Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today. Since this is my first speech here, I would like to thank the residents of Sherbrooke for the confidence they put in me on September 14, when they elected me to represent their riding.
I wish to reiterate my firm resolve to represent all the citizens of the riding of Sherbrooke in my daily work, whether in Sherbrooke or in Ottawa. I intend to work hard, along with my staff, to improve the situation regarding employment, community life, the employment insurance program, older workers and pay equity.
I read Bill C-43 carefully, and also the speech made by the Minister of Revenue on October 1, 1998.
I was struck by this urgency to take action, so as to achieve certain objectives, namely to ensure quality services at a lower cost, fair administration, confidential service, modern and effective management and, above all, parliamentary accountability.
I was also struck by how easily the minister is prepared to abdicate his political responsibility and let an independent agency assume all the responsibilities that a government has. I realize the minister must redefine methods and procedures in order to achieve the objectives that I just mentioned.
The minister reminds me of someone who is having mechanical problems with his car and thinks that changing driver or doing some bodywork on the car will make it run better. Well, it will not. What the car needs is a good tune-up.
Quebeckers and Canadians have the right to expect the minister to put his head under the hood, to replace defective parts and to make the necessary adjustments so he can get back on the road safely and reach the efficiency goals that the public expects in terms of service delivery.
On September 29, the auditor general tabled his report. As a member of the public accounts committee, I had the opportunity to read Chapter 15, which deals with integrity at Revenue Canada and where it is revealed that 285 incidents of theft, fraud, abuse of power and conflict of interest were reported over a period of 18 months. The auditor general said, and I quote:
Bearing in mind that Revenue Canada has approximately 40,000 employees, 285 incidents in 18 months may not seem like a particularly high number. At the same time, academic studies of other segments of society strongly suggest that the number of incidents of misconduct that are reported is much lower than the number of incidents that actually occur. The nature of Revenue Canada's operations makes it more vulnerable than many other departments.
Because Revenue Canada is vulnerable, as proven by the incidents that occurred in 1997, the department must remain vigilant. One of the minister's five principles is that people want the government to be accountable to them. In that regard, he said, and I quote:
Questions are often asked in the House of the minister. The power of the minister to inquire into these matters and respond to the House will be maintained under the new agency.
Members will recall that, on September 30, I did ask a question of the minister in this House. This was the question:
The auditor general reports that the government is already having a hard time assuring security and integrity within the department of revenue, with all the bribes, leaks, abuses of power and everything else.
What should we think about a government that is now contemplating giving tax collection over to an independent agency, which would have even less accountability than Revenue Canada?
Hon. members will remember the answer I was given; it was sheer nonsense. The minister told me that if I really wanted to look at problems in revenue, I should look at Revenue Quebec, where the real problems were.
In order to hide from the public his inability to get his house in order and hide the real reasons why he wanted to set up this independent agency, he referred to the mote in his Quebec neighbour's eye, but did not say a word about the beam in his own.
The minister thinks that setting up an independent agency will make it easier for him to reach the goals I have already mentioned. I do not believe it, and several people agree with me. But there is more.
For more than two years now, the minister has been working on this agency. Instead, he should have worked on the restructuring and the re-engineering of his own department. We would already have better services, a fairer administration, modern and efficient management practices, but mostly a structure more accountable to parliament and taxpayers through a modern and efficient department of revenue.
However, that has nothing to do with the real reasons why this independent agency is being established. The real reason is because the minister does not want to be held accountable. It will act as a bulwark against having to account for tax collection.
Through its centralizing vision, the government wants to stretch its influence and control to provincial, municipal and local governments. It wants to have 15 extra positions to which friends and defeated candidates can be appointed. It also wants to exclude more than 20% of its officials from the application of the Public Service Employment Act.
In this whole enactment, there is one important objective I support, and that is to avoid duplication, and I agree with the need to improve and simplify the administration of tax legislation.
Quebec collects all provincial income and sales taxes. It would be no problem to consolidate all provincial and federal tax collection activities in Quebec. In fact, Quebec is prepared to do it.
To conclude, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the establishment of the Canada customs and revenue agency and urges the members of this House to support the motion moved on October 1 and seconded by me.
Another perhaps less obvious reason to oppose the establishment of the agency is what I consider to be some kind of plan B. It is well known that the government is trying to stretch its tentacles to the municipal and local level. Luckily for municipalities, they fall under provincial jurisdiction, and I do not think the federal government will be able to get them to do business with the agency, even with the lure of substantial savings.
There would be a problem. The same way that a private business partitions services within its operations and contracts out, there are cities in Quebec considering partitioning, and a tax relationship could be established between municipalities and the federal government through the agency. I view this whole tax agency business as part of a plan B.
The Bloc Quebecois and I are against the agency.