Roy H. Bailey

[Committees Of The House, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I take a bit of resentment from the inference that I was not being fair. Let me tell the hon. member that I am one of the fairest men he will ever take a look at, and he should take a good look at me right now. What I am talking about—

[Committees Of The House, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about some hon. members misinforming. I had no intention of doing that and I certainly did not do that. Nor have I misinformed in my whole career. I too have a code of ethics and I have about 42 years in my record to prove it.

We talked about respect. What happened after question period when the Speaker of the House and the hon. House leader wanted to look into something which does not show respect for the House? It was a leak, and that is what bothers me.

It is time the House did a better selling job, not just selling the finance report but selling ourselves, our total selves, our honesty and integrity.

[Committees Of The House, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what I was getting at was our responsibilities as members of the House to take a look at all things which affect finance in the House and the committee report.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business deals with finance and the financial business of thousands of its members across Canada. Those same members rate politicians at the lowest end of the scale. That is exactly what I am telling the government opposite. It is time we stopped the nonsense. It is time we stopped the bickering and took a look at something which is bigger than both sides of the House.

When dealing with financial matters and with the report of the Standing Committee of Finance it should be of the greatest importance. Let me put it this way. At the present time whenever Canadians see expenditures, revenues and so on, they look upon them with a great deal of suspicion.

Members of all parties in the House need to take all possible steps within our powers from every corner of the House to re-establish with the Canadian people a basic trust in what we are doing and a basic trust that every cent of revenue which comes in and every expenditure which is made are totally accounted for including, as the hon. member said, tied selling. That is a concern.

I pass a paper around when I talk to grade 11 and 12 high school students. When I say politician I tell them to write down one word. One of the most common words they write down is the same as the Canadian public says, crooks. We have a job of selling to do not only within this finance committee report. That is true, but we need to be more accountable.

Therefore, after 42 years in public life I believe the motion of the member from Prince George should be thoroughly considered by the opposition. I hope Canadians see the purpose of what we have done today in the hon. member's motion.

[Committees Of The House, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today both sides of the House stood and welcomed a new duly elected member. I am rising to debate the motion by my colleague from Prince George. I bring to the attention of the House that what I have to say is more important than just one MP. It is more important than the Liberals. It it is more important than any party in the opposition. I am talking about what is important to Canadians.

Just a few days ago a group of grade six students from Kanata came to visit me. It was strange that they would come in from an Ontario city but I enjoyed them. One thing I said to them was “You are more important as individuals today than I am because you are the future of Canada”.

I will not be talking in these brief few minutes about the issue of tied selling. I will be talking about what is important to the House and every member of the House. We have to get into a selling program.

We just debated the issue of the leakage of reports. What did the public see when it listened to this debate? It goes beyond this institution. It goes beyond the city of Ottawa. It goes to the farthest point west on Vancouver Island. It goes to Bonavista. Canadians are now looking at the House in a disrespectful way. As individuals, as hon. members, our responsibility is to uphold the dignity and the traditions of the House.

[St. John Ambulance, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, during the 11th century, pilgrims to the Holy Land could find treatment in a hospital run by Benedictine monks in Jerusalem. In the year 1099, the Order of St. John from which the modern St. John Ambulance grew was eventually formed.

At 900 years of age, St. John Ambulance is the oldest voluntary health and welfare organization in the world. In Canada there are now over 25,000 volunteers, including over 12,000 uniformed brigade members who donate 2 million hours each year to community service and treat approximately 20,000 casualties, all free of charge.

Over 7,000 first aid instructors teach over 800,000 Canadians annually.

Today we celebrate and congratulate the accomplishments of St. John Ambulance for its public service. On this 900th birthday, we wish it success as it goes into the new millennium.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know what the hon. member expects me to say and I will say it. Bracket creep probably looked after everything.

Just very quickly on education, I say to members opposite that I understand. I have a case on file right now of a young fellow who received a scholarship in September 1998. He is asking me, and I am trying to work on it, whether it is right that he has to pay income tax on the full amount of the scholarship in the year in which he got it. That is not right. It might be correct, according to the books, but this young man will use that scholarship over a period of four years and Revenue Canada says that it wants it all claimed this year. That is wrong.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to answer that question we would be here all day. My hon. colleague raises a very valid point. The other night in the House we approved a private member's motion of the member from Kamloops related to transit fares and taxation.

The member is quite right. Very few people in Canada today file their own income tax. It has become so complicated that everybody has to have it done. The member mentioned tradespeople. They really take a beating in this regard.

Let me explain. A young fellow is hired for the first time as a journeyman mechanic. In order to go to work the rules of that association says he must have his own tools, not the major tools like presses but his own tools. In order to work he must equip himself with tools; he cannot work without them. They are very expensive and he cannot claim them as a deduction. That is absolutely insane. I could talk about carpenters, electricians and so on. They have expenses that should be claimable. It is wrong. We have slapped the faces of our tradespeople far too long.

Let me explain. If this person were working for a corporation and the corporation supplied the equipment it is a tax deduction, but when the individual buys it in order to work for a firm it is not a tax deduction.

It is time we looked at fairness. It is time we looked at the individual. It is time we had a total overhaul of the tax system. It is becoming more complex. Every time the tax system moves on we isolate more and more Canadians in their attempt to even pay their taxes.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when income tax moves in a matter of this gravity the officials make sure that it is indeed covered by the act some place.

I am glad the member asked that question. When an error has been committed by the bureaucracy, the officials all the way down the line, that error should be compensated in the same way as if I were in business and I did my hon. colleague wrong. I would be the first one to phone him, write him, make amends, and any penalties I caused him should be paid.

That is what should be happening with income tax. They do make errors occasionally. I have never seen one. I understand they have written letters to say they are sorry. I have never seen one. Occasionally the clients, who are citizens of Canada, get something in return. I have not seen that either.

The attitude in Canada in relation to collecting taxes is completely outdated. We need to follow what the IRS did in the United States and humanize the department a bit.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. The Income Tax Act is part of the government. However, the carrying out of the act belongs to the officials. Sometimes it does not get back to the department. I was referring to the fact that sometimes the officials make their pronouncements and judgments incorrectly.

In response to the hon. member's question, if the government was really concerned about these low income people, to which I referred, it would take a look now at the exemptions and raise them so that the people who are struggling could get by without having to pay nearly as much income tax. That is part of our problem.

I read in the paper this morning and heard on the radio that actual income has dropped. The actual income for the people who I mentioned in my speech has dropped even more because they are at the low end of the scale.

Yes, my colleague from the NDP, this is the government's legislation, but those who work in that department should become a little more familiar with each case and deal with it accordingly.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to talk about this bill and about this subject. If there is one branch of the department Canadians have learned to hate it is this branch.

We have some definite objections about Bill C-72. It does not address that two-income families qualify for child care and so on.

I will go to a specific example I have had in the past few years, particularly one this spring. I am sure every member of parliament deals with the Department of National Revenue in an attempt to help their constituents. I would suggest to that department, as it brings in new legislation, that it follow some examples of the treatment of its clients, the citizens of Canada, with a touch more humanity.

Let me give members a striking example of a case I am working on which I think is a disgrace. I know a young woman who is presently raising two children. She works at a full time job but because she has been deserted by her husband she also works part time on the weekends. I bring this case to the attention of all members because I am talking about the treatment of people. We can do all we like in legislation to write something down, but to practice it is a different thing.

This young lady has not seen her husband for three years. Revenue Canada finally—and I give it credit—caught up with her husband and was able get her the child support that she should have received for three years. It then sent her a cheque for $11,500. At the same time, she is being assessed by the Department of National Revenue as owing $5,500 in income tax. Not only is that dehumanizing, but this mother is struggling to raise a 16 year old and a 12 year old and does not have $5,500.

There is something wrong with a system that employs some 40,000 to 45,000 people, who can be rigid and efficient in tax collection, but surely they could be a little more humanistic when it comes to dealing with people. The people who are calling Revenue Canada and signing these letters are human beings and deserve to be treated as such.

I realize that the Department of National Revenue does deal with money and it is going to have agitations. However, I beg that when we get into this bill that we should play fair with people. I am sure each one of us in our history have had some grips with income tax. I am sure everybody has. I can pick out a dozen examples over the last two years where people have been treated as numbers. Quite frankly, even when the department is aware of the individual's circumstances it ignores them. This is not right for the Government of Canada.

I wrote a letter this morning to this young lady stating that I would do my very best to see that she does not have to borrow money to pay the federal government this additional $5,500. This support money was to have been spread over three years so this $5,500 should have been considerably less. This is not the only case I have to deal with. I have 12 other cases on file. I am not just citing one example.

I could stand here until midnight tonight citing examples that sometimes take a year before national revenue realizes it has erred. I have never seen a letter of apology from Revenue Canada but I have from other departments. There is never a thank you. Many of these people, out of sheer determination, go after the Department of National Revenue and pay their own legal costs. These costs, however, should be borne by the government as it was national revenue that fumbled around on these issues.

I have advice for dealing with Bill C-72. If there was ever a department that needed to become familiar with how to deal with people in a professional way it is this one. We can be strict or severe. We can be almost anything if we do it professionally, but there are too many people out there who do not deal with the constituents of Canada in a professional manner. The department says it cannot do this because it deals with money. Well I say it can.

For this young lady, this mother of two, and no doubt hundreds of others in Canada, let us humanize this department. Let us try to understand and ensure that the department has the staff to do it.

I am very delighted to speak to this bill because nothing churns me and makes me more irate than to have to counsel and try to help a constituent when I cannot get a response from this particular department.

I really hope all of Canada is listening to this. I want them to get after their MP, not just on this side of the House but on that side of the House, to humanize this department.