House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
Cigarette Taxes February 8th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, we have not heard from tobacco companies. We really do not think this is necessary. Export taxes are a rather short-term measure. We are well aware that if the other measures are successful, the federal government may not get a lot of revenue out of that tax, which is aimed at reducing exports of Canadian cigarettes intended to be smuggled back into the country later. This short-term tax will be in effect in the weeks to come; it is not a long-term measure.
Border Crossings February 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I can assure him that because of a number of savings that have come about as a result of automation we have been able to put a large amount of resources, approximately $13 million, into computer and electronic surveillance equipment for our customs officers at border crossings.
In addition, I can tell him that through reorganization again we have the possibility of increasing the number of people at customs stations, so we will in fact have a larger number using
better equipment to reduce the number of abducted children that cross the border, and also deal with other elements such as terrorists, criminals or others who attempt to cross the Canadian-American border and other borders, and of course at airports.
I would specifically like to mention, as he has, that the programs for missing children are working effectively, but we need the support of the public in making sure that we have the maximum amount of information available so we can in fact use our automatic systems for licence plates and other such things and make sure that the numbers of missing children and abducted children who are recovered is increased.
Cigarette Smuggling February 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it is true that in hypothetical situations, we can have hypothetical answers to hypothetical problems. However, we still do not know what we will do. We do not know all the steps the government will take, that will be announced by the Prime Minister tomorrow. As to what can happen at the border between Ontario and Quebec, I cannot give a good answer because it is a hypothetical situation.
Cigarette Smuggling February 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Ontario premier has made statements on this matter and that he has proposed an export tax on Canadian cigarettes, but I do not agree with him on this point.
This alone would not solve our current smuggling problem. We need something much more effective than what the premier has proposed, and I am sure that we will have more details on this tomorrow, as the Prime Minister just said.
Department Of National Revenue Act February 4th, 1994
moved that Bill C-2, an act to amend the Department of National Revenue Act and amend certain other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-2. Revenue Canada plays a fundamental role in supporting Canada's social and economic well-being. The Department performs this role by enforcing Canadian law and sovereignty at our borders, administering international trade agreements, collecting revenue and redistributing funds to low and modest income Canadians.
Due to the wide diversity of these activities, Revenue Canada touches the lives of Canadians every day-whether they be taxpayers, travellers, small businesses owners and employers or members of large corporations.
For example, among the department's client groups are 150,000 large importers and exporters, 131 million travellers, and 22 million individual tax filers.
This interaction and scope has Revenue Canada in a unique position to understand what Canadians want; to know as well that Canadians want Revenue Canada to find new and better ways of doing business. I am sure everyone in this House wants less red tape and bureaucracy and businesses in particular want a lower overall compliance burden so that the Canadian business sector can be more successful in the marketplace.
As a government, we have made a commitment to all Canadians that we will provide them with an administration that is efficient, innovative, co-operative and fair. Canadians agree with us that overlap, duplication, a lack of co-ordinated policies in this country have placed a growing financial burden on the shoulders of the taxpayers. To this end, reduced administrative costs, less red tape and improved service delivery are vital objectives of Revenue Canada.
Because the current Department of National Revenue Act provides for one minister but two separate departments and two separate infrastructures, this represents an impediment to the optimal delivery of programs and services for Canadians. For this reason, I am today speaking in support of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Department of National Revenue Act.
The proposed amendments are administrative in nature and are designed to consolidate, in law, the previously separate components of customs and excise on the one hand and taxation on the other. Consequently they will permit Revenue Canada to operate and efficiently function from one single infrastructure.
The amendments are consistent with the government's objective to provide efficient administration through the streamlining of process and the elimination of duplication.
I wish to point out that the mandate of the Minister of National Revenue will remain the same and that the integrity of departmental programs will not be compromised with this administrative consolidation.
On the contrary, administrative consolidation will permit Revenue Canada to use resources more effectively and to build on the strength of its components. Thus it will enhance the department's ability to carry out its responsibilities for all Canadians.
It will also allow the department to better co-ordinate revenue administration activities with the provinces. This is a very important objective of this government. Administrative efficiency and the elimination of duplication are points contained in our party's election platform. This commitment was confirmed in last December's meeting of finance and first ministers and was repeated in the recent speech from the throne.
As an example, shared information and co-ordinated investigation efforts will strengthen enforcement programs directed at smuggling, illegal trade, revenue generation and the underground economy. It will mean better protection in regions such
as British Columbia against drug smuggling and better protection, we hope, in the regions of Ontario and Quebec from cigarette smuggling.
Revenue Canada will be more accessible to its many clients and will provide a broader range of information, services and a one stop shopping process through the network of customs, excise and taxation offices.
In Alberta, for example, this will result in our clients being able to do business at all 12 locations of Revenue Canada rather than at separate taxation, separate customs and separate GST offices.
Overhead costs can be reduced by combining common support services sharing administrative resources and systems and eliminating duplication, where it makes sense to do so.
The goal is to do business more effectively. Revenue Canada wants to capitalize on the benefits and opportunities to be gained through administrative consolidation.
Through administrative consolidation, we are able to invest in the primary automated lookout system in, for example, the Windsor area in Ontario, and are therefore better able to protect our borders.
The passage of these amendments will enable Revenue Canada to improve its ability to enhance revenue administration, protect Canadian society, including in Quebec, from illegal entry of people and products, deliver socio-economic programs, and administer international trade agreements.
In short, administrative consolidation will benefit both the government and the millions of clients who deal with Revenue Canada. Departmental savings in time, money and paperwork will be redeployed to enhance program delivery and to provide better service to clients.
As a government we are committed to restoring Canadians' faith in our ability to provide responsive, effective and efficient public administration. I am sure all members of the House agree that no one can afford inefficient government.
Canadians voted for change. We have an obligation and an opportunity to support that change today. As a government, we have promised accountable, responsible and efficient government where Canadians will get value for their tax dollars. These legislative amendments enabling the administration and consolidation of Revenue Canada will help us deliver on that promise and begin the process of regaining the confidence of Canadians in their institutions of government.
In conclusion, I am confident that Revenue Canada is capable of meeting the goals that have been set for it to become the most progressive, innovative and effective revenue administration in the world. In order to start the process to accomplish this, I seek the support of the House and all members in the speedy passage of Bill C-2.
Tobacco Smuggling February 1st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the member's statement regarding the facts of tobacco smuggling and the consumption of smuggled cigarettes in Ontario are essentially correct as far as I can tell.
How would I educate the Ontario minister? I do not know. It is hard with NDP members in that government. We attempted to put the material in front of them which demonstrates that this is a national problem. Quebec may have more of a problem than the province of Ontario, but if anyone in Ontario is of the view that this is a minor problem and strictly one in Quebec, let me say that they are quite wrong. There is a very substantial smuggling problem in Ontario and a very substantial consumption of contraband cigarettes in Ontario particularly by young people.
We must pay attention to these facts as we attempt to develop a strategy for dealing with what is essentially a national problem and not a Quebec problem.
Tobacco January 28th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly correct that the group, Grand River Enterprises, has applied for a licence and that it is under consideration at the present time. They applied on January 7. There was some information lacking. We have asked for more precise details.
I met with the group yesterday. I believe we had a useful and productive meeting. However I am in no position at the present time to announce that a licence will or will not be granted. Within two and a half weeks would be the time I would expect. My officials however assure me these things sometimes take longer than ministers expect. They say it could possibly take a week longer than that.
Department Of National Revenue Act January 24th, 1994
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-2, an act to amend the Department of National Revenue Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Goods And Services Tax January 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, once again I am in the position of essentially agreeing with much that has been said by my hon. friend.
The fact is that this side of the House-and indeed I am sure both sides of the House-as I mentioned two days ago believes tax levels are high and are onerous. We wish to reduce them wherever possible.
In the examination of the replacement for the GST, which as the Prime Minister has indicated will go to a committee of the House, I am quite sure the issue of the level of taxation and its affect upon the willingness of Canadians to pay and willingness to abide by a fair tax system will be discussed by members.
I would suggest to the hon. member that the committee of the House dealing with the replacement for the GST will probably be one of the most important committees of the House. I suggest he put his name forward before he is trampled by his fellow members in the Reform Party.
Goods And Services Tax January 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate a very experienced parliamentarian on his first presentation in this House. May I assure him that I was very pleased to see the Auditor General made clear that many of the criticisms from this side of the House when we were in opposition of the GST were in fact supported by his report.
I would also like to point out that measures have been taken, and I refer particularly to a press release I issued three weeks after assuming my position as minister to the effect that we would enhance enforcement, carry out more audits and have more prosecutions. We will continue to do that and I again am very happy to find that the Auditor General has supported the approach I took back in late November.
I can also assure the member that the amount of money involved is approximately 4 per cent of the total GST amount which is almost comparable to other jurisdictions that have a value added tax of this type. I can assure him that while 31 per cent of the firms and individuals who should be reporting have not done so, many of those individuals are in fact owed money by us and on others there is no question of owing anything at all.
This would explain for the member the discrepancy between a 4 per cent figure and a 31 per cent figure in terms of total numbers.