Debates of Dec. 8th, 1998

Herb Dhaliwal Minister of National Revenue

moved that Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency and to amend and repeal other acts as a consequence, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, today I will be speaking on third reading of Bill C-43.

Today we start the final debate in the House of Commons on the creation of a new Canada customs and revenue agency. We arrived at today's debate after a speech from the throne. We arrived here today after a budgetary commitment by the Minister of Finance. We arrived here after a campaign commitment by the Prime Minister. Most significantly, we arrived here at this debate after years of consultation and after hearing input from extraordinary Canadians from across the country.

The bill before us today is the result of extensive consultations. It was always our intent to prepare the best possible legislation by listening to Canadians, learning from their input and taking the appropriate action.

Our government issued a major proposal, then we revised it to reflect what we heard. We put forward a second proposal and again improved it after listening to people from every corner of the country.

Three times we went back to the provinces, to the territories, to members of parliament, to tax experts, to the customs and trade professionals and organizations. We established a special advisory committee to provide ongoing comments. We received input from close to 10,000 of our employees. What started out as a sound concept has become even a better piece of legislation which reflects what people told us.

There have been many important improvements to the original proposal and those improvements flowed directly from those citizens who thought about the bill and offered up some better thinking. I strongly believe this is a fine bill and I thank those Canadians who gave their time, their wisdom and their insights to making it so.

I know my friends from the opposition will argue during this debate that we still have not consulted enough. Let me quote Mr. Garth Whyte, vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, when asked about more consultation in the committee hearings: “We have been consulted to death”.

The simple truth is that the CFIB wants this bill passed. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants wants this bill passed. The Canadian Bar Association wants this bill passed. The Canadian Tax Foundation wants this bill passed. The Canadian Importers Association supports this legislation. The Tax Executives Institute support this legislation. The Canadian Society of Custom Brokers supports this legislation. L'Association de Planification Fiscale et Financière supports this legislation. The Canadians Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters supports this legislation.

The reasons for this broad range of support are really quite simple. First, a new Canada customs and revenue agency makes plain, ordinary, everyday common sense. Second, the bill constructively addresses all the serious issues raised by Canadians during these three rounds of consultations.

I would like to touch on both these matters, why a customs and revenue agency makes sense and how we have improved the bill, and explain why this agency is a sensible idea. I do not want to throw out a lot of complex jargon. I would rather relate some real life experiences.

Take for instance overlap and duplication. Take for instance red tape for small businesses. I was in business for 20 years before I went into politics. I remember having to deal with an auditor for workers compensation asking the same questions, going through the same books as another auditor for payroll deductions. That auditor went through the same process as another auditor for provincial sales tax. That auditor in turn went through the same process as an auditor for the GST. What a waste of talented professional auditors. What a time consuming waste for business people.

Everybody talks about wanting to get rid of overlap and duplication and we hear that every day in the House from members over there, all the time. We hear it from the provinces every single day. We hear it from small businesses. We hear it from individual Canadians. Everyone talks about wanting to reduce the paper burden and compliance costs.

This legislation is a real life opportunity to turn all that talk into action because everybody understands there is only one level of taxpayer, so let us move toward creating a single window tax collection.

Canadians want governments to work together for their citizens. They do not want to build a parallel tax system across the country. Canadians have said that repeatedly. Every place I go business people tell me they spend too much time and money dealing with governments. I believe we should allow them to do what they do best, create products and jobs.

There is something else I hear from every Canadian of every political stripe. They said quit wasting money. Spend taxpayer money wisely. Get governments to work together to cut costs and streamline the process. The new agency makes plain, ordinary, everyday sense.

Do not listen to me. Listen to other Canadians. Let me quote from the presentation of the highly respected public policy forum before the finance committee: “ The compliance cost saving from a single administration would be between $171 million and $285 million. As well, we estimate administrative cost savings in the range of $97 million to $162 million”.

The creation and successful implementation of a new agency can save hundreds of millions of dollars for Canadians. Why on earth would we want to spend all that extra money on the process of collecting taxes when it could be put to so much more productive use ending overlap and duplication, cutting red tape and saving huge amounts of money? Those are all compelling reasons for creating a new agency.

There are still other strong reasons, technology for one. It takes a split second to transfer funds from St. John's to Victoria. The power of computers is doubling every 18 months. Electronic commerce is growing enormously and yet it can take a full year to hire a government auditor.

We simply have to modernize that system. We have to design faster and fairer staffing procedures. We need a system that can keep pace with the ever changing world.

The new agency will take advantage of new technologies to reduce paperwork, speed up decisions, keep employees and our clients, individual Canadians, travellers and businesses, satisfied. Technology is forcing us to make choices. Each province and territory can spend vast sums in creating its own software and computer systems. Or we have a choice, we can work together to produce those systems.

When the province of British Columbia decided to add the B.C. family bonus it could have built a whole new infrastructure, a whole new software system and it would have cost tens of millions of dollars. Instead it came to the federal government. We were able to deliver that program for a little over $2 million. That is working together. That is working smarter for the citizens.

Within two years $400 billion of business will be done on the Internet around the world. Of that, $13 billion will be done in Canada. Do we really want 12 different Canadian systems trying to collect the taxes on these transactions like the people in the Bloc want to do? Does that make sense, 12 different systems for business to deal with? We should be working together on a national basis to develop new programs that make it easier for taxpayers to file over the Internet or over the phone. We should be working together to develop the world's finest software for privacy protection. We should be working as one to spend limited resources to guarantee that technology serves the interest of Canada and the interest of Canadian taxpayers. Working together to serve the interest of Canadians makes sense.

We are creating the new Canada customs and revenue agency with the goal of forging new partnerships with the provinces. We are making a very serious effort to reach out.

This bill is about providing more options to the provinces, giving them alternatives that can better serve the public interest. The provinces and territories will have the right to nominate people for 11 of the 15 positions on the agency's board of management.

I must emphasize that the participation of the provinces is completely voluntary. The provinces will maintain control over provincial tax policy while the new agency will administer these policies. This means that a province or territory will retain full authority over the tax and will be accountable to its taxpayers for it.

The opposition parties seem fairly worked up by the fact we are moving to pass this legislation without having the provinces on board. I have met with the provinces. I have met them on a number of occasions. They all have supported the concept and we will work closely with them. But I am a realist. I know that we will have to work hard to earn the provinces' business. Frankly, I do not mind if the provinces want to kick the tires of the new agency or take it for a test drive. It will be a lot easier for them to buy into something that is a real entity than a proposal on paper.

Garth Whyte said for the CFIB: “If we wait for everybody to come on side it never gets done”. We have lots of examples. When we try to get everybody on board it never gets done. We have to move on and show leadership.

Mr. Blair Nixon of the Canadian Bar Association said: “Go forward. Pass it and let the agency convince those who are going to be able to enjoy the efficiencies”. Mr. Robert Spindler, representing our country's chartered accountants stated: “It is usually better to start the process and then draw people in rather than to turn it around and wait for the people to come and then develop the system. The agency represents an opportunity. Having the infrastructure at least allows that opportunity”.

This legislation provides for a uniquely Canadian model for customs and revenue administration, a model rooted in a non-partisan public service, a model based on partnership with the provinces, a model respectful of our Canadian parliamentary traditions, a model premised above all on fairness for Canadians and service to Canadians.

On every major front the concept of a new agency makes plain, ordinary, everyday common sense. But as I indicated, the bill before the House is far superior to the original plan. We have, for example, removed provisions that would have allowed for the imposition of user fees without the approval of elected officials. We have acted to guarantee that Canadians will receive service anywhere in Canada in the official language of their choice. We have ensured the agency will have the flexibility to deal with the fundamental personnel issues of hiring, training and retaining quality employees.

Most important, we have acted to strengthen ministerial accountability. Over and over again I heard from Canadians that political accountability is absolutely paramount if we want to guarantee fairness to Canadians. Individuals and organizations alike were adamant that the Minister of National Revenue retain the primary stewardship role.

I took that message very much to heart. As I have said time and time again, the bill does not mean the agency will not be part of the government.

The new Canada customs and revenue agency will remain proudly in the public service of Canada and a strong federal agency. For example, whenever a member of parliament wants me to inquire into the fairness of how a specific case is handled, I will have the power to do so. I will respond directly to them, as I do now.

Let me be crystal clear about the accountability measures contained in this bill. The Minister of National Revenue will be fully accountable to parliament. The Auditor General of Canada will audit the agency's books and the agency's work. A corporate business plan must be submitted to the minister for Treasury Board for approval. The minister will submit an annual report on its operations to parliament.

There is also a mandatory review of recourse mechanisms by a third party after three years, as provided in section 59 of the bill. A summary of the results will be included in the agency's annual report to parliament.

The Public Service Commission can review and report on the agency's staffing procedures.

Parliament will conduct a legislative review in five years.

No private sector member of the board of management will have access to any file of any taxpayer. Only the minister will have that oversight power.

As the Canadian Federation of Independent Business told the finance committee of this House less than two weeks ago, “Bill C-43 addresses the main concerns of political accountability, privacy and provincial autonomy identified by our members”.

As the Institute of Chartered Accountants told the same committee:

It is clear that comments provided... during the consultations, were heard and taken into account. We're pleased to see that under Bill C-43, the Minister of Revenue will retain responsibility for this Agency and it will be structured to allow for close Ministerial oversight and, in particular, that the Minister's power of inquiry into any activity of the Agency will be maintained.

As both the bar association and the tax foundation put it to the same committee, “We support the initiative currently being advanced by this government”.

The people on this side of the House consult with Canadians, they listen to Canadians and they respond, just as we have in this bill.

As much as I welcome such serious backing for this bill, I am well aware that the creation of the agency is only the beginning of the process.

Earning the trust of as many provinces as possible is essential. I am trying to do that by building a better framework.

Ensuring fairness for every single taxpayer is also very critical. That will be my priority every hour of every day. Canadians deserve nothing less.

Treating our incredibly dedicated employees with understanding and empathy is vital. I know some of them are a bit apprehensive about change. I will do my very best to make the transition as easy as possible.

Safeguarding the faith of Canadians in our tax system is of the utmost importance. That, after all, is what makes it all work.

I promise the members of the House that, regardless of what happens to this bill, I will soon come forward with a fairness action plan and I will deliver on my word.

I intend to continue seeking advice from the vast range of Canadians on means to improve service to taxpayers. With the help of members of parliament from all parties, I will act on that advice.

The truth is that I feel deeply honoured to be the trustee of Canada's tax system. It is a fine and honourable system held in high regard around the world. It is an amazing system premised on honesty, voluntary assessment and fair payment of taxes owing. It is a system upheld by public servants of hard work and decency.

The job of every member of parliament is to take the necessary steps to make a great system even better. The job of every member of parliament is to ensure that our tax system is unquestionably the world's finest and fairest, and that it remains so. Our job is to take the necessary steps to seize the opportunities and meet the challenges of the modern era. Our job is to eliminate the red tape, chop away the overlap, cut wasteful costs, build new partnerships, take advantage of technology, make the most of far-sighted management practices, offer better service and make the system work to Canada's advantage.

This legislation is a major step in that direction. This legislation is a major step forward. This bill is all about providing better service to the provinces and the territories, to businesses and, most importantly, to individual Canadians.

I know that my friends in the opposition will want to mount vigorous criticisms of this bill. I respect that. I do not understand it, but it is the bedrock of democracy.

At the end of the day, however, I urge all members of parliament to remember three simple facts. First, there is only one level of taxpayer in Canada. Second, this bill has massive support from a wide range of Canadians. Third, this bill makes plain, ordinary, everyday sense to Canadians.

In the end, this bill is not about politics. It is about doing something positive for Canada.

I urge members of the House of Commons to vote yes to this bill and to do this with genuine enthusiasm.

Gilles-A. Perron Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC

Mr. Speaker, before I start my presentation on Bill C-43, I would like to inform you that it has been agreed that I would be sharing my time with my charming colleague from Rimouski—Mitis.

Gilles-A. Perron Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of this House for allowing me to share my speaking time.

Apparently, to lead is to listen, to consult and to act. With respect to Bill C-43, I am sure that our friends across the floor did not listen. I want to give an example that occurred during the clause by clause analysis of the bill.

My colleagues from the opposition, the hon. members for Calgary Southeast, Regina—Qu'Appelle and Kings—Hants, moved good and sensible amendments to this bill, but what did the Standing Committee on Finance do? It simply packed the gallery with Liberal members and gagged the opposition. Opposition amendments were ignored, which prompted the Bloc Quebecois to say “If that is how you want to play it, we will introduce 118 motions in amendment to make fun of the government.”

Only 18 organizations and some 50 people testified before the committee. Only two of these 50 individuals were totally in favour of Bill C-43. These were our revenue minister, naturally—the bill is his brainchild and I think he is somewhat proud of it—and André Vallerand.

Mr. Vallerand, as members will remember, is a former Quebec revenue minister under Robert Bourassa, a good Liberal. He did not come to tell us about the benefits or the flaws of Bill C-43. He simply came to talk like a politician, to discuss things and, I imagine, to get contracts from his Liberal friends in Ottawa, since Mr. Vallerand's company does consultation work and so on.

Of all the other organizations, none was fully supportive of the bill. Most were lukewarm, if not cold to this legislation, and the unions were totally opposed to it. But this bogus committee refused to hear the 18 organizations that came here, that travelled to Ottawa to express their views.

Incidentally, it is not the first time there are problems with this federal committee. Last year, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. We travelled across Canada to hear testimonies on what should be included in the budget of the Minister of Finance for the current year. No proposal made by these witnesses was included in last year's budget.

This year, my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and the other opposition parties who travelled across the country are telling us that not much of what they heard during the hearings is included in the report which, incidentally, was leaked to the media, as seems to be the trend right now. It got the same treatment as many other reports that are supposed to be kept secret until tabled and read in the House, but that are leaked to the newspapers instead. They are leaked to friends. Why? To impress people? I have no idea.

If governing is about listening and consulting, my friends across the way have a lot to learn. Governing is about respecting people. With the arrogance we have come to know, this government simply gagged us during clause-by-clause study of the bill. They did the same at second and third reading. Is that respect? No, it is not.

Another example of their lack of respect surfaced in the newspapers with the report that the Prime Minister went to Alberta to announce a youth assistance program. Not one provincial minister, not even the premier of Alberta, had heard anything about this new program. This is a flagrant lack of respect.

Governing is about being fair. In the short year and a half since my arrival in this place, I have seen daily examples of the government members' unfairness. They are arrogant, bulldozing ahead like little dictators, doing what they want with no concern about respect.

There was the example of the millennium scholarships that were supposed to get the Prime Minister some publicity. What did the government do? It consulted nobody. It poked its nose into areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as education. It invested billions of dollars, telling Canadians and Quebeckers that it was running the country. This is disrespectful and unfair.

The government over there is patting itself on the back for having attained zero deficit and for now making a profit. A profit at whose expense? The provinces'. Since 1993, all the profit the government has made accounts for 49% of the cuts it has made in payments to the provinces for health, social services and education. Yet the government's expenditures in health, education and social services are only 17.2%.

Where is the fairness in slashing, in strangling, instead of doing some tidying up, putting affairs in order? Speaking of cutting back on waste, it is no big deal, a mere $220,000 the development bank in Montreal decided to invest in golf courses, not in their facilities but in memberships. A mere $220,000.

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue told us “No problem. This is an agency and they are supposed to be able to govern themselves properly. Golf memberships are a recognized business practice”. I'd like to know the Royal Bank's golf budget. I doubt it spends $220,000 a year on golf in the Montreal region. This shows a lack of respect.

Governing also means making choices. The government has chosen to establish agencies. From the experience it acquired with the agencies it has already established, it ought to be able to understand that the customs and revenue agency is quite simply doomed to failure like the rest or to look after and provide jobs for the friends of those in power. In my opinion, this is not sufficient grounds for establishing an agency which will cut at least 40,000 public service jobs in the public service.

The majority of the representatives of the 18 organizations that appeared before the committee told us that the department of revenue had many shortcomings, but was improving considerably and a good team could be created there, since we have what is required to do so. Even the auditor general says the agency will not remedy the current problems in the department of revenue. That is what our auditor general says.

Why spend money to create another level of public officials? The appointment of a commissioner and a deputy commissioner creates another level of officials. I think the only reason the minister of revenue is keeping to this position is to please the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board by saying “Our union is too powerful, so we will muzzle it”.

I mentioned existing agencies earlier. Before I give the floor over to my friend the member for Rimouski—Mitis, I would like to quickly go over the existing agencies. Let us look at the new wheat board in western Canada.

It comes. It goes. It flies by the seat of its pants. I do not know whether there is one too many or one too few wheels in the board, but we will soon find out.

There is Nav Canada, an agency that has relieved Transport Canada of all responsibility for air traffic control. Nav Canada simply decided to close the control tower in Gatineau. Nav Canada closed the tower at Baie-Comeau. An accident occurred at Baie-Comeau yesterday. Had there been controllers present at the Baie-Comeau tower, help might have arrived more quickly and more lives might have been saved. I do not know, but at least chance would have been on our side in this instance.

Nav Canada said “No problem. We will not cut jobs. At least for two or three years, we will not cut jobs”. It has been only 18 months since the agency was established and some 20% of jobs have been eliminated. What happened to the promise? On questioning, the Minister of Transport says “They are making adjustments. They are doing their job. They are responsible”.

There is the ADM, the Montreal airports agency. This issue is important to me and to all the members from the Lower Laurentians, because it means the region's survival,

Previously, there was a good and interesting arrangement. International flights landed in Mirabel and local and North American ones in Dorval. The year before they decided to close Mirabel down partially, Dorval had made $12 million in profit, Mirabel $13 million. It was not a record profit, but neither was it a loss.

On the strength of misleading studies, ADM management sold all of Quebec, including the Montreal region, on the idea that it would be better to transfer all flights from Mirabel to Dorval. This was done, but there has been chaos ever since. Flights are backed up and many from Europe now go to Toronto, not even stopping over in Montreal.

We have questioned the Minister of Transport and he replies that it is not the government's fault, that the agency is responsible for making its own decisions.

That is what we get with agencies. They are something a minister can hide behind, instead of doing his job and answering questions in the House about any problems in his particular department. He can wash his hands of his responsibilities. The government is afraid to govern, afraid to do its job. But its job is to make decisions that serve the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians. Its job is to act in everyone's interests, not just the interests of its friends and of the rich.

It has been hinted that, after the next budget, the rich, those earning over $50,000, would no longer pay the 3% surtax.

Governing is about making fair and equitable decisions, good decisions in the economic interests of all Quebeckers and Canadians. That is what governing is about, not what the government is doing.

My twenty minutes are up, so I will turn the floor over to my colleague, the member for Rimouski—Mitis. I have made it clear that Bloc Quebecois members are completely opposed to Bill C-43 and that we will be voting against it, as will, I hope, most of the opposition members.

Suzanne Tremblay Rimouski—Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today for two reasons. First of all, because I would like to take part in this debate concerning Bill C-43, which establishes the Canada customs and revenue agency, but also to fulfill a commitment made by me on November 27, when I accepted a mandate from Quebec City radio personality Robert Gillet.

Every week, the private radio station he works for gives out the bolo award to the person who gets the most listener votes. On November 27, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was voted by the people of Quebec as the bolo award winner, for her involvement in the olympic games bids. So, I can say mission accomplished as far as the bolo award for the hon. member for Hamilton East is concerned.

Now, for a more serious mission, addressing Bill C-43. What amazes me is that no one, or virtually no one, in the Quebec and Canadian public seems to be aware of what is going on at the present time in the House in this connection.

This weekend I had the opportunity to meet a number of my constituents. I asked them all “What do you know about the Canada customs and revenue agency?” No one could answer, and yet we have spent a number of hours debating this already.

I asked myself why the information was not reaching the public. We have to find a way to inform people. It may be that our debates so far have been much too abstract for the public to realize the importance of this issue. We are discussing an extremely important issue, but the public does not seem to be aware of it.

The opposition made it clear why it objects to this bill. Since I was going to take part in today's debate, on the weekend I surfed the Internet to see what had been said last week, at second reading and during the clause by clause review at report stage.

I learned a few good ones. Among other things, I realized that the government introduced a bill that is a further symptom of the degenerative disease that has plagued it at least since the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a disease better known as “acute centralizationitis”. I know of no other disease that is a greater threat to Canada's future. This government never stops accusing us of acting in bad faith, of saying that we want to break up the country. Come to think of it, we did everything we could to save Canada, if only with the arguments we put forward during the debate on Bill C-43.

The government's negligence gives us one more reason to want to leave this country, because the government is truly insensitive to the perverse effects of this legislation.

The government has no qualms about creating a legal framework that will allow it to look over the provinces' shoulder at will, even though it means interfering in provincial jurisdictions.

This is a government that imposes gag orders in order to keep the opposition quiet and keep it from playing its role, basically.

Everyone knows this arrogant Liberal government forgets it has the support of only 38% of the population. So, the 62% of the population that we on this side of the House represent is trying to convince the government that it cannot proceed with its bill. It is a ridiculous bill that most Canadians reject.

So, day after day this government shows us its very twisted view of Canada's future. If the Liberal government were more democratic and less dictatorial, it would allow the opposition to express its dissent, especially because, since June 2, 1997 when it was unfortunately returned to power, this government has done nothing valid. It lets the time go by. It manages time, that is all. When things do not suit it, it manages time by stifling the opposition.

Michel Bellehumeur Berthier—Montcalm, QC

It takes out the baseball bat.

Suzanne Tremblay Rimouski—Mitis, QC

Yes, as my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm has said, it takes out the baseball bat or its pepper shakers, which I add on my own.

So the government does not let the opposition express its dissent. On the contrary. This minority government in terms of votes and barely majority government in terms of seats was so afraid of having a hard time controlling its majority that it gave you, Mr. Speaker, the honour and us the pleasure of allowing you to sit, as an opposition member, even, in the Chair during our debates.

This says just how much Canadians decided. But I invite them seriously, right off, to follow the debates in this House daily so they do not get taken in the next election and can decide that the government deserves a holiday on the opposition benches next time.

Let us look at the situation a little more closely. Ever since it came to this House five years ago, the Bloc Quebecois has consistently supported the government whenever the bill before us was well structured, everything looked great and we had assurances from officials that all was in keeping with the many international treaties Canada is a party to.

We did, on occasion, suggest to the government a number of amendments, some of which the government actually accepted because, more often than not, these opposition amendments improved the government bill under consideration. In such cases, after a healthy debate that was beneficial to the people of Quebec and Canada, we helped move the bill forward, we did not object to it, we let the government take the necessary votes, where we either approved the bill or registered our dissent, without unduly dragging out debate.

However, on a number of occasions, the Bloc Quebecois did object to the speedy passage of a bill, which we felt did not make any sense, was not consistent with the interests of Quebec or Canada, lacked clarity or invaded provincial jurisdiction, or was too complex and required further consultation. We also stood our ground if the bill represented a major change from how we thought things should be done and the government was not allowing us enough time to present our views or was simply not interested in hearing what we had to say.

If anyone were to compare the number of times we have stood our ground in the last five years to the number of ridiculous bills the government used its majority to pass, we, the opposition parties, would win the day, compared to the government, which has bungled several bills, often completely ignoring accountability, and which is now taking cover behind a series of agencies so as not to be seen mismanaging the country.

It is interesting that every time the opposition's views differed substantially from those of the government, closure was invoked and any continuation of debate that might have resulted in common ground being found was squelched.

It is instructive to read all the impassioned speeches against closure made by members of the Liberal Party when they were in opposition, during the Mulroney era. In five years, the Liberals have already beaten the Mulroney government's record. Not a single government in recent democracy has gagged its opposition as often as this one. This shows how fundamentally unsure and dissatisfied they are with what they are doing.

They are no longer able to stand us telling them what a rotten job they are doing. They say “We will stop them from speaking, because it could get out to the public that we are doing a bad job”. The honeymoon continues, and until it is over, this government thinks it can keep getting re-elected. But the honeymoon is nearly over.

We criticize this government every day. Soon we will be bringing out the horrible truths, and I do not know which one is the worst.

There is something horrible about the arrogance of this government, which has done nothing but mark time since June 2, 1997. This is a government that does not govern, one that pockets the funds of workers and puts them to illegal use. This is a government which contributes each and every day to widening the gap between the haves and the have nots. This is a government which is saying that it is prepared to turn millions of dollars over to sports millionaires, while it refuses to pay the unemployed the benefits they need to support their families.

This is a government which has unjustly slashed transfer payments to the provinces in order to cut itself some slack to invest in propaganda, waving the flag, giving contracts to buddies, while middle-class taxpayers are getting poorer. This is a government which makes a conscious effort each and every day to ensure Quebec is punished, crushed, humiliated, made a mockery of.

But there is even more. Last Friday in this House, the Minister of Industry had the gall to not even try to hide his face when he responded to a question from the member for Laurentides, saying he was punishing us for having an opinion different from his. It is this different concept of the organization of a real federation that forces us, because he has understood nothing, to leave and to advance our plan, which offers much greater possibility for development and growth to the Quebec cultural community than this centralizing vision, and especially that of the Minister of Industry.

By imposing its gag order and ramming the bill through at third reading, the government agrees wittingly—and that is the crazy part—that the bill has major flaws, which will prevent it from serving the interests of the people of Quebec and Canada.

By wanting the bill passed at any cost, the federal government is gagging us to force us to end this debate before all the members have had a chance to express their ideas.

There is no urgency in this area. There was some urgency with respect to other bills, including the one on periodicals. There was some urgency about it, in order to protect an industry. When it comes to protecting an industry, the government is in no hurry, even though the opposition parties were offering to co-operate, with the exception of course of the Reform Party. We could have moved more quickly with that bill. It was to defend one of our industries, to defend Canadian culture. No, the government preferred to push ahead with a bill that will cause harm to everyone in Quebec and Canada.

There is no national crisis, nor international one. This bill requires major improvements.

Many provisions should have been included at report stage to make the bill acceptable to most parties in the House. This bill is far from enjoying unanimous support. Quite the contrary.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, who worked so hard to try to improve this legislation and who participated in the hearings, told the House that, when the committee conducted its clause by clause review of the bill, 18 groups, organizations or individuals came to the committee to state their views on this legislation. Two witnesses who appeared before the committee supported the bill: the minister who tabled it, and André Vallerand, a former Quebec revenue minister under Mr. Bourassa.

Because he is a good Liberal, Mr. Vallerand probably came to do some lobbying, just in case—he had carefully reviewed the bill—the government might need a chair, a deputy chair or a commissioner for that customs and revenue agency. He told himself “I will go to Ottawa and tell them their bill is perfect. This will get me a good job”.

The qualifications listed in the act for the positions of chair, commissioner or director are that the appointees must be Canadian citizens, but cannot be members of the Senate or House of Commons, or full-time public servants. An exception is made in the case of the commissioner.

Mr. Vallerand came and told the committee how great this agency would be. However, the 16 other groups that appeared before the committee explained, one after the other, why this agency should not be established as proposed. Some were lukewarm to the idea, some were timid in their objections, while others were very much opposed to the agency. The 16 other groups or organizations that appeared had strong reservations against the bill. But the government turned a deaf ear.

Our opposition is based on a large number of major and important reasons. The government turned a deaf ear not only to the groups that appeared before the committee, but to all the opposition parties. It is rejecting our input and it refuses to change anything.

It is frustrating to work as hard as the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles did, only to run into a wall of misunderstanding. To submit our recommendations, table our research or express our concerns would be pointless. The government is not interested in what the opposition can bring to this debate, because they know that, with a majority in the House, they can impose this legislation. Its meagre 38% of the popular vote should be enough to remind them to be more cooperative, more careful, more open, less arrogant and less conceited.

Bill C-43, which establishes the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, is an extremely important piece of legislation that affects all Quebeckers and all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to point out to our dear friends who are watching this debate that, by setting up this Customs and Revenue Agency, the Liberal government led by the little guy from Shawinigan is giving them, on Christmas Eve, a poisoned gift. I want the people to know how harmful this agency will be. I hope everyone who hears this message will repeat it to a family member during the holidays.

People throughout Quebec and Canada should know that, while thinking about giving tax breaks to our sports millionaires, the government is spinning a web in which they hope to catch every taxpayer owing a penny to Revenue Canada, but from which the rich will find it easy to escape, as usual.

I urge the people to use their privilege and make representations to their senators, in the other place, since they will have to rely on their cooperation to railroad such a harmful, vicious and dangerous bill for the people of Quebec and Canada.

Wendy Lill Dartmouth, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-43 on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

Bill C-43 will repeal the Department of National Revenue Act and convert Revenue Canada from a fully accountable government department to an autonomous arm's length business oriented agency. The proposed legislation, Bill C-43, sets out new powers of the minister, the structure of the new agency and its authority over all matters relating personnel management, contracting, organization, the prescription of user fees, general administrative policy and real and intellectual property. In addition, the agency is given authority on legislation which for most other federal departments and agencies is vested in the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission. For instance, the agency will have full authority to enter into agreements with its bargaining units.

The objects of the agency reflect the current mandate of Revenue Canada such as customs services and trade administration, tax administration, for example the GST, and the delivery of social and economic benefits for provinces and the federal government.

The New Democratic Party opposes the passage of Bill C-43 and has since it initial introduction. Why do we oppose Bill C-43? We believe the creation of the customs and revenue agency would for all intents and purposes be an abdication of political power. We believe the agency is the largest Liberal Trojan horse for privatization. Revenue Canada's 40,000 employees make up about 20% of the federal public service. The move would involve the transfer of more than $2 billion in annual parliamentary estimates. This is way beyond the concept of delivering better services. It is part of the government's drive to privatize and downsize the public service in the name of cost cutting. The government glorifies the role of private sector appointees and seems to think the public sector can only run on private sector principles. The government would also take credit for slashing expenditures by $2.2 billion.

We believe it is appalling that the control of tax collection which is an historical prerogative of the state is abandoned by stealth to the private sector. Even the most right wing economists and classical philosophers such as Adam Smith and John Locke acknowledge that collecting taxes is the raison d'être of the state. Even Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl, both champions of privatization, never went so far as to privatize their tax agencies.

The NDP opposes a single privatized tax collection agency for political reasons as well. The government is moving toward an independent agency without the support of the four major provinces. Nor does it have the support of the majority of its workers. The major stakeholders are not buying into this idea. The majority of public service workers oppose the concept of the independent agency and stress that there is no valid reason for it. There is no firm support by the provinces for a single taxation agency. The federal government has reached no agreement with the provinces, not even a non-binding letter of intent.

Ontario, Quebec and P.E.I. are firmly opposed to Bill C-43. B.C. and Saskatchewan have not endorsed the concept. Alberta has supported the concept of an independent agency for ideological reasons. While Alberta does not have a sales tax and administers its own programs, there is a fading possibility that it might sign on the administration of its provincial income tax to the agency.

While Mr. McKenna's New Brunswick supported the concept, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have not bought into the concept but are bound by their tax administration agreements to the federal government and are unwilling to cede further authority. It is clear that all provinces generally see the agency as an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

Canadian businesses have major reservations about the proposed agency. The public policy forum study commissioned by Revenue Canada found that 40% of businesses surveyed by the PPF saw no advantage to a single tax collection agency. Sixty-eight per cent thought that a single tax agency would either increase their compliance costs or have no impact at all. The NDP opposes the creation of a single privatized tax collection agency as well for economic reasons. There is no valid case for an independent agency. The government claims that the agency will bring about significant cost savings or stronger partnership with the provinces. These are at best exaggerated.

For example, the economic rationale for the proposed agency originated in 1996. It was seen as a means of administering the planned harmonized sales tax that would blend the federal GST and provincial sales tax. The idea was originally set up so that the Prime Minister could keep his promise to harmonize tax and hide the GST. The agency's biggest savings were to come from the harmonization which is a non-starter in all but three of the Atlantic provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The initial plans for a federal-provincial council on tax administration were quietly dropped from the original agency proposal.

Harmonization occurred in three of the Atlantic provinces while Revenue Canada was a department. The overwhelming unpopularity of the HST in the Atlantic provinces has eliminated any talks of further extending it to the rest of Canada. Canadian taxpayers are asked to support the creation of a new layer of bureaucracy in the hope that the provinces might participate.

Both the auditor general and internal Revenue Canada reports confirm that the government has lost billions of dollars because of unaudited tax statements due to a shortage of qualified auditors. The Provincial Institute of the Public Service of Canada estimated that over $2 billion of tax revenue was lost in 1997-98 alone. The federal Liberal government gutted the civil service workforce, inflicted a six year tax freeze to the survivors and allowed executive managers an increase in compensation of up to 19%.

It now has the gall to say it needs an independent agency to afford hiring qualified auditors. Nothing prevents the government from hiring these auditors now. The cost of hiring these auditors is ridiculously low compared to the billions of losses in tax revenues and to the lethal blows inflicted on the morale of civil servants and thereby on the public in general.

The government is jeopardizing the careers and stability of 40,000 civil servants, the cost of which will be far exceeding the tax and cost savings estimated at $116 million to $193 million for Canadian business and $37 million to $62 million in administration costs for all governments.

The agency is an excuse to cut out workers and inflate executive salaries, a worst case scenario for the civil service. Professor Vern Krishna, head of the CGA tax research centre, University of Ottawa, stated that these executive salaries could double or triple. The 40,000 employees moving to the agency will be considered to have transferred outside the federal public service and receive reasonable job offers with only a two year employment guarantee.

The plans to exclude the agency from the Public Service Employment Act and establish it under the Public Service Staff Relations Act means that employees will lose job security and the right to negotiate staffing and classification matters. Thousands of Revenue Canada employees will likely pay the price with their jobs, as this was the case in Australia.

Employees of the agency will have no guarantee to the same right of third party redress as other public service employees in case of non-disciplinary demotion or termination. Details of the recourse mechanisms are not available and are not provided by the legislation.

The agency will impose user fees for specific services, for example services that provide a specific benefit to service recipients. The agency has every incentive to slap on user fees because unlike revenues from tax proceedings that have been paid into general revenues, the proceeds can be accumulated. Tax collection is big business in Canada and this has the potential for abuse.

The agency has the potential to attract more business by provinces and municipalities that will turn over to the agency's administration more taxes and programs, including a property tax and even payroll taxes such as workers compensation. This is a lose-lose situation for jobs and will result in downsizing of administrative and collection departments at the expense of provincial and municipal civil servants.

The NDP opposes Bill C-43 for philosophical, ethical and economic reasons. We believe Bill C-43 is both bad legislation and dangerous legislation. To borrow from a slogan which we have used regarding banks, we need a better taxation system, not a bigger, privatized tax collection system. Canadians need a better taxation system to move us into the 21st century, a taxation system which is fair and equitable for all. For all these reasons the NDP will be voting against Bill C-43.

Scott Brison Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to Bill C-43.

The issue of cost savings is the one that has been trumpeted by the government most vociferously, that the government can save $171 million to $285 million in compliance costs and also savings of $97 million to $162 million in administrative costs to the taxpayers with this new Revenue Canada tax agency if all the provinces sign on to it.

That is a very big if, because the fact is the government has not been successful in achieving the agreement or the buy-in of the province to date despite significant lobbying efforts by the federal government. The track record of the government in this area has not been that successful. For instance, only three provinces have signed on to the concept of a blended sales tax, those being in Atlantic Canada, one of which is Nova Scotia which I represent.

The Canadian Federation of Taxpayers believes there will be no major savings to the government by implementing Bill C-43 to create this new Revenue Canada tax agency.

At a time when we should be focusing on tax reform, on reducing the level of taxation and also in creating a fairer, flatter tax code that actually enables Canadians to compete globally, we are spending an inordinate amount of time focusing on the logistics, on the minutia of tax collection, finding out better ways of plucking the goose.

We have significant difficulties with this piece of legislation. We have the risk of the amount of very personal, private information concentrated in a new arms' length agency that will not have the same direct linkage to parliamentarians that it does today.

We have a difficulty with the fact that this heavy handed approach of the federal government on any number of issues continues to violate the principles of federal-provincial relations. At a time when provincial governments like Ontario are speaking about wanting more access to the levers, the government is looking to create more or larger mega agencies to effectively control the processes of government. At a time when Canadians are looking for greater accountability this agency will provide less accountability.

The biggest risk we have with the creation of this agency is the potential to create an IRS type tax agency that will be less impeded when it goes after Canadians. Currently there are significant concerns that Canadians have right now with Revenue Canada and the collection processes and the enforcement processes that Revenue Canada has utilized over the years.

Those processes have improved over the last several years largely due to political pressure from elected representatives in the House, largely due as well to measures by former minister of national revenue Perrin Beatty with his taxpayer bill of rights which led the way to ensuring Canadians had more enshrined rights in defending themselves against Revenue Canada. Some of those principles are also being promoted by the Reform Party currently in some of its motions and recommendations. We are supporting those motions and recommendations which originated with the Conservative revenue critic and eventually a Conservative minister of revenue.

The government has not articulated in a convincing way the benefits to Canadians of this new agency. There are risks and there is a down side to this agency. We are not convinced of the government's validity and ingenuousness in promoting the benefits or what the benefits are.

The government speaks euphemistically about the importance the human resource factor has in its decision. It speaks about how human resources cannot be maximized under the current civil service. The government is actually talking about unions. It says it is not capable of working with the public service in Canada and the unions.

At a time when government should be a standard bearer in labour relations and at a time when a government should be demonstrating to Canadian companies how to work with labour and how to develop policies that encourage productivity and forward thinking and co-operative effort between management and labour, the government is saying that it is not possible.

Chrysler Canada has as a member of its board a representative of the CAW. In the U.S. automobile industry members of the boards of the big three are from the unions. This government is saying “We cannot work with the public service. We are willing to take all these risks because we are willing to abdicate responsibility for effective labour management and to offload that to an arm's length agency”.

Governments should be setting an example in this area because labour relations is a cornerstone of productivity. Good labour relations can help demonstrate to all Canadian businesses how they can become more productive. We should not be surprised that the government is taking a hands off approach to productivity issues. The Minister of Industry has said high taxes actually encourage productivity. There has never been a statement of economic illiteracy as profound as that. This is a government whose minister responsible for the economic strategy and industrial strategy of the country believes high taxes actually help productivity. It is little wonder the government cannot wrap its mind around the concept of positive labour relations as a cornerstone of productivity.

It is little wonder the government does not accept its role in both the secular decline of the Canadian dollar over the past several years and, more specifically, the 9% decline in the Canadian dollar over the last several months, 30% of which is due to productivity that is lagging in Canada behind our trading partners and behind the other OECD countries.

I will speak about the Canadian dollar and the relationship of the government's decision on Bill C-43 and the idea of government being unable to harness the power over the public service and has seemed to improve productivity in the public service. It is directly related to the Canadian dollar because a large component, and perhaps some would say too large, of the Canadian GDP is government related. If we do not get our minds around creating a more productive and efficient public service as opposed to trying to offload those responsibilities to arm's length agencies and specifically to the private sector, we will continue to wallow behind our trading partners in areas that are very important like productivity.

On the dollar issue, I know the Prime Minister thinks it is probably a good thing. He says it will increase tourism, which actually represents 1% of our GDP. He is spending too much time golfing and not enough time governing.

The fact is that a low dollar does not benefit anybody. In the short term there may be some minute benefits to Canadian exporters. In the long term, however, we cannot devalue our way to prosperity.

When lagging productivity within the public service is acting as an albatross around productivity levels for all Canadians, this is a time when the government should be embracing the opportunity to take this department, Revenue Canada, which represents about 20% of the public service of Canada, and revolutionize the delivery of service within that department.

This is a time when the government should be setting an example. Instead the government is putting its hands up in the air and saying “We give up. We can't do that. We are willing to risk the downsides of this agency. We are willing to risk the creation of an IRS type of agency that can run rampant over Canadian taxpayers simply because we lack the intestinal fortitude and the creativity to create good labour relations within our own government”.

This is the same government that has referred to a tribunal the pay equity issue and now it is backtracking on its commitment to abide by what the tribunal said. It is no wonder that our pubic service is at an all time low in terms of morale levels.

My cousin was headed for the public administration department at Dalhousie University. We have had discussions over the years about the similarities of public administration programs and business administration programs. Many of the same skill sets are taught in both business administration and public administration schools.

The difference is that there are some people who have a certain public ethic who want to be part of the public service, who want to serve their country and who want to participate in a positive, forward thinking public service that provides the best service to Canadians. It is those people who are being let down by a government that refuses to work co-operatively with the unions.

This is a government that refuses to create a sense of co-operation, proactivity and productivity that can lead the public service and set an example for all private sector entities in Canada that can lead Canadian productivity rates upward as we enter the 21st century.

I must say that I am not only frustrated with this legislation, I am also frustrated with the haste with which this government is pushing this flawed legislation through the House of Commons.

This bill represents legislation which would dismantle 20% of the public service of the country, yet Canadians are hardly aware of it. Canadians have not been consulted about it. There has been some lip service paid to it and the minister has travelled throughout the country and talked to some people. To my knowledge, as recently as a few weeks ago, the minister has yet to sit down to have a face to face meeting with the minister of finance of Ontario. Ontario being the largest province in the country in terms of population, it would certainly make sense for the minister of revenue to sit down with the minister of finance of Ontario to discuss a change in public policy of this magnitude. But in fact the minister has not had a face to face meeting with the minister of finance of Ontario.

There has been no real public consultation on this incredible sweeping change. There has been no discussion. There has been no cross-country consultation by the finance committee or a sub-committee of the finance committee. That is what we have suggested. We suggested that at committee. We suggested that in this House.

That is the kind of consultation Canadians are looking for. Canadians are looking for greater transparency in all of the institutions that represent them, including the institution of parliament and the institution of government.

A systemic abuse of power pervades this government. Its members feel that if they have an idea it is obviously right and that Canadians, whether they like it or not, are going to get it. What this government has not realized is the degree to which Canadians have evolved over the past 30 years, largely due to things such as the Internet and the education system.

Canadians have access to the same information now that we do as parliamentarians. In fact, Canadians who are utilizing the Internet and utilizing the worldwide web have access to more information than many parliamentarians in this House today.

Thirty years ago we may have been judged based on the information that Canadians did not have. I would not have been judged because I was only one year old and it would have been difficult to get elected at that point. However, 30 years ago parliamentarians may have been judged based on the information they had because they had access to more information than Canadians.

Today, in an age where Canadians have access to the same information, we are going to be judged based on the quality of the decisions we make with that information. Canadians, in fact, want input on that decision making process at a rate that is unprecedented. Canadians want in. They want to participate in these types of important decisions.

It is absolutely unconscionable that the government is pushing ahead with legislation that will impact the lives of Canadians as dramatically as this legislation will without actually consulting Canadians and telling them the truth about the gravity of this decision.

I call again on this government to do what is right and to engage the finance committee. It should not treat the finance committee as a branch of the ministry of finance or the ministry of revenue. It should go back to the model used by the previous Conservative government where Don Blenkarn led a finance committee that had autonomy. It actually disagreed with the government periodically. It actually did what committees were supposed to do, and that is to stand up for Canadians.

I call on this government to stop its haste and pressure and bullying opposition members into agreeing with its decisions and to start engaging Canadians and giving Canadians some input to ensure that the decisions we make as parliament, that the decisions we make as individual members of parliament and as caucuses reflect the views and the needs of Canadians.

We will not be supporting Bill C-43. I would hope that this government would reconsider not just this legislation, but its style and arrogance on any piece of legislation it has been ramming through this House and pushing down the throats of Canadians.

Gilles-A. Perron Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about the remarks made by my colleague from Kings—Hants and to ask him a question.

He said he is a new member of Parliament, and we appreciate that and congratulate him. He expressed frustration over the way the government rammed Bill C-43 through the House by using a gag order. He is asking the government to go back to the public for renewed consultations.

Here is my question: Does he think that these renewed consultations will be similar to those being held by the finance committee, and that despite all the money and energy we put into listening to those who come to testify and to table briefs, all this will be ignored? We see no trace of those consultations in the budgets tabled by the finance minister. What is the use of consultations if all the results are being shelved?

That was my question and I would like to hear the hon. member's answer.

Scott Brison Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that very important question. He is quite right that the committee structure as it stands now in this Canadian Parliament, under this government, has strayed significantly from what was intended.

It was intended as a means by which independent members, private members, could work together in a non-partisan way to gauge and to receive the views of Canadians and then to discuss those views as well as the expert advice of individuals who have intrinsic knowledge in these areas and then to develop policies.

The difficulty with the current structure is that the committees are being operated, by and large, as branches of the ministers' offices. They were not intended for that purpose.

We spend our time travelling throughout the country, putting on a charade for Canadians and pretending that their views are going to be taken seriously. Then we come back after weeks and weeks of travel, after hearing hundreds of Canadians, and we devote, as we did yesterday, two hours to the discussion on a draft report written by members of the research staff. To their credit, they have been working very hard and they deserve a lot of credit for their hard work in the finance committee.

If we devote weeks and weeks to listen to Canadians, and then devote two hours for a discussion on those recommendations, it is a sham.

We have seen a secular decline in the role of the MP. We have seen an emasculation of MPs since the late 1960s in this House. It is time, as the hon. member suggested, that private members have an opportunity to contribute to the fullest of their abilities and to actually participate in the creation of public policy.

The best vehicle for that is through the committees. They should be allowed to work in the way that they were initially designed and in the way they worked under the previous Conservative government under committee chairs like Don Blenkarn.

Werner Schmidt Kelowna, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from across the way for his remarks. I concur with some of the points he has made, in particular with regard to the arrogance of the Prime Minister and the arrogance of the minister imposing this new structure on the people.

I think the Minister of National Revenue indicated he had not been successful in getting the co-operation of the premiers to do this, partly because he is not providing any safeguards.

The point my hon. colleague made a moment ago about the common sense of the people and listening to what they have to say is significant and I commend him for that.

Could the member outline how we could get a true picture of what the people think? As well, could he suggest how we could get some sort of true, honest to goodness co-operation among the federal government, the minister and the premiers of the provinces? Finally, how can we ensure that some of the privacy violations that have taken place in the past will not be perpetrated again by this new agency?