Debates of Oct. 1st, 1998

Canadian Coast Guard

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the system that will be put in place for the recovery of less than 20% of the costs of providing the ice-breaking service will be based on the region.

It may be of interest to the hon. member that to get to the Quebec ports and to the St. Lawrence River one sometimes has to go through ice which is around Newfoundland. The result is that some of the costs affecting the ships going to the St. Lawrence ports are sometimes borne by ice-breakers in the Newfoundland region.

We cannot simply break the ice on the river and ignore the approaches to the river which he seems to believe we should do.

Pay Equity

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today Canada is launching its participation in the International Year of Older Persons. Yet following 14 years of battle, more than 50,000 retired public service workers, most of whom are women receiving pensions based on the lowest salaries, are still fighting for pay equity. Twenty of these women are in parliament today.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the government honour these older women by paying them retroactive pay equity and recalculating their pensions as ordered by the human rights tribunal?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the judgment of the tribunal on human rights has been appealed. It has been appealed for a very clear reason, for the reason of equity.

There was a previous judgment by the federal court concerning about 20,000 women and Bell Canada which used a certain methodology to determine what the payment should be. The tribunal has used a totally different methodology which our legal experts say is incorrect.

Are we going to use two different standards to pay two groups of women, one for the private sector and one for the public sector? Obviously that would be inequitable and that is why we asked the court to address the question.

Airbus Investigation

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is mounting evidence of political interference from the Prime Minister's office and the RCMP security at APEC.

Allegations have also surfaced which implicate the Prime Minister's office in the RCMP's Airbus investigation. Canadians want to know that their national police force is independent and not subject to political interference.

Did the Prime Minister have any knowledge of the RCMP Airbus investigation prior to November 18, 1995? What role did he play in this entire affair?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in January of that year when there was a settlement, Mr. Mulroney and his lawyers said that the parties accept that the RCMP, on its own initiative, initiated the Airbus investigation, that the minister of justice was not involved in the decision to initiate the investigation and that before November 4, 1994, the minister of justice was not aware of the request for assistance in the RCMP investigation.

“The parties accepted that RCMP and the Department of Justice in sending the request for assistance to Switzerland acted within their legitimate responsibility in this matter”. That was signed by Mr. Mulroney.

Points Of Order

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I point out to all viewers and to this House that you were not being insensitive when I was cut off before getting out the breast cancer research information number.

Under Standing Order 31, time restraint is very important and I simply ran out of time. That number is 1-800-387-9816.

[The Speaker]

That was not a point of order, but there it is.

Business Of The House

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, some days you give a little more leeway than others. Given the nature of the economy in this country and the concerns people will have, I wonder if the government House leader might apprise the House of the nature of the business coming up for the remainder of this week and for the week following.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, given the nature of the economy and the question just asked, I am pleased to answer that this afternoon we shall continue debate on Bill C-43 respecting the revenue agency. That is surely very important for the economy.

The back-up bills are Bill C-53, the small business bill for the amelioration of the economy, and Bill C-51, the Criminal Code amendments.

On Friday we will begin with those bills, Bill C-53 coming first.

Next Monday shall be an allotted day. On Tuesday we will deal with the test ban bill, Bill C-52, after which we will attempt to clean up any uncompleted bills such as Bill C-53, Bill C-51, Bill C-43 and Bill C-42 in that general order. We will continue with this list on Wednesday and Thursday. If this is finished we will then begin Bill C-40, the extradition legislation, Bill C-44 respecting administrative tribunals and, time permitting, Bill C-49 respecting first nation lands.

A week from Friday we will then call Bill C-50, the civil law harmonization bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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 second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for Lotbinière had eight and a half minutes remaining in his speech.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will do my best not to go over eight and a half minutes.

Allow me to backtrack a little, because my speech was interrupted for oral questions, and say it is my pleasure to rise in this House today to speak on Bill C-43, to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency.

I was telling the House that I oppose this bill, mainly on account of the actions and behaviour of this government. We have no intention of taking any chances by passing a bill whose sole purpose is to centralize the collection of taxes across the country, to downsize Revenue Canada and, above all, to establish an agency that will clash with the Quebec Ministry of Revenue.

This agency, which, in my opinion, is a real governmental tax collection monster, will have powers vested in it that will give it access to all sorts of information on our private lives. What will this agency do with this huge amount of personal information concentrated in its hands? I would rather not think about it.

The agency is a relative of Big Brother, the computer that could run and rule the world.

At any rate, this new bill is doomed to fail. The rationale for establishing the Canada customs and revenue agency is to have a single agency in charge of collecting all the money and to convince the provinces to get on board.

The minister had not even signed a single agreement when he introduced Bill C-43. That shows how ridiculous this whole idea is. Quebec and Ontario categorically refused to consider using the agency. The initial support from several western provinces has all but died down in the past few weeks, and even Prince Edward Island has expressed concerns about the establishment of this new agency. Who are the ones who will pay the way for this agency? The users, but at what cost?

Initially, the federal agency will attempt to demonstrate the savings its establishment will bring about, but before long it will be raising the charges to satisfy the greediness of the Liberals.

As far as the millennium bug is concerned, will all the changes which are being announced at this time and which Revenue Canada employees will have to face make it any easier for them to prepare for this transition in informatics, which is already demanding much energy? What stage has Revenue Canada reached in its preparations for the year 2000? No one knows.

I would now like to focus the House's attention on some of the clauses of Bill C-43, clauses 6 and 8 to be specific.

The agency is placed under the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue, yet clause 8 stipulates:

8.(1) The Minister may authorize the Commissioner or any other person employed or engaged by the Agency—to exercise or perform on the Minister's behalf any power, duty or function of the Minister under any act of Parliament—

In other words, the agency could fall into the hands of a super-bureaucrat, possibly a good Liberal, who is neither elected nor accountable.

Now I would like to summarize the reasons why I am proposing that Bill C-43 be withdrawn: the centralizing obsession of the Liberal government; the danger this agency represents for the Quebec Department of Revenue; the anti-union attitude of the government in this bill as it affects Revenue employees; the intrusion on the privacy of our fellow citizens.

I need not remind the House of the performance of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in its current handling of the scrapie crisis with Quebec sheep, where there is such an administrative muddle that the minister and the agency cannot even figure out where they are at. Do you think we are going to give this government another chance to create an agency? No.

I am saying no to the Liberals' plans, I am saying no to this bill and I am calling for its immediate withdrawal, in accordance with the amendment moved this morning.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, one of the most important features of the bill to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency is without a doubt the increased participation of the provinces and territories. The framework for their participation is an important part of the proposal to create the agency.

Revenue Canada is already providing them with a number of services and has taken steps to further increase co-ordination of fiscal administration. By creating appropriate conditions for improved co-ordination, the agency will be able to serve national and provincial interests.

In addition, the new agency will make it possible to reduce duplication and overlap in the administration of federal and provincial revenue. There is only one taxpayer. Why, therefore, is there not just one tax collection agency?

This approach will enable government to reduce its administrative costs and lower enforcement costs.

We feel it is important to mention that the new agency will not be taking over provincial or territorial powers. No action will be taken until the provinces and territories agree that it is cost-effective for the agency to provide a particular service.

We also wish to point out that this fundamental attitude is not new in Canada. Right now, Revenue Canada collects individual income taxes for nine provinces and corporate taxes for seven.

Revenue Canada administers social benefit programs for British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and Nova Scotia. It also collects sales taxes and taxes on alcohol and tobacco products for many provinces at border points. Revenue Canada also administers the national child benefit.

There is therefore no lack of precedents for this co-ordination and pooling of services. The proposed agency's structure could lead to even greater co-operation and, at the same time, increased provincial participation in fiscal administration.

For their part, the provinces and territories will be able to submit lists of candidates from the private sector for 11 of the 15 director positions on the board of management, which will be responsible for planning the agency's activities. These directors will not represent the interests of their own province; they will instead help the agency take into account the special characteristics of provinces and regions in its management activities.

The agency will have fairly broad powers to enable it to conclude agreements on the provision of services with each province, such as on the collection of an unharmonized provincial tax.

To date, Revenue Canada has administered only those provincial taxes that were harmonized with federal taxes. Thus the number of programs Revenue Canada could administer was limited. Under Bill C-43, the agency will have the power to administer taxes that are not harmonized, such as a provincial sales tax that is not harmonized. There are, nevertheless, economies of scale to be achieved with a single administration, even with an unharmonized tax.

The agency will conclude an agreement with a province to administer a tax, but all agreements reached will be governed by the guidelines established by the ministers of finance of the federal and provincial governments.

These guidelines will ensure that all taxes collected by the agency for the provinces and territories will first be legally valid, will not interfere with the self-assessment system, will not result in double taxation, will be fair and, finally, will be collected in the context of contractual agreements acceptable to all parties.

This last criterion reflects an important aspect of these agreements. They are service contracts. The agency will provide a service to a province or a territory according to the specific terms of a contract between the two parties.

This means that the province or territory will continue to enjoy full powers to apply the tax and will be accountable to its taxpayers in this regard. The agency will have to consolidate its obligation to report to the provinces with respect to the administration of programs on their behalf, so that they in turn may provide an accounting to their own taxpayers.

Once a year, the agency commissioner will have to report to the provincial and territorial ministers on the programs and services administered on their behalf. In addition, he will offer to meet the ministers annually as well in order to obtain their feedback on the agency's performance with respect to their programs and services.

This reinforcement of the obligation of accountability and of performance guarantees between the agency and the provinces and territories will make it possible to ensure that programs and services remain innovative, client-focused and, above all, cost-effective.

A study by the Public Policy Forum estimates that Revenue Canada could administer current provincial taxes at a saving of between $97 and $162 million over what it costs today. This represents an overall drop of 6% over today's costs, if all provinces participate.

Initially, a good number of the provinces adopted a wait-and-see attitude. They wanted to see the agency fully operational before giving unconditional support. This attitude changed as the information about the agency became clearer and the consultation process advanced. In fact, the attitude of several of the provinces was very positive and they are now prepared to give serious consideration to handing some of their activities over to the agency.

At the present time, we are undertaking joint studies with certain provinces in order to examine specific possibilities. The more provinces and territories participate, the more savings there will be for individuals, businesses and governments. It is, therefore, in the interest of all Canadians to have as much provincial and territorial participation as possible.

The position of New Brunswick Minister of Finance Edmond Blanchard is a typical example of this. In a recent Canadian Press article dated March 20, 1998, he expressed his agreement for the agency to handle more of New Brunswick's taxation operations. According to Mr. Blanchard, “If efficiency can be enhanced, I am prepared to look at the options”.

Bill C-43 will put the Canada customs and revenue agency into concrete form. This agency will be structured and positioned in such a way as to obtain the support of the provinces and territories. All provinces and territories, as well as the federal government, have worked hard to put their finances in order. The Canada customs and revenue agency now represents an opportunity to reduce costly duplication and overlap between the various levels of government still further.

When we speak of provincial participation in this new agency, there is one particular question that crops up once again: How can a true national agency be set up without the participation of Quebec?

The success of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is not dependent on the participation of all provinces and territories. In fact, participation in the agency's activities is optional. The purpose of the agency is to provide a platform that would help the provinces. The agency will not appropriate provincial powers.

We have consulted Quebec, and the other provinces, since the beginning of the process. Quebec told us that, while it does not want the new agency to administer its programs, it wants to be kept informed of the agency's progress.

The legislation establishing the agency proposes a framework based on closer co-operation. The provinces, including Quebec, do not have to give to the agency the responsibility of administering a larger number of programs on their behalf. That decision is made by each individual province.

It should be noted that Quebec's participation would increase the benefits of having a single tax agency. However, even if Quebec does not participate, Canadian businesses will benefit from annual savings of $116 million to $193 million. Moreover, annual savings of between $37 million and $62 million will be achieved in terms of the administrative costs for all governments.

Any new program administered by the agency will have been subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. This will apply to Quebec, as well as to other provinces.

I should point out that even if Quebec decides not to have the agency administer one of its programs, it could still be represented on the board of management.

In conclusion, there are many issues on which the parties and regions may disagree. However, if we want all Canadians to achieve substantial savings, regardless of their province or origin, all of us in this House must remember that we represent one person, the taxpayer, and that we must do our utmost to make that person save money. I do hope that all members will support this initiative.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to be in the House today to speak on the bill before us.

Many Canadians have expressed the basic fear of the concentration of too much power in one place. In developing the Canada customs and revenue agency, we have been sensitive to this concern as well. Tax, customs and trade administration affect the lives and livelihood of all Canadians. They want to be sure they are dealt with fairly and that their rights are protected. It is our intention to create a super agency, one with unlimited power and unlimited scope. In fact, in the design of the new agency we have maintained the essential checks and balances that govern the activities and ensure the accountability of Revenue Canada.

For example, the enforcement powers of the new agency will be the same as those currently provided to Revenue Canada through legislation like the Income Tax Act or the Customs Act. If there is a problem or if there is a complaint, the minister will be fully accountable to parliament and the public for the administration and enforcement of this specific legislation.

As well, the minister will have the authority, as the case is now, to answer questions in the House and to ensure that the agency is acting properly in its dealings with the Canadian public.

The confidentiality of taxpayers' personal information will be protected under this new agency, just as it is currently protected with Revenue Canada. The authorities governing confidentiality are clearly set out in the legislation and they will not be changed or compromised by this bill.

Revenue Canada has decades of experience in handling highly confidential information for millions of individuals and organizations. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this commitment to confidentiality would change under the departmental agency status.

Furthermore, the legislation before this House will specifically restrict the board of management of the new agency from directing the commissioner or any agency employee to exercise authorities under programs legislation of provincial statute. This will effectively ensure that the board will not have access to confidential tax, customs or trade information for individual Canadians or businesses. From an overall operational standpoint, the agency will have to develop a corporate business plan every year. This plan will have to be submitted to the minister who will in turn recommend its approval by the Treasury Board. A summary of this plan will also be tabled in parliament. So any new or unusual plans by the agency that would unreasonably extend its powers would be nipped in the bud.

The commissioner of the agency will have to offer to meet with provincial and territorial representatives annually to report on how programs have been delivered on their behalf. This will provide yet another check on the power of the new agency. The raison d'être of the Canadian customs and revenue agency is not to create a larger entity. Revenue Canada already employs between 40,000 and 46,000 permanent and temporary employees. Instead, the rationale is to expand the efficiency of the programs and services, to reduce overlap and duplication and to provide greater saving to Canadians. Doing something better is not necessarily an expansion of power but an extension of service, service to Canadians, service to businesses and services to the provinces and territories.

The intention of Bill C-43 is not to create a super agency. Rather, it is to establish a framework with all the checks and balances for a super agency.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, my question pertains to privatization. In Saskatchewan where I come from we have experienced privatization in spades. Every time something was privatized it resulted in larger debt for taxpayers, fewer jobs for people living in that province and the jobs that were left were lower paying jobs. It also resulted in reduced services, higher costs for those services and in many cases reduced services with a higher cost attached. Wherever you go in Saskatchewan when people say we are going to privatize something, it is like a four letter word. People spit that word out. Every single time something has been privatized they have screwed up the service, the utility or the product they have been marketing.

Can the member opposite explain to Saskatchewan people how privatization of our taxation collection system is going to be any better for them? Given the bad vibes and the bad results of privatization in Saskatchewan, and the member telling us that they will have all this confidential information for Canadians, what assurances can he give us that this privatization will not be like all the others that have happened in Saskatchewan and that there will be some sense of security for those people filing their income taxes, paying their taxes?

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question but I believe he is wrong. This is not a bill about privatization. I know the minister of revenue has been in consultation with all finance ministers of the provinces and territories. He has had detailed discussions with the minister of finance from the member's home province as he has had with the minister from my province of Manitoba. Those discussions have gone very well. The provinces recognize properly that in forming this new agency we are going to save Canadian taxpayers some money. Instead of two sets of books, two auditors and two processes, we can do it one time through this agency. We have the database and we are capable of doing this.

There is nothing inherent in this bill that would suggest it is going to be privatized, that information will be divulged to people who ought not to have it. I just finished saying that this is one of the guarantees that will be worked out in the bill with the participants in this province. There may be even more jobs created so I do not accept the hon. member's premise that there is some deep dark luring process in here that will send Canadian taxation and revenue employees scrambling to the streets looking for jobs.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague.

First of all he mentioned the streamlining of this agency. It seems as though the provinces are not onboard with this super agency which he referred to therefore reducing the probability that there will be cost savings if there are in fact to be two agencies collecting taxes.

The hon. member also mentioned the handling of highly confidential information. I am wondering if the member can explain how the current system is able to give information. In a case that was mentioned in a speech earlier today by my hon. colleague, information from a person within his own province of Manitoba was given to an insurance agency. It was highly confidential information and ended up in the wrong hands.

How is it that this super agency with unlimited power can ensure that there is going to be any confidentiality? What specifics in this bill point to the fact that Canadians can be assured that information regarding their taxes will not be shared with others who are not privy to that information? How can that be so?

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

One of the principles and the pillar of this new agency will be that it will be fully accountable to the minister and therefore to parliament. That linkage, that trust relationship, that fiduciary relationship between the Canadian taxpayer and parliament will not be broken.

I would like to mention for the record that the Minister of Finance from Manitoba as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press has supported this agency and I believe is eager to be part of that.

In response to the member's question, it is a legitimate one but I think we have the necessary checks and balances to make sure that does not occur.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Chair, I can only conclude that the member unfortunately has not read the material and is not aware of some of the points. Perhaps I can correct her.

First of all, moving to the agency is creating a vehicle for options. I do not know why the member is against creating new options so that we can work with the provinces, so that we can sit down and say let us see what the benefits are, let us see how we can work together. It is about creating new options for Canadians as well.

Let me give the hon. member a good example. In the last tax return we asked Canadians if they would like to be on the electoral list. We asked them to checkmark the electoral list. Eighty-one per cent of Canadians chose to be on the electoral list. That means for Canadians we are going to save $30 million for every election because we do not have to do an enumeration. That is about working together for the benefit of Canadians.

Let me give the hon. member another example, the child tax benefit. When the Government of British Columbia wanted to carry out a child tax benefit, it came to Revenue Canada and said can you perform this service for us. Because we have the computer system, the data, we were able to provide the service, to deliver a very important benefit for the Government of British Columbia at millions of dollars less than if it had to build a parallel system to deliver that program. We worked with British Columbia. Creating the agency is about creating a vehicle for choices. It does not force the provinces to do anything. In fact, it includes them.

The member has mistakenly said that we can put anybody on the board. Clearly the legislation says that each province will be able to nominate. The NDP government in British Columbia will be able to nominate people to sit on the board of management to make sure there is accountability.

The bill surely talks about accountability. I know many members have quoted the auditor general. The auditor general's quote was referring to the old model. I have made the changes because of the consultation I have done over the last year to make sure we have full accountability.

My final point is that in the last finance minister's meeting, one of the items on the agenda was the agency. In fact, all the finance ministers agreed to the guidelines regarding what the agencies could collect.

Mr. Petter, the former finance minister of British Columbia, at that time said this is the right direction, it is about reducing overlap, about reducing duplication, about making sure we reduce the compliance cost to business and about giving better service. The ministers agreed.

The member talked about user fees. It is simply not true. That is totally erroneous.

In terms of harmonized sales tax, the agency says you do not have to harmonize. Let us sit together and see if there is opportunity to work together on collecting non-harmonized taxes. If you want to talk about harmonization that is something that the finance people do. We are in the business of tax administration. We have said part of this is to be able to collect non-harmonized taxes.

In terms of the quote from Mr. Krishna, he was referring to the former model. Mr. Krishna is a member of an advisory committee to me as Minister of National Revenue. I have discussed this matter and he was referring to the original model which we have changed to create greater political accountability.

Really what we are talking about are choices. What we are talking about is opportunity. What we are talking about is bringing the federal and provincial governments together. Canadians want us to work in co-operation. They want to make sure we get rid of overlap and duplication to simplify and streamline.

That is what the agency is all about. It is creating a new vehicle for us to work together in co-operation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks of my hon. colleague, who raised some very important issues.

When any bill is introduced, we must first consider how it will affect individuals and their privacy. Does the bill affect privacy? Does it affect individuals?

My colleague mentioned she was from a rural riding; so am I. It is well known that, in rural ridings in particular, services provided to the public are extremely important.

I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance saying the Minister of Finance has said this and the Minister of Finance had said that. The minister says many things; on the subject of the employment insurance, he has said some pretty incredible things, so this may not be the best yardstick. In my opinion, the yardstick is our constituents, individuals. We also heard that savings would be made. But on whose backs will these savings be made?

I would ask my colleague to elaborate a little on how this could interfere with someone's privacy.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very thoughtful comments and questions. I agree that there are very serious concerns about the impact of this proposal on the individual.

We heard from the minister that this is about streamlining, about simplifying. Even if we take that at face value that may be good for governments in terms of huge bureaucracies but there are very real questions about how that does affect individual Canadians who then have to find their way through an increasing maze of a massive bureaucracy, to try to retrieve information, to find out what happened to their income tax return or any other matter that may be before the agency.

From the individual's point of view, from the taxpayer's point of view, there has not been a thorough examination to really answer whether this is in the public's interest, which is not necessarily the same as the government's interest in terms of the bureaucracy.

The question here is the public interest and I think for individual Canadians that question has not been answered. In fact, there are serious concerns that it is not in the public interest and, therefore, it should not go ahead.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow the previous speaker. The prepared text that I had has disappeared because of the many issues raised in her speech and throughout the day and I think it is necessary to debunk some of these myths.

Where is the piece in the proposed legislation which takes away the privacy conditions of the Income Tax Act? It is just not there. The sections of the Income Tax Act will be the same. They prevent people from getting personal taxpayer information.

Canada has the best revenue collection in the world. We have over 97% voluntary compliance. People sitting in the gallery and watching on TV know that every year they sit down, gather their information, calculate, self-assess, send in the information to the government and, in large part, do it correctly. They get a refund or they submit their taxes. Nobody comes pounding on the door. People in this country are responsible. It is the responsible citizens of this country who will be best served by this piece of legislation.

Under this legislation we are not in a transition to some private company. Private companies do not have cabinet ministers answerable to parliament. The citizens demand accountability and citizens across this country, no matter whether they are in one province or another province across the land, are taxpayers. They pay taxes to different levels of government.

Unfortunately, these citizens have not had the best service because they have had to answer to different auditors at different levels of government, and not only individuals but businesses as well. The small businesses that drive the engine of our economy could have a provincial tax auditor come in one day, a federal auditor the next and an income tax auditor the next.

What we are talking about is the potential for better service to Canadians and the potential for new partnerships with Canadians, new partnerships between levels of government.

I would like to know if any government, any finance minister, any province has definitively slammed the door and said “We do not even want to listen to what you are talking about”.

The finance ministers, as the minister just told us, got together and came up with guidelines on what is potentially available. There would be a range of services and options available both at the provincial and federal levels. For instance, the Atlantic region was promised a range at the time of harmonization. It is another step, another potential choice.

There has to be accountability. In the speech we talked about representation and accountability if you have representation in your population. What better method of accountability to the different levels of jurisdiction, that is, provincial, federal and territorial, than allowing those levels of government—in fact, we do work with many of them right now—to have input and to give to the federal government nominees to fill the positions on the board that will form a new body of management?

They will be approved at the federal level. That is in the bill.

It will be a new approach to public service management. Are we unique? Are we the only people in the world who have dreamed up this scheme? No.

I have had the privilege over the last couple of years of serving as the parliamentary secretary and I have worked with the men and women in this department. I am very pleased that we have a new parliamentary secretary in the department of revenue, but I still believe firmly that the employees and the public are well served.

We have looked at some of the models that are out there in the world, models such as those in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand which have similar mechanisms.

It is important to understand that some of the things we have heard today are things that would concern Canadians. They would concern me as a taxpayer if they were true.

We are debating this legislation at second reading. It will go to a committee. There will be hearings and it will come back to the House for another debate. It will go through the normal process of the House. It will go through the scrutiny and there will be further input. To pretend that there has been no process or consultation is erroneous. There has been a process.

I will spend a bit of time debunking some of the myths I have heard today and try to place before the House and the Canadian public some of what I believe are the facts.

I have heard and seen material that says the agency is being developed behind a closed door and that there have not been any public consultations. That is just not true. Revenue Canada, the Minister of National Revenue and the officials from the department have consulted on this proposal. In fact the proposal has changed over time. There have been two progress reports, one in April of 1997 and one in January of 1998, on the development of the proposal. These reports were published and distributed. Views were sought by the minister from all the people who were concerned and interested, from a wide spectrum of the public, including the provincial and territorial governments, private sector stakeholders and various members of parliament who let us know their feelings and those of their constituents.

I attended some of the meetings. I was there last summer when the minister went across the country and met with certain finance ministers, when he went to editorial boardrooms, when he appeared on TV and radio talk shows to answer questions. I was there when he spoke to different members of our own employee groups.

Maybe we have to look for further advice. There is the private sector advisory committee. It has and will continue to give advice, and we will listen.

It is also important to talk about what has gone on with our own employees and the unions involved with Revenue Canada. There have been good attempts at broad consultation with both unions and employees. The unions have been provided with all the information that has been used for the consultation purposes. They have received private briefings on the details of the proposal on an ongoing basis from the very beginning.

In the summer of 1997 the department created working groups to include employees, managers and unions to obtain suggestions, ideas and considerations in the development of a new human resources framework for the agency. More than 7,000 of our employees were heard during that particular consultation process.

In December of 1997 the deputy minister of Revenue Canada committed to a process of working with the unions and employees to develop the requirements for a new human resources regime. The union for taxation employees, the customs and excise union, Douanes et Accises, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and the Association of Public Service Financial Administrators signed a document of intent to participate in a design team process using the working group report as the starting point.

Two of these unions have subsequently withdrawn from the design team process, but the door always remains open for their participation in further development work. I think that is an important point, especially for our employees.

Five of the design teams have completed their work now and their recommendations are under review.

One of the fears I have heard, especially within the employee group, which is a very large group, is that the agency creation means job losses for Revenue Canada employees. There is the feeling that there is some hidden agenda that maybe management does not want to talk about.

Let us be clear once and for all. The agency is not about downsizing. There is no hidden agenda. It is about service. Every member of the department will be transferred to the agency.

I fail to comprehend how one organizational structure, which will become a super organizational structure, will be unequal in size. That is part of the myth.

In fact, all the work that has come to the department over the last couple of years, on a cost-recovery basis, from some of the provinces which have given us non-traditional tasks to do has actually increased the workforce because there has been more work.

The agency is clearly about improving service to clients: Canadians, businesses, the provinces. It is not about laying off employees. We want to build a new human resources framework with the full participation of employees and their unions.

It represents a new start. It is a change. People resist change. It is natural. But Revenue Canada needs change because the world is changing. That is a fact.

Imagine yourself in a global economy trying to do business with us. We have a number of provinces spread out over a large geographical area and they each have their own tax rules. They each have their own auditors. They are not the same from one province to another. It is not like dealing with one Canada, it is like dealing with different levels, different people, different systems.

There is the potential to simplify it. Are we forcing it? Absolutely not. Is this another way to get at harmonization through the back door? Absolutely not. However, it will allow us to collect non-harmonized taxes, something we could not do before for the provinces.

That option will not be forced on anybody and not on any level of government. It will be a choice. Are there user fees? Not in any section of the legislation I have read, and I have read every section.

Is cost recovery available if a province uses some of our systems? Certainly. Cost recovery is not a user fee. They are two different things.

Let us think about some of the other myths I have heard today.

This will benefit management at the expense of the employees. I do not think so. In fact I know that is not true.

This is enabling legislation and it represents a significant improvement over the current framework for both employees and management at Revenue Canada. Management I hope will benefit by having a system that is much easier to manage.

For instance, the staffing, the classification and the administrative systems being developed will be more responsive. They will concentrate less on process and more on results.

The system will also benefit employees in a number of ways. There will be direct negotiations between agency management and the unions which will lead to in-house solutions, inside the revenue agency, designed by persons who understand the agency's business and are committed to the agency's success.

What is wrong with that? A simplified classification system, a group structure for the agency would respond and in fact give a focus to the employees' suggestions for broader jobs and career opportunities for employees.

It is very difficult time-wise to get a person sitting in the department doing one job that really does not need doing any more over to this job that desperately needs doing because of the maze that we have to go through.

We have qualified people who want more opportunity and it takes us far too long to put them in the positions to do the jobs they want to do and which we need doing. A more streamlined classification and staffing system would result in employees being placed in jobs faster. We believe this.

A new approach to recourse would focus on alternate dispute resolution mechanisms such as fact finding and mediation, yet incorporate access to independent third party review. The possibility of additional provincial workloads would mean increased stability of employment.

With the agency, the big winner is always the person most important to the government, the Canadian public. Canadians will benefit when any process is more efficient, responsive and accountable, whether it is customs administration or revenue administration. That is the goal.

There are some that have argued today in this House that the agency will reduce accountability to the public we serve in this parliament where we sit today. In fact, the full ministerial accountability for program legislation and overall government control of the agency has to be maintained and will be maintained. The federal government will remain firmly in control.

Furthermore, there will be no change in the ability of the members who sit in this House, the federal members of parliament who are accountable to their constituents when they come to them with problems. There will be access in exactly the same manner that we have today. With the consent of the individual constituent, the member can deal with the problem for the people the member represents. That is far different than open. Consent forms are needed. Nobody in Revenue Canada is going to give the member one iota of information unless the member has the full and informed consent of the constituent.

The Minister of National Revenue will retain all current authorities he has under the act. There are multiple references to different authorities under the various acts that he administers, whether it is the Customs Act, the Income Tax Act, or many others.

The broader interest of the cabinet will continue to be fully protected. The bill provides that Treasury Board must approve the agency's corporate business plan, including its strategies regarding human resources. The minister will also have the authority to direct the agency on matters that are within the management authority of the board and that affect public policy or could materially affect public finances.

So where is this idea of privatization? It certainly does not go hand in hand with what I have just stated. It cannot.

The minister will have the ability to investigate any matter brought to his or her attention. Furthermore, the minister will continue to be responsible for providing answers to those MPs who make queries on behalf of their constituents.

Where is the personal privacy issue being jeopardized? Personal privacy will not, should not, and will never be privatized knowingly. Accidents are possible, but accidents are rare and they are not intentional. The law of Canada has the fundamental principle that the taxpayer information of Canadians is sacrosanct. It is private. It is not communicated. The barriers are there.

We have rules governing confidentiality of information. We have rules governing access of private information. We have rules governing fairness. We have the declaration of taxpayers' rights and that will apply the day after the legislation is passed, as it does today.

The enforcement powers will not change through the creation of the agency. These powers are limited by the authority given in the tax and customs legislation. The opposition likes to use the new label of super agency, but that does not give it new super powers. The powers that are there and the definite checks and balances in the system will remain.

The system is in its evolution. We have a framework on which we can build. We have a system that may in time create a less complex environment. We have a system that we believe will be better for our own employees and will give them the challenges and rewards they deserve.

It is not easy to be an employee in this department. Nobody ever comes to an employee of Revenue Canada because they have a good news story to tell. It is because people need help and we try to help.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, my question for the member opposite concerns a point I made when I spoke on behalf of my party this morning.

I said that there is a lot of opposition right now in the provinces. Ontario has said definitely no. Quebec has said definitely no. Certainly Saskatchewan and British Columbia are leaning that way. No other province I know of has signed a letter of intent to join the plan.

I thought we lived in a federation. Here we have something that deals with both federal and provincial jurisdictions. I believe very strongly in co-operative federalism. I noticed that the member did not comment on that although it is a very important aspect of this.

We are getting to the time when the Quebec election writ will be dropped very shortly. That gets into the question of national unity and perceptions in the province of Quebec about this super agency.

I would like the member opposite to comment on whether or not she is satisfied with the enthusiasm, or lack thereof, of the provinces. None have joined this and the two biggest provinces which represent about two-thirds of the population have said that they will not be part of this agency.