Paul Forseth

[Apec Summit, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to again ask a question of the solicitor general. How did the solicitor general get the confidential information about the ongoing investigation? He has made denials. We have heard admissions. We want to know the facts. How did he get that information?

[Employment Insurance, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister says that he will not reduce excessively high employment insurance premiums, saying that such a move relates to recession.

Why is that the case? What happened to the minister's rainy day fund? What happened to sound fiscal management?

Why are the nation's finances so badly mismanaged that spending the savings of workers and employers is his only way out?

[Employment Insurance, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if EI premiums were cut to their break even point as actuaries now recommend, then workers would have an extra $2.8 billion and small business would have $4 billion more to create jobs.

Instead of keeping it for his own political slush fund, why does the finance minister not just obey the law, help, not hinder, and return the money to the real job creators in this country?

[Employment Insurance, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister said that he does not want to return the employment insurance over-collection to workers and job creators because he needs the money to save us all from a recession. He wants to spend it. It may be news to the minister but British Columbia is already in a recession and the over-collection that he sucked out of the B.C. economy did not help.

The minister knows full well that payroll taxes kill jobs. Why does the minister not do the right thing for B.C. and all Canadians and just cut the premiums now?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a tradition in established governments. They have a basic assumption that they have the divine right to govern. But there is an inherent arrogance that we know best. Therefore, when particular mechanisms are put in place for self-correcting accountability they do not like it.

I bring the example of one very exasperated taxpayer. He writes: “How can Revenue Canada in good conscience require under their present rules, put me in a position that they require that I remit to them an amount greater than my earnings? This may be a regulation under the tax instalment remittance requirements, however, being put in this position is grossly unfair”.

He got a thank you letter from Revenue Canada and a brochure and was told to go away. Where is this fellow to go?

The bill of rights and the office that we are suggesting be created is not a new tax court to argue over the content and the rulings, it is to ensure that the rules are followed, that there is basic fairness and that a taxpayer is going to be treated with some basic respect. Also, there will be simplicity in the rules so that the public can learn to understand the information that is given to them.

We have listed a number of general areas that would provide a feedback mechanism for this large bureaucracy to make it accountable to the average Canadian. That is what the government needs to follow. It needs to listen to the people and respond to that agenda.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to make some quick observations on Bill C-43.

We are talking today about Revenue Canada. It is interesting that we have a minister from British Columbia in charge of Revenue Canada. Major financial policy is not set by Revenue Canada but by the Minister of Finance in the larger policy process.

We have a revenue minister from British Columbia who could not deliver for British Columbia which is looking for some particular relief from Revenue Canada, especially in view of the massive water damage to the structures of homeowners. The minister in charge, when faced with questions on behalf of homeowners, could not deliver for British Columbians from the particular agency that British Columbians are looking forward to for some help and assistance.

Reformers certainly are committed to streamlining services to make government less complicated, more efficient and more productive. Perhaps Bill C-43 is going in the right direction to create this Canada customs and revenue agency, but we have to ask whether it is being done well.

We want to be constructive when legislation appears to be moving in the right direction. However, when the government was on the opposition benches it just seemed to be opposing for the sake of opposing. Reformers have always been different, especially in the case of Bill C-43. We wish to commend and compliment the government when it appears to be proposing to change the way it does business, for certainly change is needed.

If the government would only change its practices perhaps in the larger area of finance policy and maybe justice administration, to name a couple, we would be greatly pleased.

I remind the Speaker that I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre. I underscore the general theme of my remarks by saying that the Liberal administration is not a good manager of the public trust.

Revenue Canada serves over 20 million taxpayers. Every Canadian is quite familiar with that department. We have all heard of the phrase of the certainty of death and taxes. Taxes especially from an agency like Revenue Canada is not the temporary measure once promised to Canadians; it is a certainty.

In the United States revenue is collected by the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service. The mere mention of the name IRS to U.S. citizens sends a shiver down their spine. If a citizen of the U.S. gets a letter from the IRS it usually means bad news. We have all observed the problems of such an agency that gets out of control.

Taxpayers should not be afraid of the tax collector. Without the co-operative taxpayer our country fails as an economic unit. The taxpayer must have some balance of rights and those rights should be written down.

My Reform colleague who spoke earlier mentioned the need for a taxpayer bill of rights as well as an office for taxpayer protection. Canadians do not want to be bullied around, especially not by the tax collector. It is essential that Canadians never be subjected to the type of treatment used by the IRS on the citizens of the United States. That government went through a heart-rending process to try to rein in an agency out of control. Government institutions should not be feared.

The Minister of National Revenue has said at times that he believes in taxpayers' rights, and I applaud him for that. In the second progress report on the Canada customs and revenue agency the minister stated “In proceeding with these changes I want to reassure Canadians that first and foremost the government will assure that the basic tenets of revenue administration in Canada, the encouragement of voluntary compliance, fairness in the way all taxpayers are treated, prompt, reliable service and responsible enforcement continue to be respected and observed”. I believe that is a laudable statement. The problem is does it ever get delivered.

Clearly the minister thinks of fairness in the way taxpayers are treated is important. Now all he has to do is put it in black and white. If the minister wants to put his tax dollars where his mouth is, he should implement full accountability. This means accountability on both sides: the taxpayer must respect tax authorities, obey the law, not cheat. The tax authorities must respect the taxpayer. In other words there is a social contract in a fair tax system and we are all part of it.

It is impossible for the minister to assume that accountability will just happen somehow. We have to design a system that is self-correcting and that works. Canadians want some guarantee. If they purchase a product in the store they want the written promise that they will be taken care of.

Part of the selection process of voting with dollars is what kind of a guarantee comes with what is purchased. That keeps the business in operation. However, it does not seem to work that way with government and the tax agency that takes our money. Maybe we should apply that kind of standard to the taxpayer. Each taxpayer contributes thousands of dollars to the government through Revenue Canada. The taxpayer is essentially purchasing a service and wants government to be responsible with the tax dollars taken. The last thing taxpayers want is to be harassed by Revenue Canada.

There have been instances where the best interest of the public has not been met. Tax collection represents delegated authority from Canadians, and it must be delivered in a reasonable and responsible manner.

On the department's web site I found a section called questions and answers. One of the answers mentioned that the broader interests of cabinet and Treasury Board would continue to be fully protected. What did the document say about taxpayers? It only said “the government is proposing to create an agency in order to provide better service to the public, the provinces and the Canadian business sector”.

There is no mention about fully protecting the taxpayer. This is the part that worries me. It is great to see that the agency will likely create some efficiency. It is great that the agency will reduce costs for business and for taxpayers in general. But where is the protection and the assurance for balance? Where is the guarantee? Where are the mechanisms to ensure that the rules are going to be followed?

Reform is committed to standing up for the taxpayer, the man on the street. We are committed to fighting for a taxpayer bill of rights and an office for taxpayer protection. We are committed to supporting Bill C-43 if, and only if, we can get the commitment from the revenue minister to move forward with these measures to protect the taxpayer.

What about the employees of Revenue Canada? Their morale is likely very low at this point. They do not know what is going to happen to them. We must speak for them also.

What does the union say? I have this interesting quote:

The Canadian public service is in crisis. The crisis is many-sided. Taxpayers are increasingly skeptical of the government's ability, and even motivation, to deliver a particular program or policy. Recipients of unemployment, pension and other social benefits wait longer for less. Caught in the middle are public sector workers.

Deep-rooted structures and present day policies have combined to deepen the crisis. The public service of the 1990s is hobbled by administrative practices and legislation largely in place since the 1960s. In many cases, management is at best ill-prepared for the role it has been assigned and is, at worst, paternalistic. The physical plant, equipment, and tools provided to public sector workers are deteriorating at an alarming rate. Likewise, while government programs and services grow increasingly more complex and driven by technological advances, the training provided many public sector workers is inadequate or non-existent.

What a quote. I believe it is somewhat accurate. Morale in the federal public service is at an all-time low. Union negotiations have broken off. The government says that everything is fine and negotiations are carrying on. We go to the union site on the Internet and we get a completely different story.

Service to Canadians is suffering directly as a result of mishandled downsizing. The present system of staffing and promotions is being abused by managers. Alliance members are trying to provide service to veterans, the unemployed and pensioners, but do not have the necessary resources to carry out their work.

I could go on and on. I must say that if it is the intent of the revenue minister to make the agency the IRS of the north, then we know he is malevolent. If, however, the minister wishes to create an agency that draws the respect of the Canadian public, then I am certain the Reform proposal of a taxpayer bill of rights will properly complement this process.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1998, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister appointed Senator Roche to the other place. For all we know this senator may end up displaying excellent attendance records. He may even become valuable when bills need that sober second thought.

That is not the point I am trying to make. The point is that the Prime Minister had every opportunity to wait until the Alberta Senate elections on October 19 and then appoint a winner. Senator Roche had the opportunity to throw his hat in the ring. In recent days he said that he agrees with Senate reform. He has also had the opportunity to honour his words.

As for the Prime Minister, by not waiting until the election, he has told Albertans that they simply do not count. In one easy sweep the Prime Minister has thrown Alberta mud on democracy.

Even former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney honoured the wishes of Albertans in 1989 when he appointed elected Senator Stan Waters. The Prime Minister may have protested at first but in the end he respected the wishes of Albertans.

The key word is respect. It is a word that Canada's Prime Minister must comprehend. The Prime Minister may believe the other place is working just fine, but it is unfortunate that he does not believe in listening to what Canadians think about it. He may even want to listen to the words of those in the other place because they too believe that changes should take place.

Reformers are committed to moving ahead, to making democracy better and to bringing more accountability. To the dissatisfaction of so many, the Liberals are keen on holding on to the status quo. Canadians are not willing to accept that status quo however. They believe in a strong Canada and believe in democracy. They do not believe in the old top down approach preserved by the Liberals.

It is time that the Prime Minister let go of his gigantic ego and did what is right for the country. If the ego means too much and if the pride is too deep to change, then perhaps it is time to call it quits and let a more creative leader and maybe even a better party step in and make Canada a place of pride where all can more fully participate.

I would like to move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following therefor:

This House declines to give second reading to Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Croatia, and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, since the principle of bill does not address the issue of an elected Senate introducing legislation which this House finds unacceptable in today's political environment and, in particular, this House finds it offensive that an Alberta senator has been recently appointed by the Prime Minister before the people of Alberta vote to fill the said position in the upcoming Senate elections in October.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1998, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to be able to raise my voice on Bill S-16.

The Reform caucus supports the content of Bill S-16. The bill is technical in nature and addresses some tax discrepancies between Canada, Vietnam, Croatia and Chile, along with agreements that Canada has with 64 countries.

The bill is part of the thousands of similar mutual agreements that increasingly are being made between countries and organizations. It reflects the growing realization that co-operation and friendly competition under the same set of rules in the long run benefits all the players. When enlightened peoples learn to play fair economically by established rules, all of the world societies can be lifted up.

It is the direct opposite approach from the historical methods of socialism and in a partial way the tendencies of NDP governments in Canada. The politics of envy, exclusion and special rules for some and of quotas, exclusive regulation and a host of many other measures that limit basic freedoms in the marketplace are the hallmarks of that kind of thinking. Unfortunately those kinds of hurtful ideas are still rampant in the academic community of the country and in too much of the reasoning from some of the NDP sympathizers.

Although the social goals may be the same as mine, the ideas about what is wise concerning methods of getting there makes all the difference. It goes much beyond belief. It goes to the hard evidence of what it shown over time to work and what is shown not to work.

When I travelled to Moscow last year to meet with Russian parliamentarians I was saddened by the similarity in the underlying concepts of the arguments I heard in their Duma about their resentments requiring economic penalty solutions such as disincentive taxes.

The politics of barriers rather than agreements seem to carry the day. It is no wonder that average Russians will likely always be poor. It comes from the ideas they carry about how to get to a better world and those ideas actually destroy any hope of ever getting there.

We have had the same historical problems in this country to a lesser degree. We even still see remnants of those hurtful ideas in the budgets of the present finance minister. Since my election to parliament in 1993 fortunately we have seen the government reluctantly move toward better economic fundamentals, openness, and move away from socialist tendencies. There is hope that we can become fully a freedom loving country where every member of society has a chance to participate in the economy and have the opportunity to take responsibility for their welfare.

The more we get our national economic fundamentals right, the more we as a society will be able to help those who cannot help themselves.

There are agreements of mutual benefit among nations, provincial economic zones, markets and labour zones. All these must continue to be opened up with fairness, avoiding discrimination.

The bill makes an agreement with three countries. Yet we still have a way to go to get it done, to make agreements within our country among provinces to enhance the overall economic welfare of Canadians. If Canada then can set the highest of standards for the regulation of a self-renewing economy, other nations can follow.

For example, when ethical fundamentals were violated in the Asian economy the consequences eventually came to us all in the world. It hurt us all. However the bill represents the possibility of the opposite trend where we can get our economic fundamentals right and the whole world community can be elevated to fulfil its human potential.

Mutual agreement in fairness is the goal. How we get there in the process is also important. That is why I am concerned about the precedent this bill sets by being first tendered by the government in the Senate.

We do not agree that the bill should come from the other place. Did the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance feel that the House was too busy to handle this bill from the beginning? Or did the government think that it needed to give the other place a bit of work?

Reform truly believes that bills may sometimes come from the other place, however only if the other place is elected, effective and equal. So far, none of these traits generally characterize the other place.

This week was the first week for a few new senators. Senator Mahovlich put on his new suit on Tuesday, which we know from reading the full page ad in the Globe and Mail was picked out by his personal shopper at Harry Rosen. Off he went probably thinking to himself that he had it made, no coaches yelling at him, no penalty box and lots and lots of vacation time. Who can blame any senator for feeling that way? Senator Thompson took good advantage, as have many others.

If I had an attendance record like some of today's senators, I would have to begin looking for a new job. My constituents would give me the boot pretty fast. But senators do not have constituents. They may say they do but it has become more of a figure of speech. I would propose that if one randomly asked 10 people in Ontario to name one senator from Ontario, most would be very hard pressed to do so. Most would probably say Alexei Yashin and although he is a senator, he is not from the other place.

I do not stand here today to criticize everything that is wrong about the other place. In fact, it could very well be quite effective. It definitely has the potential, if it was reformed. Senator Ghitter may have said it best when he said “We do not need to abolish the Senate. We need to change it. It is either that or maintaining the status quo which means more and more downward slide of the Senate”.

Throughout this past year I served on the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. The committee was made up of senators and members of the House of Commons of all political stripes. Our goal was and is to suggest changes to the unbalanced Divorce Act. I can honestly say that the work performed by senators was excellent.

Many know already that the attendance record in the other place of Senator Cools is very good. Her attendance and her work ethic in the committee was also very good. I know that Senator Cools was also appointed. I also know that the senator takes her job very seriously. She has been a tremendous advocate for the disadvantaged who have been shafted by the judicial system.

Senator DeWare is also another member of the committee who not only had a good attendance record but provided a great deal of knowledge and compassion to the issue.

Unfortunately, these two senators seem to be exceptions to the rule of the other place. We know full well of the exploits of Senator Thompson and his abysmal record. We also know of Senator Lucier who attends less than half of all sitting days.

[Petitions, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition 102 petitioners believe that it is the duty of parliament to ensure that marriage as it has always been known and understood in Canada be preserved and protected. They pray that parliament will enact Bill C-225 to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Petitions, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today from the constituents of New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.

In the first petition the petitioners believe that stricter gun control laws are not a solution to crime. Therefore they call upon parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and redirect hundreds of millions of dollars to programs that will actually improve public safety.