Libby Davies

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I am surprised when we are told that this is simply a vehicle for creating options and that it is a pretty soft approach and we should not worry about it.

I think there has to be an acknowledgement that there have been serious concerns raised about this proposal. If it is simply a vehicle for creating options and choices then where are the provinces lined up all raring for this to go? That does not appear to be evident. It is quite the contrary. There is opposition. There are serious doubts about whether this, as the minister has said, would simplify and streamline the system. What does that mean?

What is the downside of that, what are the costs of creating a massive new bureaucracy that allegedly will simplify and streamline the collection of these revenues?

I reiterate that there are questions of accountability raised by the provinces and by experts in the field who are still saying to the government that there needs to be further review and there needs to further work before this proposal is moved on.

I do not think the minister can escape the reality that the provinces are not lining up at the door to move ahead with this proposal. On the contrary, they are casting doubt and they have many questions and concerns about this proposal which I think should cause the government to go back to square one, back to its advisory committees or whatever processes are in place to look at the fundamentals of this bill and look at where it went wrong.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on behalf of the NDP caucus on Bill C-43. I would like to say at the outset that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle outlined very well why members of the NDP are opposed to this bill.

This is a very significant bill that the House is debating today. It deals with the importance of the national collection of taxes and revenue in Canada. Certainly from the government perspective, from the House of Commons perspective, this is probably the fundamental purpose we are here, to ensure there is a fair and equitable collection system as well as a process and formula whereby we do collect taxes from the Canadian people.

From the public point of view this is also a very significant issue. If we talk to Canadians about the taxation system, people obviously do not like paying taxes but I think Canadians understand that the process of doing that is something that must be transparent. It is something that must have a measure of accountability because it really is the most fundamental purpose and issue of why we are here in this House. From that point of view this bill is very important.

The issue arises then as to whether or not this bill is good public policy or whether it takes us in another direction. Having examined the bill and having looked at the various commentaries about this bill, I and my colleagues have come to the conclusion that this bill represents bad public policy. I would like to give a number of reasons why we have come to this conclusion.

First of all the bill is premised on the fact that bigger is better. When we look at the provisions that are contained in Bill C-43, it is quite alarming and scary to think that this bill, if it is approved by this House, will put into motion a mega tax collection agency in Canada that will go from the national to the provincial and even the municipal levels.

This agency could be in a position where it ends up collecting provincial sales taxes, gasoline taxes, liquor taxes, municipal property taxes and on and on. It raises the question of do we want this mega tax agency to be involved with such concentration in collecting taxes across the country?

I come from a municipal background. I understand as do other municipal representatives that the people of Canada, whether they are voting at the municipal, provincial or federal levels, believe very much in the old adage of no taxation without representation.

I know at the municipal level when decisions are made about municipal taxes, and the same is true at the provincial and federal levels, that there is an expectation that elected representatives are accountable for the decisions they make. That is not only decisions in terms of process and where taxes are spent, but also how taxes are collected.

One of the very alarming measures and proposals in this bill is it creates this mega tax agency and we will lose the sense of accountability at other levels of government in terms of tax collection. This is something we should be seriously concerned about.

The NDP believes very strongly in a strong federal government. In terms of national unity, in terms of what it is that holds Canada together, we believe there have to be national standards. It may seem contradictory that on this issue we are arguing against some kind of national agency that collects taxes from even other levels of government. I think the difference here is that because taxation is something that is involved in different levels of government, it is really important that those levels of government be responsible not just for the decisions they make but also for their tax collection and the accountability for that.

From that point of view we are very concerned about the rationale put forward in this bill that bigger is better. It leaves us open to all kinds of abuses. It leaves us open to a distance in terms of decisions that are made and the accountability that needs to be held.

Dealing with the issue of accountability, as a member of parliament, like other MPs, a lot of my case work in my constituency involves Revenue Canada. We get queries and complaints from constituents who feel lost in the maze of Revenue Canada. One of the fundamental concerns I have about this bill and I hope that other members of the House would have about this bill is that we lose the sense of accountability.

At the end of the day it is we as members of this House who have to provide the role of watchdog and monitor what happens in Revenue Canada or any other federal government department. I hold that responsibility for my constituents. I try to do the best I can when they raise complaints and concerns about Revenue Canada or any other department. That is a hard enough job, but it is a role we hold in this House and I believe that members take that role seriously.

What concerns me about Bill C-43 is that the government is poised to create a super agency that will now have a greater distance in terms of the relationship of the minister. It sets up sort of a private sector board and no doubt there will be Liberal appointees on it. It takes us one step further from the accountability that comes from this House of Commons and the members who are here in terms of providing that role of monitoring Revenue Canada.

For those reasons alone we should be speaking out against the creation of this super agency. We want to have departments and operations of the government that are fully accountable to the Parliament of Canada. I think there is enough in this bill to cause us concern that that will not be the case if this bill is approved.

There are also some very serious concerns around issues to do with personal privacy. When I talk to my constituents in the riding, one of the issues that comes up continually is people's concern about the loss of privacy involving government operations. This is something that comes up in dealing with departments and government operations, such as Revenue Canada. I know that others as well have raised this as a concern.

The bill is creating this super agency of tax collection and concentrating the powers in a massive bureaucracy. It will have such wide sweeping powers for collection, potentially at every level of government. That is what the aim is of this bill and of the mandate that is being put before us. What will be eroded is an individual's right to privacy and confidentiality as people find themselves dealing with a huge bureaucracy where information, perhaps inadvertently or through whatever process, may end up in the wrong hands. That is another reason why we should be very concerned about the creation of this agency.

A little while ago in the debate we heard one of the government members give some of the reasons that the government believes this tax collection agency is a good thing. One of the reasons cited was that there would be greater savings. We were told that there will be less overlap. We were told there is one taxpayer so why not one agency. We were told that there will be increased participation by the provinces.

When one looks at this bill and at the dangers that are inherent in the creation of this super agency, I think the alleged benefits that are created become very suspect. I doubt that there will be greater savings. Even the work that has been done so far has created costs but the creation of new layers of bureaucracy in terms of this super agency is something that is costing us money. However, if there are greater savings, then I think we have to ask at what cost. At what cost in terms of the privacy loss that may be involved and in terms of the lack and lessening of accountability that will accrue as we move into this one agency.

Those are very serious issues that we have to debate in this House and challenge the government to answer. So far it has not provided answers to the questions that have been raised.

In terms of overlap and duplication, I would again like to express the concerns that we on this side of the House have about this mega agency becoming all-encompassing. We will lose the sense of accountability.

We have also been told that provincial governments are very much in favour of the potential cost savings and in handing over the collection to this mega agency. When we look at the record, as my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle outlined, we can see that there are two major provinces with major populations that are opposed to this agency. Now there are other provinces particularly in western Canada that are expressing concerns. There is a lot of doubt that there will be any sign on as envisioned by the government.

The proposition is being put forward that this is a sold thing and that it is well on its way, but from day one this proposal has been in trouble. I think a lot of doubt has been created and some of it has come from the provinces.

Another issue that should cause us concern is the prospect that this agency will have the ability to levy user fees. This is something that has not come out very much and something which is not well understood. It is very important for us to understand that if this bill is approved and this agency is set up, it would have the potential to bring in user fees for certain client services.

We have to examine that very carefully and see the warning signals of what that means. We look at that kind of measure along the lines of privatization. Privatization and user fees go hand in hand.

This brings me to my next concern, the massive privatization of Revenue Canada. Something like 40,000 workers are involved. Most of the unions that are involved in Revenue Canada have been very opposed to this proposal. It is easy for the government or other opposition parties to discount the comments of the workers at Revenue Canada or any other government department and say “Well, they just have a vested interest and we should not consider seriously what they have to say”.

Over the years I have learned that people who work on the front line, who understand the operation intimately of any department, whether Revenue Canada, the pension plan, EI or whatever, have very valid legitimate things to say. They have the real experience of what makes a department work.

When we hear from the representation of workers in Revenue Canada that they have serious concerns about the privatization of this agency it sounds a warning bell to members of the House of Commons to take serious note. We should consider their arguments. We are not in favour of privatization. The NDP believes strongly that these core government services should remain as departments of the government. They should be accountable to the House of Commons. Look at Canada Post and the relationship that has deteriorated between the people of Canada, the customers, and the corporation. One need only look at other privatized services to see the sense of distrust that develops.

Again this becomes a very strong reason why we should reject this bill and say that this is taking us down the wrong road. We do not want to go down the road of privatization. We want to ensure that this department remains within government services, that it is clearly mandated, that there is accountability to the House so that we do not end up in a scenario of user fees where this agency is used to pressure, for example, the harmonized sales tax.

We know from day one that one of the purposes of this agency was to promote that kind of idea. The fact is that idea fell flat. It was a resounding failure in the maritimes. With the creation of this agency under Bill C-43 the potential exists that there will be pressure from this agency to move ahead with the harmonized sales tax which Canadians are increasingly rejecting.

Within the financial community there has been debate about this bill. People have looked at the proposal and have tried to decide whether there actually is a public benefit, whether there are economic reasons for moving ahead at this, whether there are public policy reasons for moving ahead with this, whether this is in the interests of Canadian taxpayers.

It has been very clear that even the auditor general has expressed concerns about this proposal. This was raised in the auditor general's report of December 1997. He asked how Canadians and parliamentarians will have assurances that the public interest is protected. That is a very good question. How will we be provided with that assurance? The government has not given us any indication or substantial answer that the creation of this super agency will protect the public interest, that Canadians will be better off under this proposal.

We also have comments from other people. For example, Professor Vern Krishna from the University of Ottawa's CGA taxation research centre asked what really are the benefits. He clearly raised a number of doubts about the real public benefits of moving ahead with this.

This is the kind of bill that is not on the front pages of the newspapers. It is not on the national news at night. Nevertheless, it is a significant proposal. It has been a long time in the works. It is a proposal that has gone wrong. It is a proposal that does not serve the public interest. It is a proposal that raises serious questions about accountability of what is a core function of the federal government and other governments.

At the end of the day I and other members of my caucus believe that when it comes to taxes and revenue collection we have to ensure there is a clear line of responsibility and accountability.

For us that means saying no to privatization. It means saying no to user fees and it means saying we believe in a system that ensures a responsibility and an involvement of local governments. That means saying no to a mega organization, a mega new bureaucracy that will be more distant from this House, more distant from members of parliament, more distant from the Canadian public. For those reasons we are opposed to Bill C-43.

[Apec Summit, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for a Prime Minister who talks so much about human rights, his actions in Vancouver speak louder than words. Students opposed to APEC were detained without cause, violently attacked and are expected to defend themselves with neither funding nor support against a battalion of backroom government lawyers.

Will the Prime Minister and the government do the right thing and provide the legal representation for students attacked at APEC?

[Apec Summit, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Today we heard how Canada brought honour to itself as a leader in the battle to end apartheid, a system deplored for its violent contempt of human rights. But at APEC the Prime Minister brought dishonour when he trampled on the rights of Canadian students to welcome a dictator deplored for his contempt of both human rights and human life.

Will the government come clean on APEC and reassure the young people of Canada that we are a defender, not an abuser, of human rights?

[Southeast Asia, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from Indonesia and Thailand on a mission led by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation to see the impact of the Asian financial crisis on the people who live there.

The impact is catastrophic. Families are desperate, reeling from massive unemployment and skyrocketing food prices. And for many, the last threads of hope are rapidly unwinding.

Upon our return we called on the government to fundamentally change its role in global economic management. The World Bank and IMF's prescription is disastrous. These institutions must be completely overhauled to ensure that the forces of globalization create equity and serve the needs of people.

Instead of using pepper spray to stifle students protesting APEC in Vancouver, instead of ignoring the cries of hunger from citizens around the world who are paying the consequences of global capital gone berserk, this government must end its complicity with the financial power brokers and champion global reform to alleviate poverty and environmental degradation.

[Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a whole stack of reports has documented what too many Canadians already know as a daily reality. Poverty is increasing in Canada.

The latest report of the National Council of Welfare paints a devastating picture similar to other reports from Campaign 2000, the Canadian Council on Social Development and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

I have raised this serious matter many times in the House and pointed out that while the Minister of Finance talks about growing economic optimism millions of Canadians are desperate as a result of high unemployment, low wages and lower welfare rates.

Cuts to social assistance, education, health care and EI only make matters worse. The information from the National Council of Welfare report is a condemnation of the government's record. It shows that the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing. Three billion dollars have been slashed since 1996 and poor people are paying the price. Some 5.2 million Canadians are living below the poverty line. They stand in food line-ups, homeless and raising kids on welfare that keeps them in poverty.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has drawn attention to this government made travesty. The chief commissioner pointed out in her 1997 annual report that the Canadian Human Rights Act made no mention of poverty and did not include social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination. She went on to say that in the broader context poverty was a serious breach of equality rights which she believed had no place in a country as prosperous as ours.

Also she said that it was difficult to argue that poverty was not a human rights issue given the devastating impact it had on people's lives and that we must not forget that article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated that everyone had a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services.

I have introduced a motion in the House that would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include social conditions as a grounds for being prohibited from discrimination.

Will the government take action to reduce poverty by setting targets that are achievable? Will the government admit that the too often announced child tax benefit falls far short of being an anti-poverty strategy? It eliminates the benefit to families on welfare. It is not indexed. It has more to do with keeping wages low and unemployment high.

All this is taking place in an environment of media and political attacks on the poor. Just last week the Reform Party member at the human resource development committee launched into an attack against poor people.

We need political leadership from the government and all political parties to agree that unemployment and poverty are serious matters crying out for change in government policies.

We need a fair taxation system. We need proper income distribution. We need corporations to pay the billions of dollars in deferred income taxes. We need the government to restore our social programs. We need to set targets to aggressively reduce unemployment and poverty.

[Bank Act, May 13th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as the post-secondary education critic for the NDP I have tried to do my best to press the federal government on concerns about post-secondary education and the crisis we are facing.

In question period about a week ago I questioned the government about the skyrocketing tuition fees and deregulation which is causing a two tier educational system in Canada. I pointed out to the government that the Americanization and the privatization of post-secondary education is directly as a result of the gutting of federal funding.

I was shocked by the response from the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, who suggested I speak to my colleagues in the Government of British Columbia to deal with the issue of skyrocketing tuition fees. I was shocked at this response because I could not believe a government minister was not aware, especially the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, that in the province of British Columbia we have had a tuition freeze not for one year, not for two years but for three years.

The B.C. government introduced legislation very recently that will continue the tuition freeze until 1999. The government of B.C. is doing this to ensure that post-secondary education is affordable and accessible. The freeze will include tuition fees for graduate, undergraduate, career, technical, vocational and developmental programs. It also freezes mandatory ancillary fees that could increase the cost of tuition, including such items as library registration or laboratory fees.

I point this out because I really find it appalling that the federal government apparently has not a clue what is going on in British Columbia and the leadership that has been taken to ensure that post-secondary education is still accessible. This tuition freeze will ensure tuition fees of B.C. are among the lowest in Canada.

In other provinces such as Ontario tuition fees have increased by 20% in recent years and enrolment has declined. But B.C. has increased funding to post-secondary education despite the massive cutbacks by the federal government, a 20% increase, $39 million for this year alone. Even today in British Columbia the government announced that it is removing tuition fees completely for adult basic education.

I want to set the record straight and call on the government to issue an apology to the B.C. government in alleging and charging that tuition fees in B.C. are skyrocketing. That is the case elsewhere in Canada as a result of the gutting of funds from post-secondary education and that is something that is of huge concern to all of us, particularly to students who are facing a massive debtload. Let us get the facts straight here. I would like to see in the government response today and in future responses government members acknowledging the leadership that B.C. has taken to ensure that post-secondary education is accessible to students.

We are calling on the federal government to demonstrate and to show that same kind of leadership across the country by instituting a national freeze on tuition fees and instituting a national program of grants for students in Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 13th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House to speak about Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. There has been much debate about this bill already in committee and certainly in the House coming out of the budget that was presented. We have heard a lot of discussion about the millennium fund and whether it will improve the situation for post-secondary education.

Having looked at the document in committee where some of this discussion has taken place it is quite clear that post-secondary education is in a very deep crisis. One of the reasons that we are facing a crisis with post-secondary education is the retreat of public funding to our post-secondary educational facilities.

Although we have heard a lot of talk about the millennium fund, this grand fund of $2.5 billion, the reality is this fund will not even begin until the year 2000 and will in reality help only about 7% of students.

By the time the fund begins in the year 2000 we will have experienced cuts of around $3 billion from post-secondary education. So it becomes very clear that the millennium fund does not even come close to replacing and compensating for the massive drain and cuts we have experienced in post-secondary education.

This is causing enormous concern in terms of where public policy is going but also for the impact it is having on the lives of individual students. It is because of the retreat of public funding that tuition fees have skyrocketed. We have seen an increase of 240% in tuition fees over the last 10 years. We have all used the figure that average student debt is now at $25,000.

There is a direct relationship between the pain and the debtload students are facing and the retreat of public funding as a result of a loss of transfers from the federal government to the provincial government. There is absolutely no escaping that fact, and the millennium fund cannot make up and does not make up for the loss we have experienced.

In addition, the other really serious situation that the millennium fund creates is it begins to take us down a slippery slope of privatization.

New Democrats are very concerned that with this foundation, a private foundation being set up which will have representation from corporations in the private sector, there will be less and less control in terms of public administration and public direction of our post-secondary educational facilities.

For that reason alone, this fund should be rejected and we should go back to the drawing board and say that the real issue here is to support publicly administered, publicly accessible post-secondary educational facilities.

We have already seen examples in Canada where the corporate influence on board of governors of universities and colleges and now on this millennium fund is beginning to have an impact on curriculum of deregulation of tuition fees and deregulation of programs. All these things are creating an environment where there is increasing privatization and corporatization of our post-secondary educational system.

The millennium fund is a part of that direction and for that reason must be rejected.

The NDP believes very strongly that we must have an open discussion with the provinces because education is a provincial jurisdiction. Members of the Bloc Quebecois have pointed out very well the huge concerns they have with the millennium fund. It is not only in Quebec. This is echoed across the country in terms of unilateral decisions being taken by the federal government with regard to post-secondary education and the establishment of this private foundation with no consultation whatsoever with provincial jurisdictions.

The NDP believes we need to have leadership from the federal government. It needs to be the kind of leadership done in co-operation and collaboration with provincial jurisdictions to design a national program of national grants that deals with different provincial jurisdictions and different provincial contexts where there is a clear understanding and a principle that accessibility for all students in Canada is a national standard.

The NDP believes that is the starting point of ensuring that our post-secondary education system is protected and strengthened and not destroyed as we have seen over the last few years.

Canada is one of only two OECD countries that do not have a national grant system. We need to ensure federal funding is provided in co-operation with provincial governments to establish a national system of grants.

In my province of British Columbia as well as in the province of Quebec there has been leadership shown in terms of trying to keep education accessible for students even in the face of massive cutbacks.

In British Columbia we are now in the third year of a tuition freeze. That has been very difficult to accomplish given the massive cutbacks we have experienced in transfers from the federal government.

The NDP is calling on the federal government to show the leadership that is necessary. We have heard a lot of rhetoric and concern expressed by government members about the level of students debt, but there is nothing in this bill that will really alleviate the pressure and the huge debtload now facing students.

I have talked to students in my riding and here in the Ottawa area and have been really shocked to hear stories of students who are now facing debts of $40,000, $50,000, $60,000. What kind of way is that to start a life?

We need to go back to the drawing board and say clearly that this millennium fund is taking us down the wrong road. We need a national grant system. We need accessibility. Most important of all, we need restoration of federal funding for post-secondary education in Canada.

[Job Creation, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the finance minister.

The minister's rosy portrait of the economy ignores the glaring condemnation of the council of welfare and now Statistic Canada, two of our most respected organizations. It is a tragedy that there are 1.2 million more Canadians living in poverty than in 1990. Hungry people do not need empty speeches. They need jobs to fill empty stomachs.

When will the minister stop taking credit for jobs that are substandard or do not exist and initiate a job creation program that works?

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, opposition to the multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI, has been massive and is still growing.

It is not just the citizens of Canada who are realizing that the MAI is a very bad deal. Also our provincial governments are beginning to realize what a bad deal it is in terms of provincial jurisdiction.

In March of this year I asked a question of the Prime Minister, expressing increasing concern that, for example, in my province of British Columbia government initiatives like the jobs and timber accord and legislation to protect young people from the exploitation of tobacco companies are threatened by the MAI.

The response I received from the government was pathetic. What I was told by the government is: “There is nothing in the negotiations that would threaten the ability of Canada to function and operate its own house”.

Canadians know and understand differently. More and more Canadians are understanding that the fundamental impact of the MAI will be to undermine our democratic institutions and to undermine the ability of elected governments to set public policy in the public interest.

In British Columbia the provincial government is so concerned about the impact of the MAI that an all-party committee to undertake public consultation has been struck. The mandate of the special committee is to inquire into and make recommendations regarding all aspects of the MAI through broad public consultation.

Members of the committee will be appointed shortly and the committee is expected to report to the provincial legislature in British Columbia in the coming year.

In speaking to this issue in B.C. the minister responsible, Mr. Farnworth, said make no mistake, the MAI is not dead. While he expressed optimism that the MAI treaty was not signed in Paris when it was anticipated, he does point out, and I and many other Canadians would concur, it is imperative that we take advantage of this delay to continue to press the federal government to have full public debate and hearings and finally to stop this deal from going through.

The minister for employment and investment, Mr. Farnworth, from British Columbia has written to the Minister for International Trade calling on the federal government to hold hearings in all regions of the country and has advised the federal minister not to assume that the MAI will automatically cover provincial measures.

Canadians want to know why the Liberals are so afraid to debate this issue of the MAI. I have been involved in a number of debates in my own riding and in Vancouver where not one Liberal would show up to the debate.

We are calling on the government today to be honest about the MAI, to tell Canadians why it is that it is pushing it through. We want to say to the government that the opposition is increasing. There will be such opposition that we believe the deal will not go through.