House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 67% of the vote.
Gasoline October 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the other day the Minister of the Environment announced with glee a new tax on gas. She said it would cost Canadian consumers only about a cent a litre. However, a Liberal member, the member for Pickering—Ajax, the respected chairman of the Liberal caucus on gas pricing, said it would cost as much as 15 cents a litre.
Who is right, the minister who says it is a cent a litre or the Liberal member who says it is 15 cents a litre? Which one should we believe?
Supply October 20th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her remarks.
She said she visited some of the countries represented at the APEC summit and had seen the economic devastation that trade had brought to those countries.
It is unfortunate that she took the focus off what is a pretty broad consensus about the need for due process in these hearings. The vast majority of people who live in places like Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore would agree that while they are going through an enormous economic turmoil currently, their standard of living has increased exponentially over the last 20 years as a result of international trade. Many tens of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty because of the benefits of trade notwithstanding the current structural difficulties.
While I am sympathetic to the case for legal counsel for the students, the member painted a picture of them as completely altruistic, innocent students expressing their belief in democracy. We know that was certainly the case in many instances. In fact I have carried picket signs outside the Chinese embassy protesting the presence of Jiang Zemin. I joined many people in that moral outrage about human rights abuses.
Surely the member would admit that we should not prejudge the inquiry and that there were some students or even non-students who were members of groups such as the International Socialist Workers Party and other radical organizations who were clearly there to disrupt the summit, posing a security threat and tearing down a security wall separating them from heads of states.
Surely the member would recognize a balanced perspective here, that while there were some legitimate protesters there may also have been at the same time some people who unduly provoked the police.
The Senate October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this government is laughing at democracy. Yesterday nearly half a million Albertans cast ballots, the largest result for a candidate in Canadian history. Bert Brown yesterday won more votes; more Canadian citizens cast votes for Bert Brown than have cast votes for this Prime Minister in his entire political career, and he calls it a joke.
Will he apologize to Albertans for his arrogance and his contempt for democracy? Will he appoint one of the elected candidates to the next vacancy in the Senate, yes or no?
The Senate October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tried everything in his power to sabotage yesterday's Alberta Senate elections. He instructed his provincial wing not to run a candidate. He called the process supported by 90% of Albertans a joke. Then he appointed another patronage hack in the middle of the election. But Albertans ignored this Prime Minister and went to the polls in record numbers yesterday to give Bert Brown the largest democratic mandate ever given to a candidate in Canadian history. Will this Prime Minister abide that democratic mandate and appoint Bert Brown to the next Senate vacancy?
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act October 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I will take your words of caution with respect to relevance advisedly as you did of course allow the hon. member to pose certain rhetorical questions.
I would simply say that the member suggests that rather than talking about parliamentary reform, one ought to do something about it. This is precisely what the people of Alberta are doing in the process of selecting their next senator. With respect to the cost objection that the member raises, yes democracy does cost something. I know the people of Alberta, 92% of them, are prepared to incur some small cost to be able to hold their representative accountable.
The reason they want their representatives accountable in the Senate and in this place is precisely because we have enormous powers, powers such as the power to tax which is really the power to destroy. Too often it is a power that is abused. Too often the tax collection agents at Revenue Canada treat taxpayers as though they are guilty until proven innocent.
Would the hon. member not support a statute which would more clearly define the rights under due process of taxpayers to be given the presumption of innocence in the collection and assessment process? Would the member not think it would be a worthwhile complement to this bill for such a taxpayer bill of rights to be passed, essentially to enshrine in law the current declaration of taxpayers' rights which is really a statement of good intentions? Does the member not think this would be a worthwhile proposition to support?
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act October 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Prince Albert on his remarks.
The hon. member spoke about the need for greater accountability. Has he, in his now 14 months as a member of this place, received any case files or complaints from constituents that would lead him to believe there is a need for greater accountability of Revenue Canada? Or, do his constituents believe that everything is just hunky-dory over there and that we can just plough along with the status quo with a mega-tax collection bureaucracy that has really no presumption of innocence for taxpayers and which tends to shoot first and then ask questions?
I just wanted to ask what his experience is as a member and the thoughts of his constituents with respect to the accountability of Revenue Canada and whether it does indeed overreach its very considerable police powers in occasionally harassing law-abiding and well intentioned taxpaying citizens.
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act October 1st, 1998
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments and know that she as the parliamentary secretary spent a great deal of time on this bill and was very dedicated.
As the parliamentary secretary knows, while the vast majority of Revenue Canada agents are hardworking and treat taxpayers fairly, from time to time we see some really extraordinary abuses of their power, as I have outlined in various interventions today. What is in this bill that would strengthen accountability to preclude the possibility of these types of abuses of power and to treat taxpayers as innocent until they are proven guilty by the tax system?
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act October 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast would like to advise the hon. member for Ottawa Centre that he can take him off his mailing list.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre got himself into such a frenzy stroking the ego of his colleague, the minister of revenue. It looked as if that was the most pathetic attempt to become parliamentary secretary I have seen here in a long time.
The hon. member does not think StatsCan is intrusive. Apparently he thinks it is a model for Revenue Canada. Let me suggest there is one slight difference. Revenue Canada is vested by this parliament with police powers, with the monopoly and coercive power of the government to forcibly extract from people the fruits of their own labours and to get into their most private matters, to find out everything about their financial arrangements, how much they make, where they save it and how they spend it. Those are extraordinary powers which are all too often abused.
If the hon. member heard my speech he would have heard me relate several stories, as have other members, about this kind of extraordinary abuse. For instance, Janice Collingridge, a low income quadriplegic from Calgary, was dragged into tax court by this government's tax cops to pay $5,000 in back payroll taxes which she should never have had to pay. It was thrown out by the tax court.
Members know of case upon case of abuse by Revenue Canada officials. What exists in Bill C-43 to prevent this kind of abuse of the power we give the tax cops? Why will the minister and the member not accept a strengthening of accountability through the adoption of a taxpayer bill of rights which would be appended to Bill C-43?
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act October 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby for his eloquent remarks.
The minister spoke about the need for a taxpayer bill of rights. This is something which the official opposition proposed earlier today, the actual adoption of a formal statute which would recognize the presumption in favour of taxpayers in the collection and auditing process.
The government has not responded positively to this initiative. In his view, why would that be? Why would it be afraid of ensuring greater accountability in tax collection? It is a hard question, but I would like him to try to tackle it.
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act October 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's kind words, qualified that they may have been. However, I note that she did not really address the question I asked about why the government had decided to adopt the agency when it could have achieved the same flexibility through statutory changes.
The hon. member made two contradictory statements which have been consistent in the government's promotion of the bill. First, she said that there would be no job losses, that all 40,000-plus Revenue Canada employees would be guaranteed a position. She also spoke at length about efficiencies and cost savings.
Since over 80% of the expenditures of the Department of National Revenue are in payroll, how will the government achieve cost savings and efficiencies without reducing the number of positions?
It could be that I only have experience in the private sector, but I understand that when we reduce payroll it means there are fewer positions and if we do not reduce positions we do not reduce payroll. Perhaps the member could clear that up for me.
The second question I have is with regard to her comment that Revenue Canada is filled with highly skilled and motivated people. No doubt they are, such as the highly skilled and motivated tax collector who decided to drag Janice Collingridge, the low income, non-verbal quadriplegic, into the tax court to shake her down for $5,000 in back payroll taxes that she did not really owe.
How can we be assured that under the structure of the agency these kinds of outrageous abuses on the part of Revenue Canada officials will not happen again?