Val Meredith

[Federal-Provincial Relations, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for the past week the government has pointed to minor administrative changes as an example of its willingness to work with the provinces. However, when the provinces ask for substantive changes like social union, Senate reform or control over the west coast fishery they are ignored.

If the Prime Minister is not prepared to make changes to lead the country into the 21st century, will he step aside?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity to talk about the new tax agency and compare it to what exists now.

As a member of parliament, as do all members of this House, I meet with people on a daily basis who are having difficulties with Revenue Canada. These difficulties generally result from the adversarial approach that Revenue Canada uses.

I have seen individuals who have been in heart-wrenching situations where Revenue Canada has seemed to compound the hurt these people are facing.

I can give one example of a young mother who had a premature baby which weighed under two pounds and was put in a special hospital unit in the city of Vancouver. This child survived because of the hospital and the mother bonding with the child, giving it the incentive to be a real little fighter.

The mother at the end of the year tried to claim the expenses of travelling from South Surrey to Vancouver on a regular basis to make sure this child was bonding with her and to be supportive of the health care the child was getting. The mother was told it would not be covered because she should have gone to the hospital closest to her.

The hospital closest to the mother happens to be a palliative care hospital, a hospital which specializes in the treatment of the elderly, not newborns who are facing serious health problems. The hospital that specialized in this type of care just happened to be in Vancouver.

Revenue Canada, in dealing with this situation, said it was unfortunate but the hospital just happened to be a little bit too close. The hospital should have been another 10 kilometres away and then the mother would have qualified.

Tell that to a mother who is trying to make ends meet and who has extra costs because of the health needs of her child. Because the hospital happened to be 10 kilometres too close she did not qualify.

My concern is that there does not seem to be any kind of flexibility or compassion in the existing system. The existing system is managed by a minister of the crown, responsible to this House of Commons and accountable to the people of Canada.

I can give many other examples of people who have lost their homes and whose families have broken up because of the attitude within the existing Revenue Canada of “You owe us money and under all circumstances you will pay that money”. When people find themselves in distress and unable to pay, whether it is GST or income tax, or when they have a problem and are appealing a decision, a year or two years later when the appeal process is underway they find that what they owe has tripled or quadrupled because Revenue Canada is charging interest on the amount that is under dispute.

I cannot tell the House how many families I have had in my office who are just beside themselves because they are unable to pay the government. The government is unwilling to be flexible.

My concern is that if we have this independent agency, which is really only accountable to the minister, what is the attitude going to be? Is it going to be like the IRS? It wanted to charge a young lad who happened to catch the baseball which Mark McGwire hit when he was building up his home run record. This young lad gave the baseball back to Mark McGwire, but the IRS actually talked about taxing him on the amount that baseball would have sold for on the open market. That is the kind of irresponsible decision making that agencies make that are far removed from accountability.

My concern is that we are talking about setting up an agency that is only accountable to the minister. I am afraid it will be a little bit more hard-nosed than the existing system.

Let us say that this agency is a good thing. There are people at the provincial level, for example the minister of finance for Alberta, who feel that a proposal to handle federal-provincial tax collection would be a great thing and that it should go to any province that wants it, potentially gutting a key federal power. Provinces that ought to collect all taxes on their territory would remit the federal portion back to Ottawa, which is a reversal of the existing system.

People would say this is a provincial minister who is out to lunch. But he is not the only one. I will quote from a document from a provincial MLA who was asked to do a study for the provincial government of British Columbia. In his report he says “The division of taxing powers between the federal and provincial governments is an important part of what defines Canada as a federated state”.

He goes on to say “It is time that our Confederation was renewed with a transfer of taxing authority from Ottawa to the provinces so that the provinces have the resources to adequately fund the programs that they are legally bound to deliver”.

There are people across this country and provincial governments who believe that maybe we should be looking at a taxing authority. Where they differ from the federal government is that they feel it is time for these taxing powers to go back to the provinces so that the provinces can use the money to deliver the services, as they are the government closest to the people. Then they will release the funds that are necessary to the federal government so the federal government can do that which is its to do.

This is a debate that has occurred over a number of years. There are two sides to the debate. We have the Liberal government that feels it wants to get federal control of this agency and that the provinces will go along with it, not acknowledging that there are provinces and people in the provinces who feel it is the provincial government that should be taking this initiative, not the federal government.

It is very important that if the government is serious about this manoeuvre of having an arm's length agency to collect taxes in the country that it take hold of the accountability factor a lot more than other ministers of the crown have done.

I do not know how many times immigration ministers have stood in this House to tell us that the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board, is an arm's length board which they cannot control and have no say in. The solicitor general has said that the Public Complaints Commission is at arm's length from the government and he has no say in it. At some point there has to be accountability. Somebody has to take responsibility for the decisions that are being made. If the minister of revenue is intent on establishing this agency, then he will have to accept responsibility for the decisions this agency makes on behalf of Canadians. Because it is an arm's length agency does not remove the fact that the buck has to stop somewhere, and it stops with the minister who is responsible.

Another concern of the opposition is that if this agency goes ahead there has to be some protection for the Canadian taxpayer. Canadian taxpayers who feel they are being taxed unjustly must be able to go to someone for help and assistance. We would like to see an office for taxpayer protection established before this agency comes into effect.

The taxpayer protection office would report to parliament each year, issue taxpayer protection orders, act as an advocate of last resort for taxpayers, assist taxpayers in resolving disputes, identify areas where taxpayers have been consistently having problems with the agency, propose changes to administrative practices where these problems arise, and identify potential changes to legislation in order to minimize problems encountered by taxpayers.

If the protection is there for the Canadian taxpayer, if there is a government commitment not to throw the taxpayer out to the wolves, we might be more willing to support this legislation.

[Apec Inquiry, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we know the tapes exist. The real issue here is why is the government vetting any of the material being dealt with by an independent commission.

Can the Prime Minister give Canadians the assurance that all evidence will be turned over to this commission without being vetted, being uncensored? Will the true information go before the independent commission?

[Apec Inquiry, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think the problem here is that only the tapes that have been deemed relevant by the solicitor for the Prime Minister have been turned over.

The students were forced to turn over every shred of evidence that they had, including Craig Jones' e-mail to his girlfriend. I mean, come on. Yet the Prime Minister's lawyer refuses to release important audio tapes that will show that the Prime Minister's office directed the police crackdown at APEC.

How can the commission's inquiry be deemed to be fair if the—

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would be the last person to try to justify what the Prime Minister says publicly. It is only one more example of the arrogance shown by the government of the day and by the Prime Minister's caucus.

Today's debate has been a real eye opener as far as the lack of respect for somebody else's opinion is concerned. Whether we agree with these students is not the issue. The issue is a fair hearing so the public complaints commission can decide whether or not the students complaint was justified.

The concern of the opposition right from the beginning is that this process, this public complaints commission, may not have been the vehicle to have investigated the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office and the government in police activities. We were assured by the government that the public complaints commission would be able to do the job. Now we see interference, if in no other way, by a heavy barrage of government lawyers manipulating the process.

This shows the arrogance and the lack of appreciation of the government of the desire of Canadians to get to the bottom of this matter, find out the truth and make sure the process is fair and equitable.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is quite clear that the commission will be stretched for financial resources for its own needs without even contemplating paying legal fees for the students.

The court has made a ruling on that. Unless that ruling is appealed it does not really allow flexibility for the commission to use its very tight resources to pay lawyers fees for the students.

It also undermines the commitment the federal government needs to make in the fairness of the process. It has been suggested by other colleagues of mine on the opposition side that if the federal government were really concerned about fairness and not prepared to use taxpayers' funds to fund a student, in that acceptance of fairness it should take its lawyers out of the courtroom.

The lawyers are not required. The process can function quite well without them. It would at least give the appearance to Canadians that the government accepts the concept of fairness, equality and justice being served.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the debate this morning. It upset me to hear some of the comments from government members. They do not seem to understand the concern of Canadians. I have heard the excuses. I have heard the comments that it is not a court situation, that it is a semi-judicial body. To an extent they are right. The public complaints commission is a semi-judicial body with commissioners that has been set up to find out whether there is any merit in the complaint.

The government has used the excuse that it is an informal process. The question from the opposition side has been that if it is an informal process then why does the government need to have its lawyers there. If the government has decided that it requires legal advice and legal presence at the commission, how can it possibly justify not having the students represented by lawyers to make sure that their representation is given a fair hearing?

I have heard comments that students are not being charged with anything. Neither is the RCMP at this time. The commission is not mandated to sanction or impose penalties. That is not the commission's role.

If the commission finds that perhaps there is basis for the students' complaint and if the RCMP decides to take it one step further and discipline members of the RCMP, there will be a separate hearing, a separate process, at which time they will have legal counsel. However, if the process is strictly an informal one, there is no justification for the government to bring on its lawyers.

Another issue I would like to raise is the question of fairness. I have heard from constituents. One of them is a colleague of the member for Vancouver Quadra. Some of them do not necessarily agree with the students' protest. They do not necessarily agree with the manner in which it was held, but they feel that the public commission process must be fair. Even if they do not agree with the students in their initial protest, they do agree that if lawyers are there for the government side, paid by taxpayers, there should be lawyers there for the students, also paid by taxpayers.

Why? It is not because they agree with the issue or with the students' position but because they believe in the Canadian democratic society there is the question of fairness and equality. If it is fair for the government to have taxpayer funded lawyers then it is also fair for the students to have the same consideration.

I wonder how government members would feel if, Mr. Speaker, you decided that one day only the opposition would be allowed to debate a bill and that the government would not be heard. I wonder how they would feel if only one side of the issue was given the ability to represent one side of the story. I am sure they would not feel that was a fair and proper representation of democracy.

Canadians expect that in a public complaints commission both sides will have equal opportunity to present their positions so that a non-biased group can make a decision based on the information put before it. No Canadian feels that in this case it is an equal playing field.

Let me just share with the House and with Canadians who happen to be watching who supports taxpayer funding for the students, who feels that this is not a level playing field and is not fair.

The public complaints commission feels that the students should have some funding from the government. All opposition parties in the House feel that the students are justified in having some support. Citizens from coast to coast, even though they are not part of the whole APEC scene that happened in Vancouver, feel that the students should have some legal representation paid by the taxpayer. Last but not least, the B.C. wing of the Liberal Party of Canada voted at its weekend meeting for the government to provide funds. Even federal Liberal members in British Columbia feel that it is not fair.

It would appear to me that the only people who do not seem to recognize the unfairness of students trying to represent themselves when the government has overloaded itself with lawyers are the Liberal members who sit on the other side of the House. There will be an opportunity later this afternoon for government members to do the right thing, to recognize that Canada is a great democracy simply because we recognize the freedom of our citizens to express themselves publicly. The government does not have control to the extent that some dictatorships have over their people. Canada is not a Tiananmen Square type of government.

Sometimes we on this side of the House wonder in what direction the government is taking our country. As I was saying, at the end of this afternoon government members will have an opportunity to do the right thing and to support Canadian democracy. They will have an opportunity to say that we need to make sure we protect democracy by maintaining a level playing field and by giving both sides of the debate equal opportunity to represent their sides of the question.

I hope they will do the right thing and will support the request through the motion to provide legal funds for the students so that they have the same opportunity as the government members, the Prime Minister's Office and the RCMP to present their side of this debate in a fair and equitable manner.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is apparent to me that the hon. member from across the way has not shown respect for the member for Burnaby—Douglas. It is not a question of who his professor was. Maybe the hon. member from across the way thinks he is above all of us.

He has the opportunity tonight to represent the people of his constituency, to represent the B.C. wing of the Liberal party, and he has the ability to represent the common and decent thing to do here. Is the hon. member going to support this motion when it comes up for a vote tonight, yes or no?

[The Senate, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada frequently sends observers abroad to monitor foreign elections to make sure that they are truly democratic. However the Prime Minister in Canada is more than willing to engage in a very non-democratic practice of appointing party hacks as federal legislators.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to develop a truly worthwhile millennium project, a Canada where all federal legislators are elected?

[The Senate, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister called the Alberta Senate election a joke. He refused to allow Liberals to run a candidate. He sabotaged the event by appointing his choice to the Senate two weeks before today's vote. But when Quebec has its provincial vote on separatism, the Prime Minister will not dare call it a joke or try to sabotage it.

Why the double standard? Why does he treat Quebec voters with respect and has absolutely no regard for the wishes of Albertans?