Gilles-A. Perron

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motions in Group No. 2 before us, which we consider to be nonsense.

First, I would like to express my objection and frustration because by its arrogance, the government has gagged us on this bill. Our time is very limited and we cannot discuss the bill in length.

I would like to know to what extent provinces are favorable to the bill. New Brunswick is the only province suggesting that the bill is worth examining, that it could perhaps create economies of scale. However, before supporting the bill it wants to know what is in it.

We ask ourselves the following question. In order for this bill to be workable, would it be necessary to harmonize all federal tax legislation throughout Canada? If this is the case, what would be the cost? Members will recall that harmonizing the Maritime provincial sales taxes with the federal tax cost $3 billion.

The majority of people who came as witnesses before the finance standing committee were opposed to the bill. Public service union members were opposed to it. And more than 60% of small businesses are against it. Everyone is against it. Yet, with his arrogance, the revenue minister still wants to impose this bill on Quebec and the rest of Canada, when we know full well it is not workable.

There is one another question the revenue minister has not answered and I hope a government member will be able to answer us. How much did the bill's formulating cost us, you, me and the other taxpayers?

As the minister likes to say, “we have created a new vehicle',. This new vehicle is not a Formula 1 race car. This new vehicle will not work.

The revenue department set up 12 committees made up of lots of mandarins who worked on this for months, years even. How much did it cost us taxpayers, just to come up with this utterly useless bill?

There is something else I am wondering about in this bill. It is the position of the commissioner who will head the proposed Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. This person will be appointed by the governor in council. There is a big chance he or she will be a friend of the governing party, someone who has rendered valuables services to the party opposite. He or she will hold office for a term of five years.

How much will the commissioner be paid? What will the annual salary be? Is it possible this person will go to his bosses, the ministers opposite and tell them: “I have as many employees under me and I manage the same amount of money as the president of the Royal Bank, so I should get the same salary he is getting”. That is another absurdity.

The agency will simply be an added layer of bureaucracy. We are the first to admit that the revenue department may not be always up to par, so why add another layer of bureaucracy that will not solve any of the problems we now have with the department, like the auditor general told us this week. We simply do not understand.

The only purpose this agency can serve is to take the 40,000 public servants targeted here and tell them: “We do not need you any more”. The government is simply taking an axe to the Public Service Act under the jurisdiction of the President of the Treasury Board. They are looking for a way to say—and it will never happen—that they have cut expenses. It is not true. By creating this new agency, they are only shuffling the money around. There will be fewer employees, but the agency's staff will be better paid. We are getting four quarters for a dollar, as they say.

That is why I am so vigorously opposed to this agency. We simply do not understand why it is being established. What is its purpose? Why does the government want to create this agency? They already created agencies like Nav Canada, ADM, the food inspection agency and the brand new Canadian wheat agency and, to date, none of these agencies are working. So why set up another one?

We are strongly against the creation of this agency, because we care about the well-being of all Canadians and most particularly about the well-being of Quebeckers. I urge all of the provinces to stand up and clearly tell the government: “This is not what we want. As provincial governments, we want to be able to collect taxes and hand Ottawa its share”.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois and I are strongly opposed to this bill.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 205

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 2.