgment is biased and, contrary to the values of millions of Canadians, this method does not work. Justice has not been served. The CRTC has entrusted the broadcast council with a self-regulating procedure, but the process is flawed.
Hepatitis C November 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the truth is while the minister is dickering around on this people are dying. That is the truth.
The AIDS tainted blood compensation package was administered quickly because it was done without a horde of lawyers who had their noses in the trough.
Will the health minister stop trying to act as the fundraising director of the Canadian Bar Association and—
Hepatitis C November 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what planet the health minister lives on, but the rest of us know what is going to happen.
If these lawyers and lawsuits go to court because of government inaction, lawyers are going to get the money that should be going to the victims of hepatitis C. That is simple.
Why is the health minister determined to put the earnings of lawyers above the health of victims?
Nunavut Act October 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment of my hon. colleague, saying that she feels justice should be responsive. I certainly agree with that.
What we are trying to get at is the question of equality, not only equality before the law, but equality of access to services right across the country.
Would my colleague be in favour of us taking a look at this kind of system working in the vast territories of northern B.C. where there are huge areas that are even larger than Nunavut? The same kinds of problems and the same kinds of concerns are faced by people in northern B.C. as in Nunavut about getting access to the legal system and having to travel long distances.
Sometimes concerns are generated by the people of northern B.C. native communities who have to go all the way to Vancouver for trials and that sort of thing. Would the member be open to seeing something like this work in northern B.C.?
Lumber Industry October 22nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Greenpeace is attacking the B.C. lumber industry by spreading the lie that all B.C. wood products come from old growth forests. You can bet your bottom dollar that next it will be the lumber industries in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.
Liberal members in B.C. are strangely silent in the face of an industry in serious economic trouble. When will this Liberal government speak up for British Columbians? When will the Prime Minister stand up for B.C., deny these lies and set the record straight in the courts of the world?
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns October 19th, 1998
With respect to cancer and cancer research in Canada, what has the government determined to be: ( a ) the incidence and fatality rates for breast cancer within the female population expressed as a percentage of all Canadian women; ( b ) the incident and fatality rates for prostate cancer within the male population expressed as a percentage of all Canadian men; ( c ) the total amount of federal tax dollars put towards breast cancer research in the last five recorded fiscal years; and ( d ) the total amount of federal tax dollars put towards prostate cancer research in the last five recorded fiscal years?
Return tabled.
Forest Industry October 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, last week six Reform MPs and I visited the central coast of B.C. as guests of IWA union executives and the forest industry. It reinforced what many British Columbians know that the forest industry, the largest producer of jobs in the country, is in serious crisis.
We were concerned on this tour about the impact on our European market of the boycott by Greenpeacers. Never mind that this industry has suffered in B.C. from the collapse of the Japanese housing market. Never mind that the NDP government in Victoria has tripled the taxes it levies on this industry in the last five years. Now it also suffers from the silence of the Liberal government that has done nothing to correct the untruths in Europe that Greenpeace is spreading.
The government does not get it. If it sits idly by and does nothing for British Columbians, the extreme preservationists in Greenpeace will next take on the forest industry in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. No part of this industry is safe. Jobs are being lost, mills are shutting down and marriages are being torn apart.
When will the government speak out loud and clear to correct this desperate situation?
Supply October 5th, 1998
Madam Speaker, the hon. member will realize that you win some and you lose some.
It seems to me that this is a case of sheer economics. At some point the federal government looked at its piggy bank and decided it did not have enough money to pass on to the provinces. Its own fiscal house was not in order. It was in serious trouble, in debt and its budgets were not balanced.
There was no other recourse for the provinces. They knew they had to get the money from some place. What the provinces then have to do is tax the people even more with all kinds of ingenious taxes, ones we have never heard of.
If this is a problem of economics and it is the federal government that has caused this problem with its own fiscal mismanagement, could my colleague make any suggestions how the federal government could have taken care of this problem without putting the burden on the provinces? Could the government here in Ottawa have done something to change that?