Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the issue of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Department of National Revenue Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.
In the interests of reducing duplication and overlap of debaters, today I will speak on behalf of the Reform Party which in principle supports Bill C-2 in the spirit that has been put forward by the Department of National Revenue and the minister himself.
According to this department the approval of Bill C-2 will enable it to be more responsive to changing needs, to streamline operations, to reduce the administrative burden on taxpayers, to reduce costs and duplication, and to improve the quality of its services and programs.
My party supports the initial steps taken by the Liberal government in an attempt to streamline departmental activities. Combining immigration and citizenship, customs, excise and taxation, and eliminating altogether the department of public security will help reduce duplication and overlap. However the Reform Party stresses the need for increased financial reviews and reforms for all government departments to ensure that taxpayers' money is being spent efficiently and effectively.
The Minister of National Revenue has stressed that his department is responding to the needs of Canadians and encouraging confidence and faith in revenue administration. We hope that Bill C-2 will not represent the only step his department is taking to reduce costs.
The reduction of costs associated with departmental consolidation and the removal of a few individuals at the executive level are just the tip of the iceberg when one considers the amount of government waste that has existed over the years.
Superficial or cosmetic attempts to correct the injustices in fiscal and political accountability will no longer be tolerated by taxpayers.
Our party would encourage the minister and his government to initiate line by line, item by item reviews of the departments to find out where the money is going. Perhaps asking questions like: Do certain departments have too many employees or not enough? Are they best serving the interests of the public with the resources allocated to them or not? Should they be living in the town or city that they are working in, or should they be 60 miles away with the government and taxpayers paying for mileage?
These results should be made public in their entirety in the form of an annual report which could then be distributed to all parties for a review. The Minister of Finance spoke yesterday about the vast amount of experience of the individuals assembled in this House. The government should take advantage of this to help find new ideas to better manage its money.
My party wants the federal government and its departments to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and exercise restraint. Our philosophy is that the size of government can and must be reduced without affecting the level of service taxpayers expect.
I congratulate the Minister of National Revenue in amalgamating or intending to amalgamate two huge infrastructures into one with the objective of streamlining operations with the purpose of better delivery of service, as he has said, less red tape, as he has said, and the co-ordination of collecting revenues
with the provinces. This certainly appears to be a page out of the Reform Party blue sheet and I appreciate that.
As mentioned, my party supports the idea of increased government efficiency and cost cutting in the Department of National Revenue provided that the quality of services to Canadians is not affected in the field. Our constituents have concerns, as also mentioned by the member for the Official Opposition who spoke just prior to me, that Bill C-2 would reduce the level of service in the field. I would like to voice some of these concerns for the record so the standing committee on finance, which will review this bill in detail, will be aware of them.
It is feared that the combination of Revenue Canada Taxation and customs Canada is designed to place more of an emphasis on revenue collection, controlling the underground economy and smuggling. customs officials must not be hindered in any way by legislation from performing the important duty of protecting Canadians from illegal drugs, weapons and criminal elements by reducing their ranks.
By masking administrative cuts at the top, the minister is leading by example. However, he must not reduce the number of customs personnel in the field which would hinder their ability to function effectively.
Individuals in the Manitoba riding of Lisgar-Marquette for example are concerned that the savings from eliminating one deputy minister may be lost tenfold by other problems arising from the passing of Bill C-2. In their ports of Snowflake and Crystal City, people are concerned that this bill represents the first of several steps that would ultimately see the cutting back or elimination of customs personnel at certain border points.
This concern stems from a pilot program in the United States to establish automated permit ports at specified ports of entry on the northern border. The main thrust of the U.S. program is to expand the hours of low risk entry points so that they can be open when staff are not on duty. Canadian and U.S. citizens will be allowed to enter the United States unimpeded at specific crossings when the port is closed.
This program was developed to promote efficiency and the results, according to the constituents of Lisgar-Marquette, may encourage the Department of National Revenue to follow suit. However, constituents fear that ports like Snowflake and Crystal City would become more attractive to criminal elements looking for a trouble-free point of entry.
The illegal gun trade is a lucrative business. With easy access to handguns in the United States this area could become a real problem for customs border patrols and the RCMP. I am expressing a concern and I hope the minister acknowledges that. Increased efficiency must not come at the expense of effectiveness.
One of the natural roles of government should be to protect its borders and sovereignty, and I do not mean the definition of sovereignty as used by the Official Opposition. Concerns have also been raised by the customs union, several municipalities and the media that with the consolidation of the two departments, the resources for customs officers to effectively defend the border will be strained.
The customs union is under the impression that increased emphasis on these activities will lead to a reduction in resources for other activities, such as controlling illegal immigrants, firearms, pornography and stopping abducted children.
The customs union is seriously concerned about the effects of this legislation upon the quality of services demanded. For example, it is concerned that drug seizures will be reduced.
In 1991 there were 10,000 seizures at the border. In 1992, there were 25,000 and in 1993 when there was an increase in trafficking, there was a reduction in the number of seizures to 15,000. According to the union smugglers are using more innovative and effective techniques to move illegal items into Canada. It must be able to respond with the latest techniques to catch them.
This is why the union is concerned that a lack of emphasis is being placed on to these activities. By amalgamating two departments into one, possibly the idea of making cuts at the top would end up in the field. Once again, I know the minister does not intend to do that. I hope he does not. He is shaking his head. Therefore, these concerns should be laid to rest.
The union is concerned that these activities will only get worse with the implementation of this legislation.
The Canadian Police Association has also criticized the merger because the border is the first line of defence for guns and other weapons which ultimately end up on Canadian streets.
Even with an elimination of a deputy minister, ensuring that the level of service is strictly monitored and adjusted accordingly should overcome these fears.
The Minister of National Revenue stated that he believes a unified Department of National Revenue will build on the strength of our existing customs, excise and taxation administrations. It will better serve Canadians and strengthen their confidence in Canada's revenue administration.
Consequently the Reform Party supports the principle on which Bill C-2 has been proposed. We ask that the parliamentary standing committee examining it take into consideration the
possible negative effects expressed by our constituents through my comments.
Improved efficiency and effectiveness can result from this bill provided that reorganization and government cost savings will be done with the security and best interests of Canadians in mind.
Once again, we commend the Liberal government for removing a piece of duplication and overlap from a government agency and encourage much more of the same in areas where government waste is evident.
As the minister of revenue stated in his speech today while he was supporting Bill C-2, giving taxpayers value for their tax dollars is definitely a most honourable objective and should be supported by all members of this House.