A6 - Wednesday, February 22

» 1984 - North Shore News

GE editorial page

A bad smell

It’s time British Columbians took a realistic look at rabble-rouser Paul Watson’s latest campaign to protest the wolf-kill program by crippling the B.C. tourist industry.

Any parallel between that progam and the

Newfoundland seal hunt — Watson’s previous sacred cause — is dubious in the ex- treme. The brutal and bloody slaughter of baby seals serves merely a luxury trade in fur garments which modern society can well do without. Its brief economic benefits to the seal hunters are minimal. If international condem- nation sparked by the protesters can hasten its end, it is to be welcomed.

The wolf-kill, on the other hand, is a predator control exercise on which no such final judgement is yet possible by those living far from the scene of the action. Its opponents are predominantly people who have never seen a wolf in their lives.

Meanwhile, the program is supported vir- tually 100% by the northern communities that live year-round with the destruction wolves can wreak, not only on game wildlife but also on farm stock and domestic animals.

Maybe they are exaggerating the destruc- tion in order to protect their lucrative guide and outfitting business for hunters. Maybe Victoria is over reacting or conniving. But the fact is that outsiders.(including potential U.S. tourists) simply don’t have enough accurate information so far to reach a firm conclusion.

In these circumstances — and with high summer unemployment again looming — the bid by Mr. Watson and his disciples to maim B.C.’s third biggest dollar-earner is an act that gives freedom of protest a distinctly bad smell.

Come clean, Hugh

British Columbians voted last May for ‘restraint, but many must have a few logical questions after Monday’s gloomy budget. How much money was saved by last year’s cuts? Is restraint working? If so, why even more of it this year? No offence, Mr. Curtis, but you ARE being a little coy about these rather important answers. Blame our curiosity on the Ottawa Grits, who assured us for years they knew what they were doing.

Bese VORCE OF feONTTH aseb WERT VANCOUVER

sunday Display Advertising 980-0511 | a awe Classified Advertising 986-6222 north shore Newsroom 985-2131 rn ews Circulation 966-1337 Subscriptions 980-7081

1139 Lonsdale Ave., North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 2H4 Publisher Peter Speck

Editor-in-Chiet Noel Wright

Associate Publisher Robert Graham

Advertising Director Tim Francis

Personne!) Director Berni Hilliard

Classified Manager Val Stephenson

Production Director

Circulation Director Bul McGown

Photography Managor

Chis Johnson Terty Peters North Ghore News, lounded «1464 as an independadt COmm|undy newspaper and quatitied under Schoduie Ul Pad iit Paragraph Wi of the bxcise Tan Act t published each Wednesdey and Sunday by North Shore Free Prete bid and distibuled lo avery door on the North Shore Second Clans Mail Registration Numbe: 3885 Entire contents 1904 North Ghore Free Presse Ltd. All rights reserved Subscaptons Nocth and West Vane ouver $25 pes year Mashing alow available OF toquetl No responsibility accapted boc uAmahe tad mate nat toc hichowy Manuscripts and preturos wheel should be a Campari try a slanypad addresned onvotope Member of the B.C. Press Council ba 64.700 isverage Wednesday & Sunday)

SDA DIVIION

= sx G&

THIS PAPER IS RECYCLABLE

aes ot Sa ES TE

MAINS TREAM CANADA

The battle for tax ‘fairness’

‘“‘CANADA’S TAX department needs checks and balances to ensure Revenue Canada assessors and collectors, and their bosses, don’t ride roughshod over individuals and businesses, thus downgrading the trust that is necessary for the system to be

effective.”’

By W. ROGER WORTH

That’s the view of John Bulloch, President of the

"WH WORRY MR. MULRONEY

CE RAD ES ate

Canadian Federation of In- dependent Business, an organization that represents 64,000 of the Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises

_that have been placed on the

firing line as a result of Revenue Canada’s hard-line attitude.

Bulloch, quite rightly, is talking about checks and balances that will make the tax system fairer, in addition to placing limits on the seem- ingly uncontrellable depart- ment that, by law, considers individuals guilty until they prove they are innocent.

The overall problem with the tax department, he believes, starts at the top.

**We’ve had 12 Ministers of Revenue in the last 15 years, so power has gone to the bureaucrats, whg seem to believe everyone is a tax cheat,’’ he says. ‘‘Ministers don’t stay around long enough to learn the complex- ities of the Tax Act.”’

Nevertheless, Bulloch says there are solutions to many of the problems. Among his suggestions: “

e That Revenue Canada be forced to pay accounting and legal costs for individuals and businesses that successfully

- challenge decisions made by

the department’s assessor. ‘“*‘Such a system is simple justice,’’ he believes. ‘‘As it stands, appealing tax deci- sions is most times more cost-

ly than paying the additional

tax.

Bulloch points out that forcing RevCan to pay costs would allow the public to assess the department’s effi- ciency, ensuring that some tax officials were not bring- ing forward frivolous cases. It would also provide a datly reminder to tax assessofs that a sloppy reassessment could cost the department money..

© That taxpayers be pro- vided with detailed informa- tion on their tax situation before they are re-assessed, thus reducing the amount of paperburden, red-tape and appeal activity.

* That taxpayers who are appealing: the department’s claim-not be forced to pay the reassessment until they have had their day in court. As it

Stands, the additional money

generally must be paid before the appeal can be heard.

*“*‘The present system favors the all-powered tax department so much that it is sometimes used to cover up RevCan employee mistakes,”’ Bulloch believes. ‘I fully understand we need tax audits to keep the system honest, but the auditing and collection methods have to be scrupulously fair.”’

(CFIB Feature Service)

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Last week’s federal budget now provides for costs to be awarded to taxpayers who win their court ‘cases against Revenue Canada.)

Shining light in dark corners

WORKING HIMSELF up into a fine old lather last week was West Van-Howe Sound MLA John Reynolds. His subject: 101 reasons why the office of the B.C. Ombudsman should be ‘‘downsized’’.

In fact, Mr.

Reynolds made it clear that he, per-

sonally, favors downsizing the Ombudsman right

out of existence.

The Ombudsman, you may recall, was introduced into the B.C. political scene in 1979, thanks largely to the ef- forts of Intergovernmental Relations Minister Garde Gardom. The incumbent to date is Karl Friedmann. His job is to investigate and sort out complaints by citizens who are having problems with bureaucrats and = red tape. For obvious reasons, therefore, he is not answerable to the govern- ment of the day. Like the Auditor General, he reports to the Legislature as a whole.

Business for the Om- budsman’s office has been in- creasing at a brisk clip. Five years ago it started out by handling around 300 com- plaints a month. By 1982 the average had risen to over 700 a month — proof positive, declares Mr. Reynolds, in a colorfully worded press release, that the Ombudsman and his colleagues are ‘’em- pire building”’

Mr. Reynolds’ tack, however, is against the number of com- plaints that eventually prove to be groundless. In category after category — beefs against ICBC, the Workers Compensation Board, the labor Relations Board, the

main at-

Rentalsman ands assorted ministiics boards and com TIVESTIEIT ES ho cites huge

directed °

percentages of cases which, afterr investigation, were declined, withdrawn or dis- continued for lack of substance.

0.02 PER CENT

‘*For this we need to spend a million and a half dollars annually?”’ asks West Van's horrified MLA. Well, of course, there are two wafs of looking at it. ,

The equally valid view. point, is that Mr. Friedmann and his staff actually bend over backward to be fair to the bureaucrats as well as to the complainers — and that by providing a safety valve for the latter to let off steam harmlessly, the Om budsman’'s office should tightly be regarded by the government as being cheap at twice the price.

The Ombudman's million budget represents, after all, only a= minisucic one-fiftieth of one per cent of the government's total expen ditures, or $1.61 a year for each B. C. houschold. So it’s a littke difficult to share Mir Reynolds’ outrage over the cost — just as it’s difficult to swallow his argument that complaint-handling should be left exclusively to MI As

The latter are automatn al ty in the beef processing

$16

business, anyhow But. once clected, even the most cons cientiows Mi As find they are

by Noel Wright ad

no longer entirely their own masters. Party discipline is strong. And rocking the par- ty boat too vigorously on behalf of some wretched con- sttuent who doesn’t know what's good for him isn’t calculated to advance your political career in the caucus room orf around the ministries. Mavericks have to settle for occasional head lines and a permanent scat on the back benches APPLECARTS UPSET The Ombudsman's office is under no such const ants, which explains why ats bolder will never win a populanty contest on Victonma’s cor tidors of power By defini his yob is to shine hehe tnte dark commer by ashing

tron,

ministers and mandarins questions they’d often prefer not to hear.

The job also differs subtly from that of Auditor General Erma Morrison whose watch- dog function is primarily quantitative. If she can’t make the dollar figures add up mght, she simply stands back and lets the chips fall where they may, without political comment.

The Ombudsman’s func- tion — dealing with people, not numbers — tends to be much more qualitative and subjective. Inevitably, therefore, his investigations soméumes upset political applecarts, or at least rauie them, especially in such cur rently tricky areas as welfare and human rights.

Nor is it Mr. Friedmann’s personal style to dodge bigger and hotter political issues, a prime cxample being the alicged log-scaling scandal in volving Forestry Minister Tom Watcriand.

Whether there's any direct connection between this case and the hounding to which he is now being subjccted by Mr. Reynolds and Surrcy’s Socred MLA Bill Reid re. mains, for the moment, an unanswered question. The suspicion lingers, however, that their real reason for wishing to climinate the Om budsman's office altogether has less to do with moncy than with Mir. EFnedmann’'s zeal in carrying out what he regards as his mandatc.

Outside the party ranks, of course that might count as the strongest argument for retaming him