Debates of Oct. 1st, 1998

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman has worked a long time with special interest groups on taxation. He may have a limited view of what Canadians are expecting.

There is a lot of flexibility within the agency. We have not seen it yet because it is not there yet.

The hon. member does not seem to be against the general principles of the agency: better service, fairness, accountability, partnership with the provinces and better management of our resources. Since he is not against the principles of it, I hope that he will come to committee. A lot of consultation has been going on across Canada. This does not mean there are not some little points here or there that do not need to be corrected. It is at the committee that we will correct these points.

I hope that the hon. member will be at the committee to help us get the bill through so it can become operational and the taxpayers will have the advantage of the flexibility and good services that will be provided under the agency.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to make some quick observations on Bill C-43.

We are talking today about Revenue Canada. It is interesting that we have a minister from British Columbia in charge of Revenue Canada. Major financial policy is not set by Revenue Canada but by the Minister of Finance in the larger policy process.

We have a revenue minister from British Columbia who could not deliver for British Columbia which is looking for some particular relief from Revenue Canada, especially in view of the massive water damage to the structures of homeowners. The minister in charge, when faced with questions on behalf of homeowners, could not deliver for British Columbians from the particular agency that British Columbians are looking forward to for some help and assistance.

Reformers certainly are committed to streamlining services to make government less complicated, more efficient and more productive. Perhaps Bill C-43 is going in the right direction to create this Canada customs and revenue agency, but we have to ask whether it is being done well.

We want to be constructive when legislation appears to be moving in the right direction. However, when the government was on the opposition benches it just seemed to be opposing for the sake of opposing. Reformers have always been different, especially in the case of Bill C-43. We wish to commend and compliment the government when it appears to be proposing to change the way it does business, for certainly change is needed.

If the government would only change its practices perhaps in the larger area of finance policy and maybe justice administration, to name a couple, we would be greatly pleased.

I remind the Speaker that I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre. I underscore the general theme of my remarks by saying that the Liberal administration is not a good manager of the public trust.

Revenue Canada serves over 20 million taxpayers. Every Canadian is quite familiar with that department. We have all heard of the phrase of the certainty of death and taxes. Taxes especially from an agency like Revenue Canada is not the temporary measure once promised to Canadians; it is a certainty.

In the United States revenue is collected by the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service. The mere mention of the name IRS to U.S. citizens sends a shiver down their spine. If a citizen of the U.S. gets a letter from the IRS it usually means bad news. We have all observed the problems of such an agency that gets out of control.

Taxpayers should not be afraid of the tax collector. Without the co-operative taxpayer our country fails as an economic unit. The taxpayer must have some balance of rights and those rights should be written down.

My Reform colleague who spoke earlier mentioned the need for a taxpayer bill of rights as well as an office for taxpayer protection. Canadians do not want to be bullied around, especially not by the tax collector. It is essential that Canadians never be subjected to the type of treatment used by the IRS on the citizens of the United States. That government went through a heart-rending process to try to rein in an agency out of control. Government institutions should not be feared.

The Minister of National Revenue has said at times that he believes in taxpayers' rights, and I applaud him for that. In the second progress report on the Canada customs and revenue agency the minister stated “In proceeding with these changes I want to reassure Canadians that first and foremost the government will assure that the basic tenets of revenue administration in Canada, the encouragement of voluntary compliance, fairness in the way all taxpayers are treated, prompt, reliable service and responsible enforcement continue to be respected and observed”. I believe that is a laudable statement. The problem is does it ever get delivered.

Clearly the minister thinks of fairness in the way taxpayers are treated is important. Now all he has to do is put it in black and white. If the minister wants to put his tax dollars where his mouth is, he should implement full accountability. This means accountability on both sides: the taxpayer must respect tax authorities, obey the law, not cheat. The tax authorities must respect the taxpayer. In other words there is a social contract in a fair tax system and we are all part of it.

It is impossible for the minister to assume that accountability will just happen somehow. We have to design a system that is self-correcting and that works. Canadians want some guarantee. If they purchase a product in the store they want the written promise that they will be taken care of.

Part of the selection process of voting with dollars is what kind of a guarantee comes with what is purchased. That keeps the business in operation. However, it does not seem to work that way with government and the tax agency that takes our money. Maybe we should apply that kind of standard to the taxpayer. Each taxpayer contributes thousands of dollars to the government through Revenue Canada. The taxpayer is essentially purchasing a service and wants government to be responsible with the tax dollars taken. The last thing taxpayers want is to be harassed by Revenue Canada.

There have been instances where the best interest of the public has not been met. Tax collection represents delegated authority from Canadians, and it must be delivered in a reasonable and responsible manner.

On the department's web site I found a section called questions and answers. One of the answers mentioned that the broader interests of cabinet and Treasury Board would continue to be fully protected. What did the document say about taxpayers? It only said “the government is proposing to create an agency in order to provide better service to the public, the provinces and the Canadian business sector”.

There is no mention about fully protecting the taxpayer. This is the part that worries me. It is great to see that the agency will likely create some efficiency. It is great that the agency will reduce costs for business and for taxpayers in general. But where is the protection and the assurance for balance? Where is the guarantee? Where are the mechanisms to ensure that the rules are going to be followed?

Reform is committed to standing up for the taxpayer, the man on the street. We are committed to fighting for a taxpayer bill of rights and an office for taxpayer protection. We are committed to supporting Bill C-43 if, and only if, we can get the commitment from the revenue minister to move forward with these measures to protect the taxpayer.

What about the employees of Revenue Canada? Their morale is likely very low at this point. They do not know what is going to happen to them. We must speak for them also.

What does the union say? I have this interesting quote:

The Canadian public service is in crisis. The crisis is many-sided. Taxpayers are increasingly skeptical of the government's ability, and even motivation, to deliver a particular program or policy. Recipients of unemployment, pension and other social benefits wait longer for less. Caught in the middle are public sector workers.

Deep-rooted structures and present day policies have combined to deepen the crisis. The public service of the 1990s is hobbled by administrative practices and legislation largely in place since the 1960s. In many cases, management is at best ill-prepared for the role it has been assigned and is, at worst, paternalistic. The physical plant, equipment, and tools provided to public sector workers are deteriorating at an alarming rate. Likewise, while government programs and services grow increasingly more complex and driven by technological advances, the training provided many public sector workers is inadequate or non-existent.

What a quote. I believe it is somewhat accurate. Morale in the federal public service is at an all-time low. Union negotiations have broken off. The government says that everything is fine and negotiations are carrying on. We go to the union site on the Internet and we get a completely different story.

Service to Canadians is suffering directly as a result of mishandled downsizing. The present system of staffing and promotions is being abused by managers. Alliance members are trying to provide service to veterans, the unemployed and pensioners, but do not have the necessary resources to carry out their work.

I could go on and on. I must say that if it is the intent of the revenue minister to make the agency the IRS of the north, then we know he is malevolent. If, however, the minister wishes to create an agency that draws the respect of the Canadian public, then I am certain the Reform proposal of a taxpayer bill of rights will properly complement this process.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby for his eloquent remarks.

The minister spoke about the need for a taxpayer bill of rights. This is something which the official opposition proposed earlier today, the actual adoption of a formal statute which would recognize the presumption in favour of taxpayers in the collection and auditing process.

The government has not responded positively to this initiative. In his view, why would that be? Why would it be afraid of ensuring greater accountability in tax collection? It is a hard question, but I would like him to try to tackle it.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a tradition in established governments. They have a basic assumption that they have the divine right to govern. But there is an inherent arrogance that we know best. Therefore, when particular mechanisms are put in place for self-correcting accountability they do not like it.

I bring the example of one very exasperated taxpayer. He writes: “How can Revenue Canada in good conscience require under their present rules, put me in a position that they require that I remit to them an amount greater than my earnings? This may be a regulation under the tax instalment remittance requirements, however, being put in this position is grossly unfair”.

He got a thank you letter from Revenue Canada and a brochure and was told to go away. Where is this fellow to go?

The bill of rights and the office that we are suggesting be created is not a new tax court to argue over the content and the rulings, it is to ensure that the rules are followed, that there is basic fairness and that a taxpayer is going to be treated with some basic respect. Also, there will be simplicity in the rules so that the public can learn to understand the information that is given to them.

We have listed a number of general areas that would provide a feedback mechanism for this large bureaucracy to make it accountable to the average Canadian. That is what the government needs to follow. It needs to listen to the people and respond to that agenda.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to preface my comments by saying that I felt compelled to speak to this particular bill because of some instances that have happened in my riding.

I felt that it was obligatory to stand and speak in support of the taxpayer bill of rights, which has been so wisely put forward by my colleague from Calgary Southeast. I also want to point out to the House and to those watching the importance of the taxpayer bill of rights in the context of what we are seeing going on today with Revenue Canada.

I will begin my remarks with a couple of statements to clarify where I am coming from.

When I look at the state of Revenue Canada today and what I have encountered in my short time as a member of parliament with the people who have come to my constituency office, I realize that what we have is a bureaucracy that is out of control. As I dug into some of these cases it bothered me to see the pain this bureaucracy is bringing to many of my constituents.

It is an interesting admission on behalf of the government that it is a bureaucracy out of control because it is now setting up a new entity. Rather than fixing what is there, it is talking about setting up a new entity. The government feels it might be easier to create something new rather than to bring efficiencies to the existing government bureaucracy.

Our party is not against efficiency. Certainly we are all for it. However, if we cannot bring efficiencies to the bureaucracy, can we magically bring them to something that is not close to the government, that is an arm's length operation? I am not sure the logic follows.

The government is selling this on the grounds of some promised efficiency gains. As I understand it, some of these economic gains will only occur if the provinces agree, and yet we have not had a commitment there. I understand that some of the Atlantic provinces are pondering whether they want to continue with the harmonized tax program which the federal government launched.

Are we really going to see these efficiency gains? That is a good question. I am not saying that the status quo is the answer. It certainly is not.

I would like to highlight some of the situations that I have encountered in my short time as a member of parliament. I will allude to one situation. If members wish more details, I will provide them, although I know that some individuals involved are concerned that the details might get out. The taxpayer bill of rights is needed because of the intimidation factor. These people feel there might be repercussions if the details are brought out.

One particular business was an oil contracting and production business owned by a fairly prominent businessman in my riding. His company had been through a number of mergers and different purchases.

His problem related to GST numbers. When a merger takes place, the old GST number does not die. People are still required to track on the old one and on the new one. There is a convoluted set of rules surrounding it. But to cut a long story short, they tried to maintain the old ones and follow this complicated tracking procedure.

They submitted all the required information, as they understood it, to the tax department. Continually, though, they were asked to re-submit the information because they were told it had not been received or there was something missing. They continued to try to hit the mark and satisfy Revenue Canada.

In fact this gentleman related to me that he was talking to someone at Revenue Canada and offered to fax in what they had already submitted because there was no record, according to Revenue Canada, of having received it. He was told “We do not have a fax number here”. It was not too much later that he was talking to a different person in the bureaucracy and was given the fax number for the same department.

I am not casting aspersions on these individuals. What I am saying is that this is symptomatic of a bureaucracy that is out of control.

The last time I checked with this individual they were still attempting to demonstrate that they had followed the rules and they were looking for some acknowledgement or direction as to what they missed in trying to meet the mandate. It is not easy.

I feel, and I am sure that many of the members of this House feel, that our tax code and tax laws are just too convoluted. The act itself is 600 pages and there are another 600 or 700 pages of special interpretations and guidelines. The Ottawa phone book does not have as many pages as the tax act. It is no wonder a business person would find it difficult to meet all the requirements, even with the best of intentions. When we add to that some of the inefficiencies in the current bureaucracy it is really hard to satisfy the demands.

This is all the more reason for a taxpayer bill of rights, some advocate that a frustrated taxpayer can go to and say “I am trying to meet the requirements but I am just not making it”.

Let me give another example, closer to home, of an East Indian couple in my riding who immigrated to Canada. They have worked hard. They are a very diligent couple. They started a few small businesses. They tried to adhere to all of our laws and the requirements of the tax code. Yes, they had some professional help.

This couple started these small ventures. They thought, according to everything they had filed, that they had complied with all the rules. One day they were contacted by the tax department which advised them they had not. They were in the middle of the appeal process with the tax department to make their case when the person they were dealing with felt their case was not warranted. The next thing they knew the wife's account was garnisheed, locked up and no money was moving in or out.

We can imagine what this did to this small businessman. Suppliers were not getting paid. Customer relations were jeopardized. It was a tragic situation. Interestingly enough, he continued to appeal to Revenue Canada until he got to a higher level than the particular person he was dealing with.

At the end of it all, after a separate hearing and looking at all the facts, the answer was that the junior person had not really seen the whole picture. Revenue Canada released the accounts and everything carried on. At this point in time they are attempting to resolve the situation.

The bottom line is that the account should not have been locked up. But the damage was done to this gentleman's business and no apology was offered.

One final example that demonstrates the critical need for a taxpayer bill of rights, if we are going to have this new agency, is that of a young family I know. They received a windfall one day. They were told by the tax department that their child tax credit had been underpaid. It was great news.

They took this $1,000 and spent it. About two months later they got another letter from the tax department saying it had made a mistake and they really should not have had the overpayment. The next threat was that it was now going to garnishee their wages unless they instantly paid it back. Here was this family under great pressure and duress all because of this bureaucratic inefficiency. To add to that story, they were not the only ones. In their encounter to find out what happened they found out there were many other families.

I put forward those illustrations and many more just like them in our country where taxpayers need and must have a taxpayers bill of rights before any changes can be made to the bureaucracy that collects the taxes.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to do a bit of reminiscing but I will try to keep it short.

I think back to when I started paying taxes in 1970 and what the tax act was like then. It is interesting to make a comparison between the forms we had to fill out then and the ones we fill out now. I began working in depth with the tax act in 1977. At that time the tax act was not too thick. We now have an act that is literally a stack. It is impossible for anyone to completely understand it.

The complexity of the act is one thing, but the question I want to direct to the member for Calgary Centre is regarding the lack of respect it has shown toward taxpayers. Back in 1977 when I started working in depth with taxpayers I found many cases where taxpayers were considered to be guilty by Revenue Canada even when the evidence was not presented. Just on Revenue Canada's say so, a letter was sent to a taxpayer saying he or she was guilty of underpaying and in some cases beyond that.

In about 1984 or 1985 the Conservative government put in tax fairness legislation which helped and was a good thing. After that time I noticed that taxpayers were given the benefit of the doubt. They were treated much more fairly overall. There was less of them being considered guilty before their case was even heard.

The GST then came in and the same Conservative government, when it put the GST in place, did not put the tax fairness legislation in place to cover the GST. With the GST we see the same type of treatment of taxpayers that I saw in 1977 as I dealt with individuals where people were treated very unfairly and harassed in many cases by the GST people.

I have now been a member of parliament for the last five years but in the last couple of years I have noticed this trend toward more harassment even in the income tax area which is of great concern.

I would like to ask the member if he sees anything in this legislation that will ensure that fair treatment of taxpayers will be protected inside this agency.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. This question cuts to the heart of the issue. When an agency is given unchecked power, no critique, no bottom line as to who it is accountable to that is a dangerous precedent. I do not see anything in this legislation that protects taxpayers or gives them some court of appeal.

I again applaud the initiative of the member for Calgary Southeast that there must be an office for taxpayer protection before this legislation can go anywhere. I appeal to all members to consider that we must have something like this in the bill. His proposal states: “A chief advocate shall be asked to present each year a summary of 25 of the most serious problems encountered by the office and present recommendations as to how these can be avoided in the future”. That speaks to accountability. Let us see how the thing is working and make sure there is some measure of accountability.

To speak directly to the member's question, another component of taxpayer protection put forward is that the protection office would act as an advocate of last resort for taxpayers who feel they are being treated in an unfair, unjust or arbitrary manner. A court of appeal is just common sense, nothing to be afraid of. But it is incumbent on us to have it be part of this whole package if we are really going to serve our constituents.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to all the men and women who work at Revenue Canada. Unlike my colleagues, I had the opportunity of serving on both sides of the House, on the opposition benches as well as on the government side. Throughout the many years I have been here my office had nothing but very pleasant experiences in dealing with the staff and the people who work at Revenue Canada whenever we had an issue dealing with a constituent's concern. They were prompt and efficient and they got to the bottom of the matter. They dealt with it in a fair and equitable manner.

This issue of trying to create a new agency will deal with many of the concerns that some of my colleagues have raised today, but it also goes beyond that.

The Canada customs and revenue agency is the result of extensive consultations with the provinces and territories as well as with our interest groups and employees.

Our government announced its intention to establish a new tax, customs and trade agency in its February 1996 Speech from the Throne and March 1996 budget.

We have consulted our interest groups and employees on an ongoing basis. We consulted not just once but three times with the provinces, with tax, customs and trade experts and with business associations on what the appropriate framework and organizational structure should be for the new agency.

We also consulted our employees and are continuing to welcome their input and that of their representatives. In April 1997, following initial consultations, we released our first progress report. Then, we conducted a second round of consultations that led to the establishment of a special advisory committee to seek comments and views on the new agency's operational framework.

This committee brings together consultants and professionals as well as officials from large Canadian corporate interests that have dealings with Revenue Canada.

In January, 1998, we released a second interim report, which provided for other changes and improvements based, once again, on consultations. These changes are real changes. They are also significant. They have enabled us to make an even better proposal to Canadians for a new agency, which has had considerable support.

Here are some of the things we have heard from our interest groups since the release of the second report.

First, l'Association de planification fiscale et financière wrote the minister following the release of the second interim report. In its letter, it pointed out that, in the context of the initial proposal and for discussion purposes, the agency would not necessarily have reported to the minister. It noted that it had opposed this idea and that it was grateful to the minister for taking its recommendation into account.

The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants also wrote the minister following the release of the government's second interim report. In its letter, it said that the proposals incorporated its suggestion that each province present a list of designated individuals rather than a single candidate for the agency's board of management. The institute believes that will give the government considerable help in setting up a balanced board of management.

Many groups continue to support the proposed creation of the agency in the various consultations and have reiterated the key benefits they see for their members.

By way of example, the Canadian Payroll Association, which represents over 5,300 member associations and individuals, mentioned certain benefits, including, first, a reduction in the number of resource persons employers need to contact for information; second, the existence of a single auditor in contact with a business for all revenue audits; third, simplified administration and less confusion, for example, by using common definitions; and, finally, the grouping of debt recovery measures for businesses in financial difficulty.

Paul Cherecwich Jr., international president of the Tax Executives Institute, which has a lot of Canadian members, also wrote the minister. In his letter, he points out that certain new information has come to his attention that demonstrates the government's deep commitment not just to the concept of the agency, but also to the consultation process, which was instrumental in moving the concept from the idea stage to an achievable plan.

The letter says that the agency has been strengthened because the obligation of reporting to the minister has been retained, because administration has been simplified, and because the links and co-ordination that now exist between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue will be maintained and improved when the agency is formed.

A study commissioned by the Public Policy Forum served as an indirect form of consultation. The purpose of this study was to look at the enforcement and administration savings that a single body would produce.

The study targeted a group of small business accountants, a sampling of over 1,500 small and medium-sized businesses, and a group of non-profit agencies. Their positions and their estimates can be found in the report, which was published in December 1997.

The government is listening. The opinions of its employees and of interest groups throughout the country are very important to it. Revenue Canada employees were another group that deserved intensive special consultations.

During the summer of 1997, over 7,000 Revenue Canada employees were asked for their opinions about a new human resources management framework. In December 1997, the union and management signed a memorandum of understanding setting out how the new human resources management framework would be developed.

Eight design teams were created. They include union and management representatives, as well as employees from various sectors of the department.

Five teams produced final reports on important human resource-related issues, such as staffing, classification, appeal mechanisms, training and upgrading, and employment equity.

Others are looking at re-engineering, National Joint Council directives, and senior level staff. These teams are working on proposals on these aspects, which are part of the agency's human resources management framework, and have submitted their proposals to 3,000 other employees for review.

Essentially, consultation consists in listening, learning, and then acting. We met with thousands of Canadians, singly or in groups. We learned what was most important to them, and what their perceptions of the future of Canadian tax, customs and trade administration were.

It is now time to act, and to implement the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. I therefore strongly urge this House, particularly my colleagues in the opposition parties, to support this bill, because it is a well-balanced one which responds to the needs of Canadians, as well as a forward-looking proposal, one which really gives this agency the opportunity to do better in serving the people of Canada.

Let me be unequivocally clear that this agency, if anything, will improve on the services that we are offering to the public.

I heard my colleagues in the opposition parties raise some concerns which may I suggest are not within the virtue of the law as it is proposed before parliament. My colleagues should be commending the government on this initiative. They should be supporting the government on this initiative because it is going to provide the agency with the necessary tools to better serve the taxpayers of Canada. It will provide the agency with the flexibility to better carry out its mandate.

Nothing will change when it comes to the responsibility of the agency vis-à-vis the population and the House of Commons. The Minister of Revenue will continue to be responsible for the agency. In fact this has been mentioned many times.

There would be absolutely no difference between the operation of this agency and many other agencies which are operating very effectively in our society.

Look at Statistics Canada for example. It is the envy of the world. It has an extremely efficient operation. It has the necessary flexibility. It can move ahead. It can provide advice not only to us as parliamentarians, to taxpayers, to the provinces, but to anyone throughout the world. It has been identified as one of the best agencies in the world.

Revenue Canada as an agency on its own can also provide that kind of service, not only to taxpayers, not only at the provincial level, not only to territorial governments, but I would say it can also provide services elsewhere.

The Public Service of Canada and those who work for Revenue Canada are among the finest public servants anywhere in the world.

We are giving this agency the flexibility to carry out its duties. It will have control over its own destiny to a large extent while at the same time balancing our needs as a parliament, balancing the needs of our constituents, that is, the taxpayers of Canada, and serving the interests of the agency itself when it comes to hiring, when it comes to classification, when it comes to flexibility in its operation.

All those are extremely important elements. They are important reasons why we should be endorsing this proposal by passing all of those small little nitty-gritty things that really are not within the purview of the act and can be dealt with outside of the act and outside of the proposal before us today.

We should give a rousing endorsement to what is before us today. This is a historic moment in the way in which the government is carrying out its mandate. We are allowing agencies and organizations to flourish and to provide services that Canadians want us to offer them efficiently, in a timely manner, in a good way as we have been doing and will continue to do for years to come.

This bill makes it a happy day for us today. My colleagues should stand up and congratulate the Minister of National Revenue who has done a marvellous job, his staff, the administration as well as the employees of department who continue to provide excellent service to Canadians.

I want to conclude by saying—

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

My colleagues, are clapping on the other side and they are endorsing the proposal. That is what I hear.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member for Ottawa Centre. When I listen to him, I realize he lives in Ottawa, in this august place where parliament is. He should visit the rest of the country once in a while.

He talks about this being a historic moment. In 1917 this House had another historic moment. We brought in a temporary income tax law. Now we have another historic moment where the government is trying to bring in another bill which is not going to do the average Canadian any good at all.

The member said it was a great consultative process, that the government is listening. Why is it after all this time that none of the provinces have signed on to this project? Why is it that Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, the majority of the people in Canada do not like this project? Yet this government is consulting. Why did it not wait until it at least got the agreement of the provinces? If this is a country where the federal government is going to work with the provinces, surely we should not have legislation in this House before the provinces or at least the majority of the provinces come to an agreement. Right now we have zero.

I ask the member why he thinks the government had a consultative process. Why does he think the government is listening when it does not have provinces signing on to this project?

He talked about Statistics Canada being the envy of the world. One would have to live in Ottawa to think that. He should talk to the people in British Columbia or Nova Scotia about Statistics Canada and the interference in their private lives if he thinks it is the envy of the world. Perhaps people outside Canada who have never been here think it is the envy of the world, but not the people who live here and pay taxes.

I ask the member, why is this bill so good when not one province has signed on to it?

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, frankly it is true. I am the member of all members because the House of Commons happens to be in my constituency of Ottawa Centre. Most of my colleagues live in my riding, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, and I am honoured. It is a heavy responsibility for me to be the MP of all MPs, including the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Prime Minister. It is a challenge for me.

I want the House to know that not everything I hear in this House pleases me. I look at the statement made by my colleague on the other side in trying to attack Statistics Canada. I am not the one who said it. I have repeated what others have said, that Statistics Canada is one of the finest agencies in the world. I do not know the name of the organization, but Statistics Canada over and over again has been identified as a lead agency when it comes to the efficiency of operation, when it comes to passing on information to the government, to members of parliament including my colleague on the other side, as well as to others. I would say that Statistics Canada has done nothing intrusive.

In response to the member's question, consultations are ongoing. He wanted my opinion. It is imperative to proceed with what we have now. Provinces will be onboard. Those who are not onboard will be onboard sooner or later.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast would like to advise the hon. member for Ottawa Centre that he can take him off his mailing list.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre got himself into such a frenzy stroking the ego of his colleague, the minister of revenue. It looked as if that was the most pathetic attempt to become parliamentary secretary I have seen here in a long time.

The hon. member does not think StatsCan is intrusive. Apparently he thinks it is a model for Revenue Canada. Let me suggest there is one slight difference. Revenue Canada is vested by this parliament with police powers, with the monopoly and coercive power of the government to forcibly extract from people the fruits of their own labours and to get into their most private matters, to find out everything about their financial arrangements, how much they make, where they save it and how they spend it. Those are extraordinary powers which are all too often abused.

If the hon. member heard my speech he would have heard me relate several stories, as have other members, about this kind of extraordinary abuse. For instance, Janice Collingridge, a low income quadriplegic from Calgary, was dragged into tax court by this government's tax cops to pay $5,000 in back payroll taxes which she should never have had to pay. It was thrown out by the tax court.

Members know of case upon case of abuse by Revenue Canada officials. What exists in Bill C-43 to prevent this kind of abuse of the power we give the tax cops? Why will the minister and the member not accept a strengthening of accountability through the adoption of a taxpayer bill of rights which would be appended to Bill C-43?

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have never in my life seen so much lack of understanding in terms of how Revenue Canada works. The member is complaining about a specific case. I cannot comment on a specific case.

If the member needs a situation addressed, there are at least four steps I know of that he can go through in Revenue Canada before coming to parliament. Revenue Canada has a fairness committee. If you disagree with your tax assessment you can go there. And you can go higher and higher within the administration to the point where if you are not happy, you can go to the minister or you can go to court in order to find a way to resolve the problem.

I hope this gentleman is not suggesting to Canadians that they should not give their revenue information to Revenue Canada, that they should not tell Revenue Canada about some of their income. We live in a society where the only mechanism we have to support our social programs like health care is through our revenues. It is not an easy job collecting taxes. How would anyone like it? Tax and debt, everybody wants to run away from them.

It is a fact of life and the gentleman had better get used to it. We have to pay taxes for as long as we have social programs to support, for as long as we have to operate the government, for as long as we need roads to drive on and for as long as we have to move from one end of the country to the other. We have to have taxes. I do not like it but that is the way it is and we have to live with it.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the member for Ottawa Centre that I have moved out of his riding. I am now in the riding of the Minister of Industry, but I will stay on his mailing list because I enjoy his publications. They are well informed and he always goes into great depth.

The member for Ottawa Centre started out on a personal note as he talked about people who work in the tax department who are his constituents. They are people we deal with every day as members of parliament when we are trying to help people through the maze of problems they get not just with taxes but with many things. I have had to deal with the tax department myself and the only good part of it was that the lady's name was Hope. That was about all I had.

I want the member to comment further on some of his experiences with the employees of Revenue Canada and the good work they do for us as members of parliament.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the public service is an easy target. These people are like all of us, with one exception. They are always on the other end of the telephone and they hear complaints day after day, day in and day out. They go the extra mile to provide the most efficient and most timely information to those who call.

My experience, as well as that of my staff and of many colleagues on both sides of the House, with public servants has been very positive. I pay tribute to each one of them, particularly those behind the telephone. They are the ones who are taking the public calls and hearing the complaints from time to time.

These people handle millions of tax forms throughout the year, not only around tax time. They handle them in an efficient and positive manner. They deal with millions of forms. They are bound to make mistakes. No one is perfect, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, and all my colleagues on both sides of the House. I ask anybody who thinks he is perfect to stand and say so. Nobody is standing.

My colleague on the other side, the revenue critic, does not like to pay taxes but he better get used to it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am obliged to stand but I want to assure everyone I am not suggesting that I am perfect.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my speech now and finish it after Oral Question Period.

I am pleased to address Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. Let me say from the outset that I am opposed to the creation of this new federal agency, primarily because of the attitude and actions of this government.

We cannot take a chance and support a bill which only seeks to centralize the collection of taxes in Canada, reduce the number of jobs at the Department of National Revenue and, more importantly, create an agency that will, yet again, interfere with the Quebec department of revenue.

This bill shows that the Liberal government is finding it increasingly difficult to fulfil its responsibilities as administrator and manager of the state. The government is, once again, about to abdicate its responsibilities.

The new agency could make it possible for the minister to avoid fulfilling his duty, which is to protect taxpayers against any abuse of power. We are all familiar with the Liberals' habit of creating independent agencies and then avoid answering questions by using the excuse that we must respect the agency's independence and autonomy, and that the government does not want to interfere.

My riding of Lotbinière is among the Quebec ridings where sheep farmers are at odds with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is following some obscure directives to systematically destroy sheep that may be infected with scrapie. That agency is directly accountable to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. For the past two weeks, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking the minister to take action and put a stop to this carnage which imperils the sheep industry in Quebec.

But the minister does not answer our questions. He too hides behind the agency to shirk his responsibilities. Meanwhile, the problem persists and our sheep farmers live in fear that an inspector or a veterinarian from the agency will call to inform them of the tragic news that some or all of their sheep will have to be destroyed.

This is an agency which definitely lacks transparency and which refuses to provide information to Quebec elected officials who are desperately trying to save an industry that was thriving before the carnage began, in January 1997, and that has now lost 11,000 sheep.

We have before our eyes an example which shows that the Liberal approach is not working. Yet, our questions are simple. How many sheep were identified as being infected with scrapie? Where are these infected animals? How does the agency diagnose the disease? What are the criteria used to determine whether or not the sheep must be destroyed? What is the agency's budget for research? What stage has the agency reached in its work? We have no idea. What is currently going on in Quebec is unacceptable.

Do you think that after going through this experience we will support Bill C-43? No, especially not with a Minister of Finance who does not even care about the real purpose of the employment insurance fund. I would rather not think about having an independent agency collecting our taxes.

The Minister of Finance ignores accounting principles. He ignores the repeated warnings of the auditor general, and he cannot even submit realistic estimates to the public.

There is a 60% difference between the forecasts and the actual figures. Do you know any business that would keep such an incompetent accountant? There is only the Prime Minister, the new dictator of the Canadian economy, who called on the police to use force against peaceful students who simply wanted to protest against an international situation.

This government is again trying to show its good will by proposing the creation of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. However, we see what is behind this legislation: an anti-labour manoeuvre. In other words, 20% of the employees of Revenue Canada will no longer be covered by the public service act. The new agency will therefore have full latitude in two years' time to raise and lower salaries and hire and fire employees.

In any case, the federal Liberals are increasingly revealing their lack of social conscience and their lack of compassion.

I return to the example of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who remains insensitive to the suffering of lamb producers in Quebec. The Minister of Finance, whose behaviour is unspeakable, wants to legalize his misappropriation of funds from the employment insurance fund, which belongs to workers and to employers. In the private sector, this sort of misappropriation would mean a trip to court.

This government is prepared to do anything to satisfy its need to centralize. The Liberals consider simplification synonymous with duplication and harmonization to them means meddling. The problem is that Quebec can guess what lies behind this new agency. Ontario is on the lookout as well, and with this new threat of centralization, is even considering setting up its own agency.

We agree with the principle of a single collector, but in Quebec, it should be the Quebec department of revenue that collects all federal taxes, as it does the GST.

Let us have another look at the officials who would be affected by the creation of this agency. A while ago, the President of Treasury Board said the following about the agency: “Creation of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is an essential component of the government's commitment to modernize the federal public service”.

There is mention of 40,000 public servants, or 20% of the whole public service, who will from now on be at the mercy of the agency's board, made up of good little Liberals prepared to follow the Prime Minister's orders.

And what about the executives of this new agency? Who will they be? They will be better paid than the senior executives of the present Department of National Revenue. Who will foot the bill for this? The support staff, the record processing clerks, in short all the grassroots employees of the department.

In this connection, I would like to explain how the Revenue Canada employee union sees the Minister of Revenue's plan. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is a federal creation, inspired by top taxation people in Ottawa, who want to create a sort of monstrous octopus, the tentacles of which will reach not only as far as the provincial governments, but right up to the municipal and local ones.

Their intent is to administer everything, from provincial sales taxes to gasoline and alcohol taxes. Are we going to take that risk with a Liberal government, a voracious and centralist government that respects nothing? No. And whom is this agency going to be answerable to? What power will the elected representatives in this House have for getting any explanations about its administration, its results, and its mistakes as well?

As we know, in its present structure, Revenue Canada provides Parliament and the taxpaying public with the necessary accounting, via the Department of National Revenue. The government cannot sidestep embarrassing questions like the family trust scandal and the little perks the Minister of Finance is giving to his ships.

We fear that the new agency will be subject to a less stringent parliamentary scrutiny than the one currently imposed on the Department of Revenue. I can see it already. The minister will rise and answer a question about the agency as follows: “Mr. Speaker, we have asked for an inquiry into this independent agency and as soon as we have any information, we will communicate it to the House”. In other words, while the inquiry is going on, we will find a way to get our party out of this embarrassing situation.

Last week, opposition parties called for explanations of the Prime Minister's conduct in what is now known as the Peppergate affair. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the solicitor general all sought refuge behind the RCMP commission of inquiry. Imagine an embarrassing question about the operations of the agency. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of National Revenue have already got their script ready.

The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister give the impression of having spent the summer preparing a series of 30-second cassettes devoid of information. Something is not right.

It will not be long before the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and other ministers will be lip-synching to a soundtrack of 150 applauding MPs, all bowing before their great leader. One thing is certain: I hope these cassettes will not be sold to the public, because the distributor—

[The Speaker]

As it is now almost 2 p.m., I must interrupt the hon. member. He will have at least eight and a half minutes to complete his speech after Oral Question Period. It will be his turn. We will now proceed to Statements By Members. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

International Conference On Dyslexia

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first International Conference on Dyslexia is taking place in Hull on October 7, 8 and 9. Dyslexia is one of the most common disabilities in the world. Approximately 23% of the Canadian population is affected and has difficulty reading and writing.

For these Canadians dyslexia presents an enormous struggle. Reading the paper, making a grocery list or reading a bedtime story can be the cause of great frustration. We need to dispel myths and promote facts regarding dyslexia. Dyslexia can occur at any level of intellectual ability. It can be alleviated by specialist teaching and committed learning.

It is an honour for Canada to host the first International Conference on Dyslexia. This conference will help to dispel some of the myths about dyslexia, as well as offer some guidance to those affected and their family. I am sure all members will join me in wishing the participants of this conference well.

Onoway, Alberta

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to congratulate my hometown of Onoway as it celebrates its 75th anniversary.

Located 30 miles west of Edmonton in the beautiful hill and lake country of Lac Ste. Anne County, Onoway may not have a long history but the historic Lac Ste. Anne trail straddles the community. Onoway does not have the museums and concert halls that grace Ottawa but then it does not receive billions from taxpayers. A large population is not a defining feature of this thriving and friendly town but here is one that is: Lorne Osvik, the smilingest mayor in western Canada.

Onoway district is just a nice place to live and raise children and I pay tribute to its settling pioneers, their descendants and all those people who over the years have made Onoway what it is today. I ask all members to join me in congratulating Onoway, the biggest little town in Alberta.

Seniors

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House and all Canadians that today, October 1, 1998, is international day of older persons. This day also heralds the coming year, 1999, as the international year of older persons.

The theme for this celebration is Canada, a society for all ages. Our goal is to use this special year to enhance understanding, harmony and mutual support across the generations.

We must also take this opportunity to increase the recognition of seniors' contributions to society. I know firsthand what a vital, energetic role seniors play in our communities. They are front and centre in local volunteer work, always reaching out to help others and they are the foundation of our families and the wisdom and knowledge of our time.

Please join me in recognizing this special day and participating wholeheartedly in the national celebrations during 1999, the international year of older persons.

Gm Plant In Boisbriand

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the GM plant in Boisbriand is threatened with closure in 24 months because the models produced there are not selling.

If the plant were to close down, this would be a disaster not only for the 1,500 workers and their families, but also for the entire region, where thousands of indirect jobs depend on the $100 million a year in wages generated by their work.

Starting tomorrow, 700 GM workers will have to register with the employment insurance program because the plant will be operating with only one shift. Tomorrow, at dawn, these newly unemployed workers, their former co-workers and other workers showing solidarity, as well as government officials will gather in front of the plant in Boisbriand for a peaceful protest.

The Bloc Quebecois sends its brotherly regards and add its voice in solidarity with these GM workers and former workers. We want to assure them of our support in their fight to ensure that their plant, on which the prosperity of the Basses-Laurentides depends, remains in operation.

Environmental Illness

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the first day of national environmental illness awareness month.

Over 4.5 million Canadians suffer from some degree of illness caused by the environment in which they work or live. Multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibramyalgia are the three most common ailments and have the capacity to cause disabilities. People suffering from these diseases often experience debilitating pain and are unable to work or participate fully in society.

Environmental illness is a real problem. This national campaign seeks to develop greater public awareness in order to improve the health, social and medical well-being of those who suffer.

I commend Judith Spence of the Environmental Illness Society of Canada as well as representatives of the National ME/FM Action Network, ME Canada and MESH-Ottawa for their hard work. On behalf of my colleagues, I say to them good luck.

Opposition

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the late Andy Warhol once said that everyone will enjoy 15 minutes of fame but even Mr. Warhol could not have painted as pathetic a scene as we have witnessed from some members in opposition lately.

Desperate for television air time, they are hijacking the parliamentary agenda instead of supporting Canadians through positive legislation. They are just putting on a show with no real substance.

This government wants to deal with real issues like health care, lower taxes and safeguarding Canada at a time of global economic uncertainty.

Let us bring debate back to the issues that matter to Canadians. We must get back to the business of focusing on the concerns of Canadians.