Paul Forseth

[Petitions, December 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition representing the constituents of New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby and the surrounding area of the lower mainland of British Columbia. They pray that parliament will provide disaster relief for what is commonly known as the leaky condo crisis in British Columbia.

[Committees Of The House, December 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 35(2) in response, Reform members support the main recommendations of the report entitled “For the Sake of the Children” as far as they go.

We have profound disappointment, however, that the additional recommendations for a stronger language was not adopted. We have outlined our disappointments in a dissenting report on pages 106 and 107 that would enhance the basic integrity of Canada's family law system.

Parliament must do better for the children of Canada. We ask that all Canadians take the report recommendations to heart. We look forward to an understanding governmental response.

[Energy Efficiency Strategy, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I asked on October 23 the following question and did not receive an answer. I asked:

The APEC issue is about the constitutional rights of Canadians; the right to speak out against injustice, the right not to be arrested for only political purposes, and the right to fair process before a tribunal. These things have all been suspended by the government. Now the fix appears to be in and the commission has been adjourned to November 16. We do not know where this is going to go. We need a judicial inquiry to clean up this mess. What will the government do to restore the constitutional rights of Canadians that it has tossed aside?

Most Canadians are very familiar with the ongoing saga of the APEC inquiry. The inquiry has been a sham since the outset, and today we know that the inquiry is in complete disrepute.

Reform is asking for an independent judicial inquiry and Canadians agree. The only group that disagrees are the Liberals and perhaps they are too afraid of what might be uncovered at such an inquiry.

The students who protested at the Pacific Rim summit of APEC leaders had every right under the charter of rights to do so. This was the premise of my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The constitutional right of Canadians was suspended so the Prime Minister would not be embarrassed.

No place in the charter of rights and freedoms does it state that the rights of the prime minister supersede the rights of ordinary citizens. In fact the charter is mainly there to restrain governments.

The Deputy Prime Minister in his response to me outlined that I should have praised the Prime Minister for his part in establishing the charter of rights and freedoms. If the Deputy Prime Minister is so proud of the charter, perhaps he might want to go the next step and actually honour it, live by it, not just when it is convenient.

Section 2(b) of the charter speaks of freedom of expression. It guarantees that everyone has the right to express thoughts orally or through writing or through pictures. If the government restricts these thoughts it is trenching upon the guarantee. Many students had their banners torn down because the content was not in support of Suharto.

Section 2(c) of the charter speaks of freedom of assembly. The rights of an accused cannot be restricted on a speculative concern of danger. With the fear of something going wrong the RCMP used clean-up tactics the day before the motorcade event. This type of practice is commonplace in some other APEC countries but should not happen in Canada according to the law but apparently not Liberal law.

Section 9 of the charter says everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Law student Craig Jones was tackled, arrested and imprisoned for holding up a sign that said “free speech, democracy and human rights”. It almost seems that every section of the charter was overridden to save the Prime Minister from embarrassment.

When the RCMP went in to deal with these protesters the charter of rights was tossed out the window. Whether or not the Prime Minister gave the directive is a question Canadians hope will be answered in an independent judicial inquiry. However, the Prime Minister has always supported the action taken by the RCMP and because of this support has told Canadians that he is above the law and the charter.

Let me remind the government member who will be answering on behalf of the government that Canadians are interested in the truth. They want to know that the charter of rights works for them, not against them. Canadians want to know that they are able to speak their mind on any political issue without suffering punishment. If the government is so proud of the charter then it should prove to the House that it works and prove that the students in Vancouver had the charter on their side.

The question remains: What will the government do to restore the constitutional rights of Canadians that it has tossed aside?

[Income Tax Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to allow a person who pays interest on a student loan to deduct from income, for the purposes of determining the tax payable, the full amount of the interest for 10 years after the first payment of interest was due. If the student does not use the full deduction in any year it may be transferred to the person, if any, who guaranteed or co-signed the loan initially.

It covers loans made under the Canada Student Loans Act, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and certain other loans for the same purpose not made under the government loan program for students if they meet the prescribed conditions.

The total cost of this new tax measure may amount to some $800 million. The 17% tax credit included in the measure will cost about $130 million. It would be a major step in helping students. Canadian society in general is certainly better off if we produce more university graduates. A well educated young population that has marketable skills benefits the individual and the country.

Canada's academic community is as good as that of any country. In many areas we are better. However, Canadian students have been under enormous pressure to bear more of the costs of their education. The total amount of federal-provincial student loans jumped from $875 million in 1990 to over $2.1 billion in 1994, a 144% increase in just four years.

As education is an investment, it should not be treated any differently than other capital investments that receive tax credits. Allowing student loan deductibility will relieve some of the pressure resulting from increasing student loan debts, even though student fees are only a fraction, perhaps just 10%, of the full cost.

Tax relief in the form of student loan interest deductibility will reduce student loan default rates. Tax relief for students may result in more opportunity for young people to apply to university and community college.

The Liberals have cut $7 billion from transfers to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education and are replacing it with $325 million a year from the millennium scholarship fund and $120 million per year from three other grant programs. The fund will not ease existing student debts. A grant of $3,000 to 6% of students will not help in a meaningful way, except in a political way, as it will be given by a Liberal government. Therefore, students are supposed to be grateful and vote Liberal.

The bill was introduced before the February 1998 budget. What is proposed in Bill C-316 goes further than the announcements contained in the 1998 budget, however. Considering the brain drain that afflicts certain sectors of our economy, such as computer science and medicine, this measure could be seen as a way of keeping recent graduates in Canada. This would protect Canada's human capital.

A Reform government would help all students by increasing transfers to the provinces for education, giving broad based tax relief, creating an income contingent repayment program and allowing interest deductibility.

We oppose the call for free, universally available undergraduate university attendance at this point. Some of the unrealistic student lobby groups have asserted that it is their right to have free university. They have also added that they want 100% grants. However, the country just cannot afford it at the present time.

There was also the operation of personal responsibility to contribute at least a fraction of the great subsidized benefit which university students receive.

There are many ways to ensure that demonstrated academic talent is supported and encouraged. Finances alone should not be a barrier. Therefore, loans, bursaries, scholarships and payment plans attached to income tax forms to truly address the ability to pay is the way to go at the present point in the nation's finances.

The bill is a good idea and should be supported not just by Reformers, but by all members of the House.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the record is that they have not been doing so. None of the provinces have jumped on board. We will see if the agency actually delivers what it is said to deliver. This is something the auditor general talked about in the past.

We have legislation and a lot of fancy advertising that proposes certain things, but when they are examined for their dollar value they do not deliver what was proposed. We will see whether or not the agency is innovative. The true test is in the pudding. The provinces may sign on if the government makes delivery in a proper manner.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the provinces will adopt a wait and see approach. If the government in its carrying forward of the bill is sensitive and works in a co-operative partnership manner perhaps it will build support. That is the same approach we are asking for in the taxpayers bill of rights to deal with the taxpayers who basically pay the bill, the very reason the agency exists.

Why can it not be said clearly upfront that taxpayers have a right to be treated in a professional manner? The professional manner has been well defined in the schools of public administration. Taxpayers have the right to understand laws with which they are required to comply. There are international discussions between parliamentarians about what plain language means. There has been a lot of debate about plain language. One can get a master's degree on that point.

Taxpayers have the right to pay the amount of tax required to by law and no more. Revenue officials should inform taxpayers of overpayment. Taxpayers have the right to record any and all meetings with Revenue Canada-CCR officials without being required to give notice to do so. If the government does the right thing it will develop co-operation.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could take the example of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code spells out the offences which would be the equivalent of the tax act itself, the technical parts. Yet when we deal with young offenders, we want to give special consideration on how we deal with children. The Young Offenders Act deals with process.

This bill is a covering bill which sets up how the collection of taxes is going to be done in this structure. This is the more appropriate place to have a charter of basic rights that would be actionable, that talks about how in spirit as well as with the office of the ombudsman and so on that tax would be collected. I think it is the most appropriate place to put it.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is Christmas time in Canada. It is known as the time of giving, not taking.

We are here today talking about government behaviour and how it takes its taxes. From my historical reference book which sits on the clerk's table in front of me in the centre aisle of this Commons chamber, I want to quote a relevant portion about taxes at Christmas time. The book is the fundamental legal and cultural base reference work for Canadian society, where we look at the roots of our Canadian origin.

We can understand from the reference I will quote that it has long been viewed as legitimate that governments can tax, can count its subjects and render economic recompense to the central authority. Specifically the Bible says in Luke, chapter two:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, (because he was of the house and lineage of David) to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife—

We learn from this venerable reference that indeed taxes, levies or a portion of production including the census of all, has traditionally been taken from individuals to serve the purposes of those in power. Therefore in history governments tax and people pay. It has always been that way.

However the fundamental political question for our society now is how the government takes or collects its taxes and how, with its degree of wisdom, does it use the revenue taken. For some years now Canadian governments have taxed too much, spent too much and thus we owe too much. And now at Christmas time we are presented in this parliament with a whole new regime of federal taxation.

The bill changes the legal basis of how taxes are collected. We are creating a new agency that is something akin to a crown corporation, as we have known them in Canada, as the final controller of economic life.

Specifically the government has proposed Bill C-43 which establishes the Canada customs and revenue agency to carry out the mandate of the Department of National Revenue and repeals the Department of National Revenue Act. The Minister of National Revenue is named as the minister responsible for the agency.

The minister continues to be accountable for the administration and enforcement of federal tax, trade and customs legislation. The agency supports the minister in the administration and enforcement of such legislation and the minister directs the commissioner of customs and revenue and the agency employees in that regard. The enactment also authorizes the agency to contract with the provinces to administer provincial tax and other programs.

This enactment sets out the responsibilities, accountability regime, organization, human and financial resources regime and planning and reporting framework of the agency. It establishes a board of management to oversee the management of the agency and gives the commissioner of customs and revenue responsibility for day to day management of the agency as its chief executive officer. The minister may issue written directions to the agency in matters within the authority and responsibility of the board that affect public policy or could materially affect public finances.

The agency continues to be subject to Treasury Board's requirements with respect to financial management but has its own authorities for matters such as human resources, contracting and property management. The agency must annually submit a corporate business plan to the minister for recommendation to the Treasury Board and the minister must table a summary of the plan in parliament. The plan must include the strategies the agency intends to use to meet its human resources and other administrative objectives as well as the proposed operating and capital budgets.

This bill may be the sleeper hold on Canadians which will catch us unaware. The bill is a dramatic historical change. It is powerful and pervasive.

Consequently the official opposition has put forward a comprehensive proposal for a taxpayer bill of rights. It would enumerate for the first time in federal law a number of rights to due process for taxpayers in the collection system. There are rights existing now with manuals of operation, interpretation bulletins and various rulings, but a single charter list of performance standards and actionable rules that are listed up front for taxpayers to hang on to just is not there. It has never been administratively convenient for bureaucracies to be user friendly or too willing to provide its servant clients with too much bargaining power against the official edicts of the department.

Essentially our draft taxpayer bill of rights would have legislative force. It would essentially ensure in legislation that taxpayers would be presumed innocent until proven guilty in the tax process. It would reverse the onus which is now on taxpayers who too often are determined to be guilty and financially penalized before even being ruled innocent. Furthermore it would give taxpayers various avenues of appeal.

Currently if taxpayers of ordinary means find, as they do in many cases, that they have been unduly targeted by a heartless collection agent at Revenue Canada, they have only one real avenue of recourse and that is through the tax court. The vast majority of people of modest means do not have the resources to use the appeal process through the courts. They cannot hire tax lawyers and spend months and years and tens of thousands of dollars defending their basic rights.

We propose as part of our taxpayer bill of rights the adoption of an office for taxpayer protection which would essentially be an ombudsman to adjudicate legitimate disputes between taxpayers and the revenue agency. It would essentially provide an avenue of appeal and mediation which would be far less costly and far more accessible to taxpayers than what currently exists. These two measures, a taxpayer bill of rights and the adoption of an office of taxpayer protection, would go a very long way toward protecting Canadian taxpayers in the new era of the Canada customs and revenue agency.

We can see no good reason, nor has the government offered a single good reason, why a taxpayer bill of rights ought not to be introduced and passed as part of the bill before us today. I call on the government to consider our sincere, detailed and thoughtful proposal for a taxpayer bill of rights. If the minister were to give us an inclination that he was willing to seriously consider this kind of recommendation that we have made, we in turn as the official opposition certainly would seriously consider fully supporting the bill because of some of the administrative innovations that may be achieved by it.

It is clear that many Canadians are not satisfied with the level of fairness and due process in the tax collection system. There is a need to entrench and protect the taxpayers rights as the agency becomes more distant from government. In a previous speech I outlined some of the suggested specific terms of a list of written rights which parallel some of the rules of fundamental justice concerning due process. There are some rights now but taxpayers do not know them and there is no tax charter.

In conclusion, it must be a fundamental principle and it would be of a Reform government, that the rights of taxpayers must supersede the efficiency enhancements or the interests of the agency. We must guard against agency interests overwhelming taxpayer interests. Let us never forget about who works for whom. Certainly we have evolved somewhat since Caesar taxed the world.

As Reformers proceed to get support for a more simplified and flatter tax system, we are going to try to be vigilant to monitor that any benefits derived from the new CCRA are not lost due to the greater damage wrought upon taxpayers through poor implementation and assaults upon taxpayers' basic dignity of the person. An office of taxpayer protection in place to enforce the taxpayer bill of rights represents a very low cost, partially self-financing, effective tool for protecting citizens and ensuring that the human cost of change and implementation are carefully considered. For, in spite of the technical nature of revenue collection, it is still all about people and how we as a society organize ourselves to be governed with fairness, equality and above all, compassion.

[Division No. 307, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I raised a question on October 1 to the Minister of Finance. I asked the minister to do the right thing and cut EI premiums immediately. The minister answered by saying that it is the government's intention to stay the course. He did not once answer why he would not cut EI premiums.

I come from British Columbia. British Columbia is in the midst of a recession. Most economists agree that one of the fastest ways to escape a recession is to lower payroll taxes. One of the ways to stimulate the economy and especially job creation is to lower the taxation on jobs.

Employers and employees are co-financing the employment insurance fund. Employees are paying $2.70 for every $100 of income and employers are paying $3.78 for every $100 in employee income.

Finally, last week the finance minister announced that EI premiums would be cut a measly 15 cents for every $100 of income. Well, whoop-de-do. That is like comparing the government to a schoolyard bully who robs a child of their lunch money and then gives them back a few cents, hoping the child will not feel too upset. The government should learn a lesson from this. No matter how one views it, I think it is theft.

The current EI law is clear: premium rates should be no more than needed to keep the fund in actuarial balance. The chief actuary of the EI account stated recently that a $10 billion to $15 billion accumulated surplus is more than enough. The latest figures have the surplus at a whopping $19 billion.

If EI premiums were reduced by 33% next year, the fund would still be balanced with sufficient reserve. Instead, the Minister of Finance has other liberal ideas. One, he is using the surplus to balance his books. Two, he is using the rest to pay for new programs. The government over-collects for other purposes. It is a tax on jobs and it is also against the rules.

Taxpayers paid into the fund and therefore the money belongs to them. The EI premiums need to be put back into the pockets of the payers. Instead of keeping the money in a political slush fund, the minister needs to be a wise administrator.

I would like to challenge the government to show me a small business owner in this country who believes that high payroll taxes encourage growth or is the right thing to do at this point in time.

In the November issue of Maclean's magazine one reader sent in the following letter to the editor:

When the Employment Insurance fund was short, the government cut off some recipients, lowered the benefits to others and increased the premiums of all. When the EI fund swells from excess contributions, and sacrifices of the unfortunate, the government steals the money under a scheme to buy votes from the same people they robbed. The media are pussyfooting around this profanity just like they downplayed the (Heritage Minister's) flag caper, the survival of the GST, the (P.M.'s) NAFTA boner, the (Health Minister's) paper wars with gun-toting non-criminals and the hepatitis C charity farce, the chopper flip, the Pearson airport disgrace, another Quebec armoury with no arms to put in, and the 64-cent Canadian dollar. The big-mouthed watchdogs of public good in the media all play dead for the Liberals.

The reason I am standing here today is because the Minister of Finance did not answer my question. Perhaps he could have answered my question with the statement he gave on October 17, 1994. He said then “We believe there is nothing more ludicrous than a tax on hiring. But that is what payroll taxes are. They have grown dramatically over time. They affect lower wage earners much more than those at the high end”.

Perhaps the government can explain why it does not listen to the auditor general who has commented that it would not be legal to use the premiums or make payments from the account for other purposes other than those stipulated in the Employment Insurance Act.

The minister knows the law. His parliamentary secretary knows the law. Why do they insist on breaking the law?

I will ask the question again. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will be able to delete the rhetoric from his speech and tell Canadians why they cannot be given back the entire amount of the over-collection. When will the premiums reflect the cost? When will the government become fiscally responsible and live within its means, for surely the lowly taxpayer must? Why can the government not live within its means, just obey the rules and have premiums reflect the true cost of the plan?

[2010 Winter Olympics, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in 2010 Vancouver and Whistler intend to be hosts to the world's finest Olympic winter athletes.

Vancouver is already world renowned for its attention to culture and enthusiasm to athletics, and Whistler has repeatedly been acclaimed as the number one ski resort in the world. A combination like this is truly second to none.

Yesterday, 72 voting delegates of the Canadian Olympic Association said that British Columbia would be Canada's choice for the competition.

Congratulations go to Arthur Griffiths, head of the Vancouver-Whistler bid society, and to the many athletes and organizers who have contributed endless time and energy in making the bid successful.

Congratulations should also go to Calgary and Quebec City which both presented top notch bids.

British Columbians look forward to the opportunity of showcasing Canada's most spectacular province to the members of the IOC, establishing that B.C. is certainly the gateway to the world.