Eric C. Lowther

[Breast Cancer, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of breast cancer awareness month. This year alone over 19,000 Canadian women will be diagnosed with this disease and tragically almost one-third of them will die. Breast cancer has become the leading cause of death among women 35 to 55.

Today we wear pink ribbons. The colour of the ribbon symbolizes hope for a cure. Today we offer our compassion and prayers for strength to the women and their families who are fighting this disease. A child losing its mother, a husband losing a wife; the pain of the loss of a loved one is the deepest kind of pain.

We must continue to work at finding a cure. Let us recognize and encourage the efforts of our Canadian researchers who are world leaders in the fight against cancer. Collectively we must continue to support every effort to better understand the causes and cures of this deadly disease. The hope for a cure fuels the search for answers. I know we all look forward to a day when we can speak about that hope—

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. This question cuts to the heart of the issue. When an agency is given unchecked power, no critique, no bottom line as to who it is accountable to that is a dangerous precedent. I do not see anything in this legislation that protects taxpayers or gives them some court of appeal.

I again applaud the initiative of the member for Calgary Southeast that there must be an office for taxpayer protection before this legislation can go anywhere. I appeal to all members to consider that we must have something like this in the bill. His proposal states: “A chief advocate shall be asked to present each year a summary of 25 of the most serious problems encountered by the office and present recommendations as to how these can be avoided in the future”. That speaks to accountability. Let us see how the thing is working and make sure there is some measure of accountability.

To speak directly to the member's question, another component of taxpayer protection put forward is that the protection office would act as an advocate of last resort for taxpayers who feel they are being treated in an unfair, unjust or arbitrary manner. A court of appeal is just common sense, nothing to be afraid of. But it is incumbent on us to have it be part of this whole package if we are really going to serve our constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to preface my comments by saying that I felt compelled to speak to this particular bill because of some instances that have happened in my riding.

I felt that it was obligatory to stand and speak in support of the taxpayer bill of rights, which has been so wisely put forward by my colleague from Calgary Southeast. I also want to point out to the House and to those watching the importance of the taxpayer bill of rights in the context of what we are seeing going on today with Revenue Canada.

I will begin my remarks with a couple of statements to clarify where I am coming from.

When I look at the state of Revenue Canada today and what I have encountered in my short time as a member of parliament with the people who have come to my constituency office, I realize that what we have is a bureaucracy that is out of control. As I dug into some of these cases it bothered me to see the pain this bureaucracy is bringing to many of my constituents.

It is an interesting admission on behalf of the government that it is a bureaucracy out of control because it is now setting up a new entity. Rather than fixing what is there, it is talking about setting up a new entity. The government feels it might be easier to create something new rather than to bring efficiencies to the existing government bureaucracy.

Our party is not against efficiency. Certainly we are all for it. However, if we cannot bring efficiencies to the bureaucracy, can we magically bring them to something that is not close to the government, that is an arm's length operation? I am not sure the logic follows.

The government is selling this on the grounds of some promised efficiency gains. As I understand it, some of these economic gains will only occur if the provinces agree, and yet we have not had a commitment there. I understand that some of the Atlantic provinces are pondering whether they want to continue with the harmonized tax program which the federal government launched.

Are we really going to see these efficiency gains? That is a good question. I am not saying that the status quo is the answer. It certainly is not.

I would like to highlight some of the situations that I have encountered in my short time as a member of parliament. I will allude to one situation. If members wish more details, I will provide them, although I know that some individuals involved are concerned that the details might get out. The taxpayer bill of rights is needed because of the intimidation factor. These people feel there might be repercussions if the details are brought out.

One particular business was an oil contracting and production business owned by a fairly prominent businessman in my riding. His company had been through a number of mergers and different purchases.

His problem related to GST numbers. When a merger takes place, the old GST number does not die. People are still required to track on the old one and on the new one. There is a convoluted set of rules surrounding it. But to cut a long story short, they tried to maintain the old ones and follow this complicated tracking procedure.

They submitted all the required information, as they understood it, to the tax department. Continually, though, they were asked to re-submit the information because they were told it had not been received or there was something missing. They continued to try to hit the mark and satisfy Revenue Canada.

In fact this gentleman related to me that he was talking to someone at Revenue Canada and offered to fax in what they had already submitted because there was no record, according to Revenue Canada, of having received it. He was told “We do not have a fax number here”. It was not too much later that he was talking to a different person in the bureaucracy and was given the fax number for the same department.

I am not casting aspersions on these individuals. What I am saying is that this is symptomatic of a bureaucracy that is out of control.

The last time I checked with this individual they were still attempting to demonstrate that they had followed the rules and they were looking for some acknowledgement or direction as to what they missed in trying to meet the mandate. It is not easy.

I feel, and I am sure that many of the members of this House feel, that our tax code and tax laws are just too convoluted. The act itself is 600 pages and there are another 600 or 700 pages of special interpretations and guidelines. The Ottawa phone book does not have as many pages as the tax act. It is no wonder a business person would find it difficult to meet all the requirements, even with the best of intentions. When we add to that some of the inefficiencies in the current bureaucracy it is really hard to satisfy the demands.

This is all the more reason for a taxpayer bill of rights, some advocate that a frustrated taxpayer can go to and say “I am trying to meet the requirements but I am just not making it”.

Let me give another example, closer to home, of an East Indian couple in my riding who immigrated to Canada. They have worked hard. They are a very diligent couple. They started a few small businesses. They tried to adhere to all of our laws and the requirements of the tax code. Yes, they had some professional help.

This couple started these small ventures. They thought, according to everything they had filed, that they had complied with all the rules. One day they were contacted by the tax department which advised them they had not. They were in the middle of the appeal process with the tax department to make their case when the person they were dealing with felt their case was not warranted. The next thing they knew the wife's account was garnisheed, locked up and no money was moving in or out.

We can imagine what this did to this small businessman. Suppliers were not getting paid. Customer relations were jeopardized. It was a tragic situation. Interestingly enough, he continued to appeal to Revenue Canada until he got to a higher level than the particular person he was dealing with.

At the end of it all, after a separate hearing and looking at all the facts, the answer was that the junior person had not really seen the whole picture. Revenue Canada released the accounts and everything carried on. At this point in time they are attempting to resolve the situation.

The bottom line is that the account should not have been locked up. But the damage was done to this gentleman's business and no apology was offered.

One final example that demonstrates the critical need for a taxpayer bill of rights, if we are going to have this new agency, is that of a young family I know. They received a windfall one day. They were told by the tax department that their child tax credit had been underpaid. It was great news.

They took this $1,000 and spent it. About two months later they got another letter from the tax department saying it had made a mistake and they really should not have had the overpayment. The next threat was that it was now going to garnishee their wages unless they instantly paid it back. Here was this family under great pressure and duress all because of this bureaucratic inefficiency. To add to that story, they were not the only ones. In their encounter to find out what happened they found out there were many other families.

I put forward those illustrations and many more just like them in our country where taxpayers need and must have a taxpayers bill of rights before any changes can be made to the bureaucracy that collects the taxes.

[Criminal Records Act, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members for the support that has been given to this bill. It clearly demonstrates that we can work occasionally in a non-partisan way. I also appreciate the comments.

I just conclude on some of the points that were made here today and give a clarification on some key themes that were repeated.

In Canada today almost 99% of those who apply for pardons actually get a pardon. It is almost a case that if you want one, you get one. Currently there is no information kept as to what kind of crimes are pardoned and which ones are not.

We know for a fact that pedophiles have a high rate of recidivism and we put people at risk who are in their care, particularly children of course. This is what the bill is trying to address which is what we have talked about.

Another key thing we have talked about is that this is in the public interest, so much so that it overrides the privacy concerns of the Privacy Commissioner and he has even said so.

It is an important bill to support. Sometimes what happens with specific bills like this is that the government says it has to do a much more comprehensive review of the issue. Things go on hold and we live with the status quo. Sometimes when we go with the comprehensive review, the idea is that it is too comprehensive and something more specific is needed so nothing ever happens.

This bill, if it can help one child being delivered from abuse and not having to experience the life sentence that abuse is, is worth us putting in place. If we want to do a more comprehensive review on a go forward basis, I have no problem with that.

My appeal to the House is that even if this just stops the abuse of one child then is it not worth it to move this bill along and make the larger changes if need be in the future.

[Criminal Records Act, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering if it would be agreeable to the House that I might seek unanimous consent to conclude debate on this particular bill in the time remaining.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief comments and perhaps a question for the previous speaker from the government side.

I want to clarify a couple of things that have been said back and forth here. First, the Reform Party is very much concerned about the health of small business in Canada. I guess the debate here today is whether or not the changes to the SBLA really help small business. Is it the best place where we can spend some of our efforts to help small business?

Our approach is adding to the amount of money that is available to small business ventures. The SBLA is perhaps one way to go, but we do not feel it is the best way to go.

I refer to a letter I recently received from the Canadian Restaurant and Food Association. I will read from it and ask the member to comment on what would really help small business. The letter states “As noted in previous correspondence, the huge and growing federal payroll tax burden on food service businesses is constraining job growth among the association's 40,000-plus members. Economic theory and empirical evidence both support the strong correlation between significant payroll tax reduction and employment generation, particularly in labour intensive industries like food service”.

There is one industry that is pointing to the common sense solution to help small business. We seem to put huge burdens like high taxes, and the high payroll taxes to which this association refers, in front of small businesses and then help them to get access to capital so they can effectively go out there and hang themselves.

Would the member across the way comment on the relative priority of expanding the SBLA as opposed to giving small business, particularly those in this industry, a break on payroll taxes?

[Petitions, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I present a number of petitions today in support of making changes to the Criminal Code at section 213 to make prostitution a hybrid offence, to be either a summary offence or an indictable offence. These petitions have been presented by the constituents of my riding of Calgary Centre.

[The Senate, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for a solid week we have been asking the justice minister questions about Senate reform. We have asked questions about the Constitution and about the democratic rights of Albertans.

These are questions a real justice minister from Edmonton Alberta should be able to answer. She sits quietly and smiles as her boss attacks her home province.

Has the justice minister been told not to talk about Senate elections, or does she agree with the Prime Minister's position that Senate reform is a joke? Which is it?

[The Family, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are becoming increasingly aware that one of the keys for a strong society is not more costly government programs but respect and encouragement for the millions of committed parents who are raising our next generation.

Not surprisingly, the studies show what we already intrinsically know: a stable and loving family is a child's best hope. For example, recent studies confirm that children raised by birth parents in a stable relationship are significantly more likely to graduate from high school and less likely to have behavioural problems.

Increasingly though, academics, bureaucrats and social do-gooders present themselves as the champions of the best interests of children. What they seem to forget is that parents have a natural authority.

Respecting the authority that both parents have and tangibly encouraging the work that they do is one of the best long term investments we can make.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to bring out an aspect of this bill that I think we have missed, even though we have heard a lot of speakers and we have had a lot of things brought forward.

The key part of this bill we need to focus on is the fact that the resistance we are running into on this bill relates exactly to the privacy issue, personal privacy. Whose privacy are we actually talking about? We are talking about the privacy of people who have been indicted. The police do not indict someone without good cause. What we are really looking to protect is the privacy of an individual who may have committed a heinous crime as opposed to the security and safety of Canadian citizens. We heard some of the heinous crimes that have been committed against women and children and if we can do anything to stop those heinous crimes. We are trading off the privacy issue and the safety of Canadians.

I have a bill on the same issue and which is going to be voted on next week, Bill C-284. It has to do with allowing parents and those who hire people to look after children to know whether or not the person has a history of being a paedophile. In that situation they would know if he has ever received a pardon. They would not put those children at risk again.

When we debated that bill in the House it was the same kind of thing. Everybody on this side was supportive of the bill, but what came from that side was “We have to protect the privacy of the convicted paedophile more than we need to protect the children who could be exposed to this kind of risk”.

This is the key difference. Are we going to protect citizens as we have been elected to do? Many of us are here because of our frustration with the justice system being too much concerned and overly focused on protecting the rights of criminals or those who are indicted, putting that at a higher level than the victims in our society.

The Liberal approach is just not working. This loose approach to the justice issue not only puts law-abiding citizens at risk, but it makes those who are contemplating criminal activity more likely to step into that kind of activity because the barriers are just not there. They are not seeing it as a deterrent. It has become a laughing stock.

We can talk about Bill C-3 which is the DNA bill, my Bill C-284 and we can talk about the Young Offenders Act. This theme is pervasive across all the justice issues: the protection of privacy, protection of the criminal and protection of those who have been charged.

When do we ever hear from the other side of the House about the protection of the victim, victims rights, the protection of those who may be harmed or who have been attacked and the protection of law-abiding citizens? That is what is at the heart of justice, law and order and peace in our society. That is what was at the heart of many of the election campaigns we fought only a little over a year ago and why many of us are here.

This particular bill points out a fundamental difference between the members on this side of the House and those on that side of the House. It is a fundamental difference that says they are going to protect criminals over the rights of law-abiding citizens and we are focusing on making sure that Canadians are not put at risk.

The police are the people who are closest to the action, closest to the issue. In so many cases businesses realize that if they want to know where the waste is they go to the front lines. They have implemented empowering people at the front lines because they have had to live with the waste and the issues. But the government is still stuck in a top down way of thinking that says that judges and those who live behind brick walls will decide for those who do not. The police know. They are on the front lines. They hear the stories. They see the broken lives. They have to live with the tragedies. They have to pick up the pieces.

It is interesting that the police tell us “Come on, let us get some things in place so our job has meaning again, so we can actually do the job we are paid to do, protect our communities and do something to serve as a deterrent”.

Mr. Speaker, may I just ask at this point how much time I have left?