Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1998

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for all the amendments that reduce the scope of Bill C-43, because the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the establishment of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

In the throne speech delivered in February 1996, the federal government announced the establishment of a national revenue collection agency. Just when we thought the government had completely abandoned the idea, the Minister of Revenue tabled Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, just before the House adjourned for the summer.

What the minister came up with is not a mere collection agency, but a terrible bureaucratic monster, which threatens the confidentiality of personal information, the rights of revenue department employees, and the provincial powers relating to revenue collection. Even the business community is opposed to the establishment of this agency.

The minister admitted he wanted the House to pass Bill C-43 before the Christmas recess. We wonder why he persists in going that route, considering that no one wants this national customs and revenue agency. The minister proposes to change the current structure of the Department of National Revenue by transforming Revenue Canada into an agency that is quasi-independent of the government.

It would have the job of collecting taxes, not only federal taxes, but taxes of all sorts, including sales and property taxes, provided of course that tax collection agreements are signed with the provinces and municipalities.

Let me list the reasons why we should oppose this bill. First, the customs and revenue agency is a threat to the privacy of Quebeckers and Canadians. In the era of electronic communications, the risks of trafficking in personal information are inversely proportional to the concentration of information within private organizations. If ever it is created, the agency in question will have access to an incredible quantity of personal and financial information.

In addition, this agency would be less accountable through the minister and less subject to scrutiny by parliament than Revenue Canada is at present. As a result, the dissemination of this personal information about taxpayers would be completely beyond public control.

Second, the customs and revenue agency could also jeopardize the working conditions of Revenue Canada employees and even threaten their jobs.

In fact, 40,000 Revenue Canada employees would no longer be covered by the Public Service Employment Act. In two years' time, the agency could thus lower employees' salaries, lay them off, or decide on their working conditions without having to consult them. By passing this bill, the government is taking a heavy-handed approach to modernizing the public service, instead of trying to reach agreement with unions.

Third, the customs and revenue agency does not impress owners of small businesses. The business community was supposed to be the main beneficiary. However, reaction to the agency's announcement was restrained and ambivalent, to say the least. Such bodies as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have expressed misgivings about the concentration of power within the agency. According to a Public Policy Forum study commissioned by Revenue Canada, no fewer than 40% of businesses indicate no interest whatsoever in the agency. More than two-thirds also believe that its creation would not mean any savings over the present structure, or that it would cost even more.

Finally, and this is a vital point, the Customs and Revenue Agency runs counter to the federal principle of provincial sovereignty in areas that fall under their jurisdiction. Such an agency would, therefore, violate the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments If the provinces have independent revenues, they must be the ones to collect them.

Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who cannot be accused of excessive support for independence, rose up more than 30 years ago to denounce the practice of the federal government's collecting more taxes than it needs in order to implement policies coming under its jurisdiction. Trudeau saw such an act as illegal, even. In 1957, he wrote that the federal government cannot legally have funds in its coffers which it claims, after the fact, are for provincial purposes.

What would happen if the federal government assigned to a central collection agency encompassing the whole of Canada and coming under federal authority the power to collect taxes of various kinds, instead of the provinces and the municipalities? In our opinion, it would then become impossible to halt the centralization of the Canadian federation. When the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says that Canada is the most decentralized federation in the world, I think he is the only one to believe it.

I will be blunt: if the federal government collects its own taxes to finance its responsibilities under section 91 of the Constitution Act, that is plausible. However, the fact that it wants to give responsibility for collecting provincial and municipal taxes to appointed officials, who are not directly accountable for their actions, is inconceivable and unimaginable.

As the Minister of Finance announces his surplus of billions of dollars, he should respect the consensus reached by the provinces and give them back the money he cut in recent years. That would enable them to look after health, education and social services, which are also their responsibility under the constitutional agreement. For that, however, we should not really count on our colleagues opposite. The mission of the Liberal members is to defend the federal government and not the interests of Canadians and Quebeckers.

The example of the Canada customs and revenue agency should suffice to convince those who have not yet understood that for the past 50 years Canada has been headed inexorably toward centralization. The federal government, and this Liberal government in particular, is trying to destroy all thoughts of autonomy—be they those of Quebec, provinces or regions.

The proposed customs and revenue agency will concentrate in the hands of a few super-bureaucrats the power to dig into the pockets of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, at the expense of Revenue Canada employees, small businesses and provincial and municipal governments.

We think that the federal government already collects too large a share of tax revenues and that it uses its spending power in an inconsiderate manner. We will not, on top of that, give the minister carte blanche to collect all taxes across Canada.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-43, which proposes the establishment of such an agency, and this is why we support all the amendments that seek to reduce the scope of the bill.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset we oppose Bill C-43. It is a pleasure to speak on the bill and on Group No. 1 motions.

There are good things in the bill. No doubt, as my colleagues have mentioned, there are good things about reducing duplication, about improving the efficiency within the tax system, with having one agency to collect taxes. In my province of British Columbia we have a mess.

We have a mess in the tax system, particularly on the provincial level, where it is so complex that it is costing businesses to pay and implement the provincial tax structures. They would prefer to have a flat system where everything was taxed, believe it or not in some cases, than have the system they have now that is costing them an extraordinary amount of money just to implement it.

We support those elements in Bill C-43 that will streamline the system. However, if we are to a Canada customs and review agency that will be a super agency, the Canadian public must have the assurance the agency will be transparent and accountable to parliament and therefore to the Canadian people.

We insist therefore that a couple of significant provisions be made in the bill, provisions we feel are essential if the bill goes through. One is to ensure we have a taxpayer bill of rights. This taxpayer bill of rights is a check. It is a balance. It is an assurance to Canadians that they will be protected from an agency. Canadian do not mind paying fair taxes but they do not want to be ripped off.

Some of the elements in the taxpayer bill of rights would include tax laws in plain language that are understandable to Canadians as opposed to the system now where even a person with a Ph.D. finds it very difficult to understand. Taxpayers should be treated properly, fairly and with honesty and have an avenue to complain where the complaints are heard and not merely swept under the carpet. They should be informed of overpayment in a timely fashion.

One of the complaints I am sure we all get as members of parliament is that even though Canadians are asked to pay their taxes on time, and if not they are made to feel like a criminal, if somehow they overpay it can take a month of Sundays before that money is paid back.

Penalties ought to be applied fairly to all individuals. The right to record any and all meetings with Revenue Canada should be there on the part of the taxpayer. The taxpayer should have the right to appeal any Revenue Canada rulings and that CCRA should waive penalties and interest wherever possible where taxpayers have acted in good faith in their payment of taxes but for circumstances perhaps not in their control or due to an unfortunate oversight they happened to pay less than they should have.

Canadians are overtaxed. Most Canadians do their best to pay. Sometimes they run afoul of the payment schedule. We beg and we ask that taxpayers are not made to feel like criminals, that amendments can be made on compassionate grounds to make sure they will pay their taxes in a way that is fair to them.

We want a fair tax system, not a tax system sitting there like a cudgel over the heads of taxpayers and is used to bash them over the head like a group of bovines.

That is not what Canadians want. They want a fair tax system. They do not mind paying their tax, but they do not want to be treated as slaves to a large system that can be created.

It is for those reasons that we want to ensure a taxpayer bill of rights is put forward. The other thing we want is an office for taxpayer protection. This office of taxpayer protection is another element of adding transparency, another check and a balance and a protection for the Canadian people.

We want this taxpayer protection office to report to parliament each year on the state of the CCRA. A chief advocate can be used to present this to parliament and that chief advocate can present 25 of the most serious problems in the system to the House so they can be acted on in a timely fashion rather than what usually happens where it is ignored or tossed under the table.

Also, this office can be used to assist taxpayers in resolving disputes with the CCRA and can act as an advocate for last resort for the taxpayer. This would be a very constructive role by the government. We hope the government listens.

If the government instituted those two solutions then it government would have the support of the Reform Party in passing this bill. We will not support this bill unless those checks and balances are there and unless the Canadian public is protected from the CCRA.

Let us talk on the larger issue of tax cuts. We have been accused of somehow favouring the rich. We have been accused of instituting a plan that will destroy social programs.

If that were the case we would not support tax cuts. The cold hard facts that have been seen across the country and around the world are that tax cuts improve the health and welfare of people and can generate more money for government to save social programs.

That is one of the reasons the Reform Party came here. We saw the degradation of our social programs. We saw the destruction of our health care, our education system and the social safety nets that are there, thankfully, to help those who through no fault of their own are unable to work.

It has been sadly 20 years of overspending by governments that has caused the mountain of debt and that has caused such a huge amount of interest payments that have eroded into the spending capabilities of government to support the social programs we have all come to be fortunate enough to have in our blessed country.

Let us look at the facts. What do taxes do? Let us look at the tax burden briefly for a second. If we look at individuals, if we look at ourselves versus the United States, we can see that personal taxes have increased over the last three decades 136% in Canada personally compared to 31% in the United States of America. Those are the facts.

In the OECD Canada suffers the highest personal income tax burden of any major economy as a revenue proportion of GDP. Our ratio is nearly 18%. In the U.S. it is 11% and 10% in Britain. Britain lowered its tax rates. Ireland lowered its tax rates. It decreased the complexity of its tax structure, decreased the complexity of the rules and regulations that choked the private sector. As a result, its economy is booming.

Lessons can be learned. Let us take a look at the tax increases by the government. The government likes to say it has decreased taxes. Au contraire. They have actually increased although they have been nibbled away at the tax burden a little bit.

Tax brackets and credits have not been indexed to inflation, therefore we have had bracket creep that has increased taxes 18%.

The CPP tax increase of 73% has actually increased the total tax burden on Canadians by over $1.3 billion in excess of what the government has actually decreased. I challenge any member from across the way to refute that argument.

On the issue of the benefits of tax cuts, if we look at the 10 states in the United States with the lowest taxes they have had a 20% higher amount of money and a growth rate in jobs far in excess of those 10 states with the highest tax rates. The lowest tax rate states have had a much higher rate of income for their average citizens. If we compare Ohio, Michigan and Ontario the job creation to the marginal tax rates in the United States is much lower than Ontario and as a result the job creation rates were much higher than what we found in Ontario.

If the government wants to do something constructive and productive for Canadians it can restore full indexation to the inflation of federal tax credits and income brackets, eliminate the 3% and 5% federal surtaxes and reduce each of the three federal income tax rates by 2%. The government should listen to that. If it listens to that Canadians will be wealthier, healthier and have social programs and will be better off.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party opposes this new tax agency. We oppose it because it is not needed. The auditor general says we do not need it. It is not wanted. Businesses do not want it. The provinces do not want it and territories do not want it. It should be rejected right now because economically, politically and socially it offers no benefit.

We want a tax agency or a tax system that is more responsive, not less responsive. As an MP many people come to my office for help on issues of taxation. We need it to be responsive because it is important to be able to go to the minister and say this is what is happening, this is how these policies are being applied.

I can give some examples. In Yukon the northern travel deduction has been audited massively. We are talking of thousands of audits of people of the north, and that is quite significant for a small population. We have a local bank manager who was audited three years in a row because he claimed the northern travel deduction. In Dawson City all the employees except for two at one place were audited. They used e-mail to file their tax forms and we can bet they will never do that again. That also brings in the whole issue of privacy and using technology to file tax returns.

The northern travel deduction barely gives enough to walk out of Yukon let alone travel out in any kind of comfortable style, but yet northerners have been audited relentlessly on this. We want a responsive minister when it comes to taxation.

As an example, a 74 year old had to pay back about $6,000 or $7,000 because Revenue Canada had made a mistake six years earlier. It sent him a bill seven years later saying he owed approximately $8,000. He made arrangements to pay back $200 a year, but it turned out that was not good enough and it would garnishee half his pension to get the money back. It made me wonder if it was determined to get all the money out of this man before he passed on. Revenue Canada's other solution was for him to get a bank loan to pay the debt. It would continue to put intense focus on poor people.

In particular, the complaints that come to my office happen to be from first nations people. There was an older couple who had brought up their grandchildren and claimed the family allowance and the child tax benefit through those years. They were told they had to pay this money back because they could not prove they had brought up their children. As MPs we are able to help in situations like that.

If this tax agency comes into effect it will remove that kind of accountability. It will put it at arm's length. That takes it further away from the House and further away from the people who need help to get through problems like that. The agency will have a business mandate and we can only imagine an agency contracting out collections.

It would be truly intolerable for people who already feel they are harassed and who feel they make a huge contribution to the well-being of our country through their paycheques and through their volunteer work in bringing up their families. An agency should not be open to making a profit.

Another reason we should not have this agency is it would be reviewed only after five years. Any new agency should be closely monitored, especially in its set-up. I would say at least every six months rather than waiting five years to review such a massive change in how we look after our tax collection.

It brings into question how fairly we will treat the employees who are transferred over to the tax agency. The union does not support that kind of transfer of authority. It is a stressful trying job for the workers who have to collect the taxes.

I take this chance to compliment the people who look after the northern region. First nations people will now be paying taxes. They have been very proactive. They have come to the north. They have had public meetings, information sessions and have gone through the whole process with the folks who will have to file income tax for the first time in their lives. That is the kind of dedication and service we want from public servants. They were there making sure it happened for those people.

This kind of bill is abdicating political responsibility. I know the IMF has suggested that some countries set up an agency to collect taxes, but those are for the poorest, most unstable countries in the world. Canada does not fit that description. We should not be abdicating our responsibility as a government to be accountable to the people we collect money from.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. All parties have been consulted. I move:

That, on Thursday, December 3, 1998, at 3.00 p.m., the solicitor general shall be permitted to make a statement pursuant to Standing Order 33; and that any division required that day for the disposal of amendments proposed at the report stage of Bill C-43 shall be postponed to 5.00 p.m. on Monday, December 7, 1998.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal other acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of the motions Group No. 1.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-43 establishing the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

First off, let me tell you that I am against the establishment of this new federal agency, primarily because of the attitude and actions of this government; this is an arrogant, centralizing government, which ignores provincial jurisdictions.

We in the Bloc Quebecois cannot support a bill that only seeks to centralize the collection of taxes in Canada, downsize the Department of National Revenue and, more importantly, create an agency that will be in direct conflict with Quebec's ministry of revenue.

With this bill, the Liberal government is showing that it is having more and more difficulty fulfilling its administrative responsibilities. It is once again about to abdicate its responsibilities.

This new agency could make it possible for the minister of revenue to avoid doing his duty, which is to protect the taxpayer against the abuse of power.

The purpose of the Liberal mania for creating independent agencies is to then use any pretext for blaming them for everything that goes wrong, while refusing to get involved by saying that the independent nature of the agency must be respected and the government cannot get involved.

I can already hear the words of the revenue minister when he has to answer a question about this new agency “As members know, this agency is an independent entity. I will carry out the necessary checks and, as soon as we have the information, we will make it known here in the House”.

In other words, while the investigation is going on, they will be looking for a solution that will get them out of the embarrassing situation.

Let us now have a look at what lies behind Bill C-43.

It mandates the federal government to set up the right conditions for one more anti-labour move. The result of this bill would be that 20% of Revenue Canada employees would be taken out from under the protection of the Public Service Employment Act, and this would allow the new agency full rein to raise or lower salaries, to hire or lay off employees. This government is prepared to do anything to satisfy its excessive need of centralization and its publicity seeking efforts to get the maple leaf onto everything.

For the Liberals, simplification and duplication are synonymous, and harmonization to them means interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Quebec is opposed to the creation of this agency. Ontario is also on its guard against this new threat of centralization, and is even giving thought to setting up its own agency.

Can the minister of revenue tell us why he is in such a rush to create this new agency, when Quebec does not want it any more than the majority of other provinces? Where does his support for this bill come from?

We are in favour of the principle of a single collector, and in Quebec this should be the Quebec Minister of Revenue, who would collect all federal and provincial taxes. Judging by the outcome of the joint collection of the Quebec sales tax and the GST in Quebec at the moment, this is an effective formula.

The Canada customs and revenue agency is another federal creation, the inspiration of senior federal revenue officials in Ottawa, who want to create a sort of monster, a sort of octopus reaching out its tentacles beyond the provinces to the municipal and local levels.

They intend to administer everything, from provincial sales taxes to gas and alcohol taxes. Are we going to take the risk and let this arrogant, voracious and centralizing Liberal government enact this bill?

Who is this agency accountable to? Will the members of this House be able to obtain explanations on its management, its results and its errors. Currently, the department of revenue is accountable to the House of Commons. The government cannot avoid embarrassing questions about family trusts and the small privileges the Minister of Finance enjoys with his little boats, for example.

We are afraid that this new agency will face less parliamentary scrutiny than is currently the case for the Department of National Revenue. Members can imagine an embarrassing question on the agency's activities; the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister of revenue have already written their answers.

From what we see in the debate on Bill C-54, some answers are needed here about the incredible quantity of personal and private information that will end up in the hands of the federal government. In the current debate on Bill C-54, the electronic commerce bill, which once again collides with Quebec legislation on access to information, we can see already how the federal government would use this information to achieve its goal of centralization.

This new bill is doomed to failure. The Canada customs and revenue agency, an agency that wants to collect everything and that should convince the provinces to join it, lacked both agreements and signatures when Bill C-43 was introduced. Even in committee, when we asked the minister of revenue “Where is your support, Mr. Minister”, he had none.

Who will foot the bill for this agency? Its users, but at what price? Initially, the federal agency will try to show that it is generating savings, but it will soon raise its user fees to satisfy the voracious Liberals.

And, speaking of how voracious this government is when it comes to finances, yesterday, the Minister of Finance and his sidekick, the Minister of Human Resources Development, had the nerve to announce a paltry 15 cent cut in premiums in response to the Bloc Quebecois' many calls that something be done about the present EI system.

There is no change in the system per se, which continues to be a wonderful method of collecting funds for the election fund of the Liberal Party of Canada, or plumping up the future campaign fund of the Minister of Finance, who has serious designs on the leadership of his own party. And where do the surpluses go? Into the Minister of Finance's pocket. What is this government doing to correct regional rates based on the number of hours worked? Nothing.

When it comes to the most disadvantaged members of our society, this government turns a deaf ear. It is the embodiment of arrogance and heartlessness, taking its cue from the behaviour of the Liberal Prime Minister.

As far as the Y2K bug is concerned, will all the changes that Revenue Canada employees will have to face make it any easier for them to prepare for this transition in informatics, on which much energy already had to be expended?

Where is Revenue Canada at in preparing for the year 2000? Statements made by the Auditor General of Canada show he is expecting the worst because the government is not taking this potential bug very seriously. One can only imagine the administrative and data processing chaos in which the transition from Revenue Canada to a future customs and revenue agency would take place.

In closing, I would like to summarize the reasons why I am reiterating my opposition to Bill C-43: the centralizing obsession of the Liberal government; the danger this agency represents for the revenue department in Quebec; the inordinate amount of power this agency would have; the anti-union attitude of the government in this bill as it affects Revenue employees; the intrusion on the privacy of our fellow citizens; 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.

I am saying no to the Liberals, I am saying no to the Minister of National Revenue and, once again, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I am calling for the immediate withdrawal of this bill.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I look through Bill C-43, there are a few things that concern me.

I noticed in clauses 22, 25 and 26, the deal with the appointment of the chair and the commissioner of the agency, that they are going to be appointed at the pleasure of the government. We are dealing here with tax collection, something that is very serious and something that perhaps could be construed to be akin to a quasi-judicial agency.

With the powers that are going to be conferred on the commissioner and because of his or her role as an independent civil servant to collect taxes on behalf of the government, his or her independence must be assured. Yet we find that he or she is not being appointed on good behaviour but is being appointed at the pleasure of the government. Therefore, if he or she does not squeeze enough taxes out of Canadians, the government can say “You are out of here. We are going to get somebody else to do the job because we feel that you are not collecting enough”.

The appointment is at pleasure. I ask the government to come forward and tell us why it does not make this appointment on good behaviour. It seems to me that would be much more important. If it were on the basis of good behaviour, then it would at least provide some credibility that this agency was not going to be interfered with by the government, but perhaps it will be.

Turning to clause 38, it reads:

The Commissioner must keep the Minister informed of any matter that could affect public policy or that could materially affect public finances, and any other matter that the Minister considers necessary.

I draw members' attention to “affect public finances”. I refer back to an issue that was raised by the auditor general two or three years ago. It was called the family trust fiasco where one ruling by the Department of National Revenue under a very questionable situation cost the taxpayer $2 billion. To me, that would certainly fall under materially affecting the public finances.

When the public accounts committee had hearings on that fiasco, the deputy minister assured us under oath that there was absolutely no political involvement in the granting of that tax break on that particular family trust. It was one particular issue, one particular taxpayer who got a $2 billion tax break under the most questionable of circumstances one day before Christmas. It was the best Christmas present he ever had.

The whole concept is that there be no political involvement in granting tax breaks to Canadians and that the act be applied fairly, appropriately and properly to every Canadian. Now we find the commissioner is obligated to get the political masters involved. He must keep the minister informed on matters that could materially affect the public finances. Under this clause the politicians in this House who give direction to the commissioner now have the authority to direct to the commissioner whether or not they will grant these types of tax breaks. Political shenanigans are starting to go on in this bill.

Let us look at clause 33. This is where it gets kind of convoluted and we have to wonder why the government is creating this agency. While the agency is supposed to be at arm's length, everything else is being treated as if the agency were a civil service.

A board of 15 people is being created. It seems to be patronage heaven because the members will have nothing whatsoever to do regarding taxation and collection. The only thing they have to do is run the agency. Clause 33 states:

The Board may advise the Minister on matters that relate to the general administration and enforcement of the program legislation.

The next clause specifically states that the board cannot tell the commissioner how to handle the enforcement of program legislation. The commissioner will be acting on his own, the board is prohibited from telling him how to do his job of enforcement of taxes, yet the board is obligated to talk to the minister on behalf of the commissioner. It seems this is a kind of make work project for the board to get it involved somehow without giving it any teeth to act at arm's length from the government. We see in clause 38 that the government wants to keep that to itself. That is why I have a problem with the bill.

I have to concur with the government on clause 92(5) regarding severance pay. Because the employees are being moved en masse from the Department of National Revenue to the agency and as far as they are concerned there will be absolutely no interruption in employment, they will not be granted severance pay under their collective agreement. Granting severance pay would amount to several hundred million dollars. I am glad to see it is being deferred until the employees retire.

I raised this issue with Nav Canada, which was a privatization a little more at arm's length than this agency. There were people who worked for the Department of Transport one day and who on the following day went to the same job with the same desk, the same telephone, the same boss, the same everything except that the letterhead had changed to Nav Canada. They picked up $200 million in severance pay. I was absolutely shocked that those employees were given $200 million.

At committee I said to Mr. Daryl Bean, the president of the union, that it was preposterous for the taxpayer to be expected to shell out $200 million for a letterhead change. He answered that that was the agreement. And not only that, if people's employment were not severed until their retirement day, when they retired they would get their severance pay.

In the private sector there is nobody who can afford to pay severance pay to every employee who sticks around until retirement age. Yet we as the Government of Canada have deemed it in their sense, not common sense, to grant that benefit to employees. The taxpayers are on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars, $200 million for NavCan alone.

Fortunately, and I will give the government credit on this issue, it has deferred the payment of severance pay until these people retire rather than paying a bonus to them the day the letterhead changed.

The agency is smoke and mirrors. The government wants to move it off arm's length because it did not like the fiasco of the GST and did not want to repeat it and be able to blame somebody else. It is not our fault, it's their fault that they are squeezing taxes out of everyone.

I think there are some serious flaws in this bill, serious flaws in the whole philosophy of having an agency at arm's length collecting taxes on behalf of the government. The government has to be responsible to the taxpayers. There is a very close link between the taxes paid by the people who are governed and the taxes collected by those who want to govern. That link is broken, as we see definitely on the reserves of the country where the people who lead, manage and govern their native reserves have no link with those they derive their revenue from. The people on reserves are untaxed. There is no linkage between those people who want to govern the reserve, collecting taxes from those they are to govern and if we break that link here with ourselves, it is very serious indeed.

I would be quite happy to see the government withdraw this piece of legislation and move on to something a lot more important.

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

Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member has told us we have to withdraw the bill and we cannot have any of that, I must now regrettably do the following.

An agreement could not be reached under provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency and to amend and repeal other acts as a consequence.

Pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the crown will be moving a time allocation motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal other acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great concern and frustration that I rise today to express my indignation and my anger.

Indeed, since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has kept trying to make this government realize that the duplication of jurisdictions between the federal and provincial governments costs a great deal to the various levels of government. With Bill C-43, which will create the Canada customs and revenue agency, the federal government is once again interfering, without consulting the provinces, in an area it has no business getting involved in. Clearly, this is further proof of the Prime Minister's insatiable desire to centralize everything.

But before going further, I would like members to take time to look and examine this super agency, this tax monster that the federal government wants to set up.

As per usual, since this government has made a habit of avoiding responsibility, of not facing the music and of avoiding any exchange of ideas, on June 4, one week before the House adjourned for the long summer recess, the revenue minister sneaked in Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

The establishment of this tax collection monster is a project that goes back to the throne speech of February 1996, in which the government announced its intention to set up a national revenue recovery agency. But already at that time, the Bloc Quebecois had opposed the establishment of such an agency.

More specifically, the agency will convert the Department of National Revenue into a semi-independent government body, with responsibility for negotiating with provinces and municipalities wishing to have it collect all taxes in Canada.

According to the Minister of National Revenue, the ministerial responsibilities and parliamentary controls will remain essentially the same. This means that the Public Service Staff Relations act, the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and the Official Languages Act will continue to apply. In addition, the minister says he will retain full responsibility for the administration of tax, customs and trade legislation.

In short, very little will change. So why create this agency? Why go to all this trouble, if nothing will be any different?

According to the President of the Treasury Board, and I quote:

Creation of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is an essential component of the government's commitment to modernize the federal public service.

I do not get it. Modernize by doing nothing. This stunt by the federal government is strangely evocative of the federal system in which we live. A huge bureaucracy, an ideology rooted in the past, with no vision: such is the federal system in which we live. The Canada customs and revenue agency is more of the same.

For the federal government, modernizing a bureaucracy boils down to privatizing public services. It means jeopardizing the jobs of 40,000 employees, or 20% of the entire federal public service, to whom framework legislation such as the Public Service Employment Act will no longer apply. Two years from now, this anti-union attitude will give the agency free rein to raise or lower employees' salaries, to hire or fire unilaterally.

Henceforth, these employees will be at the mercy of the agency's board of management. While we are on the topic, the board's 15 directors will be appointed for three years on the recommendation of the provinces, and will occupy their positions on a part time basis.

The chair, the commissioner and the deputy commissioner will be appointed by the Governor in Council for a renewable term of five years. Great jobs, these, for the party's political buddies.

This is how the government treats its employees, to say nothing of its recent treatment of the thousands of women in the Public Service with its reluctance to give them pay equity. If I were in the shoes of the 40,000 Revenue employees, I would be very much afraid. With this government, a person never knows what low blow can suddenly be delivered. Each day brings its surprises and its trip-ups, courtesy of an immoral and heartless government.

We could also speak of the employment insurance fund, or of the unemployed who have paid into it and cannot even get their own money back from a government that is literally ripping them off. I could go on and on about this.

I was absolutely astonished, when I read this bill, by the lack of accountability there will be for the agency executive. This agency is a classic example of empire-building by senior mandarins ensconced in their ivory towers in Ottawa. This is a classic example of bureaucratic empire-building.

The role and responsibilities of the commissioner of the CCRA would make him a kind of czar of taxation, a super bureaucrat invested with massive powers but more or less without any need to report to anyone.

By removing the CCRA from the daily monitoring of his office, the minister is putting himself at risk of having his bureaucrats put one over on him. The CCRA would, moreover, more or less have carte blanche over such matters as contracting out property management, equipment management, and information and technology management. With only limited outside monitoring, there would be a greater risk of patronage and abuse of authority.

This is inconceivable and unacceptable. Clauses 47 to 49 are explicit about the agency's lack of accountability. The agency submits an annual business plan to the minister for recommendation to the Treasury Board for approval. The plan would set out the objectives of the agency and its strategies to achieve them.

The minister must cause a summary of the plan to be tabled in both Houses within 15 days of his approval. Parliament has no opportunity to question the agency's decisions once they have government approval. Where is accountability? Where is the transparency in this process?

According to the minister of revenue, private enterprise and the business community will be the first to benefit from the agency, but that is far from confirmed.

Organizations like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reacted rather coolly to the massive and centralized power in the tentacles of the super agency. No less than 40% of the businesses that took part in a Public Policy Forum study commissioned by Revenue Canada indicated a lack of interest in the agency. More than two thirds of them felt that, after the new agency is established, the cost of dealing with the department as currently structured would increase or remain the same.

And what is the government opposite doing about the provinces' ability to determine their own budgetary policy? Quebec will not give in to this centralizing government. The Bloc Quebecois and its members are reasonable and responsible. They will certainly not vote in favour of this bill.

The federal Liberals' centralizing view of the affairs of state is totally unacceptable. We are in favour of a single tax collection body, but it should be Quebec's Department of Revenue, which is already collecting the GST. This department is fully accountable to Quebeckers.

For all these reasons, and for many others that I unfortunately cannot go into, because it would mean sleeping here tonight, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against this bill. What we are calling for is the withdrawal, pure and simple, of the bill and the repeal of all its clauses.

It is such a pity to see that, once again, closure is being invoked on a bill as important and as controversial as Bill C-43. Several of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, as well as colleagues from other parties, wish to speak to the bill. It is very sad to see that this government, which is introducing bills in the House, does not even have the decency to defend them.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Canada-United States Days Of Peace And Friendship

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should designate July 2 and 3, 1998, coming between Canada Day and Independence Day (U.S.), as “Canada-United States Days of Peace and Friendship” in recognition of the close and peaceful relations that exist between the two countries, the warm personal links that prevail between neighbouring communities along the length of the common border and the commitments to freedom, democracy and human rights shared by the two nations.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to ask for unanimous consent to make one amendment to the motion and that is to delete the year 1998. With the way our Private Members' Business works the motion is a bit redundant. It makes a lot more sense that the two dates, July 2 and July 3, would continue in perpetuity in accordance with the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent for the member to move the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Motion No. 263 to say the fact that the Canada-U.S. relationship is dynamic and thriving does not do justice to its complexity, scope and depth. Our trade with the United States is booming but our partnership is not based only on economics and geography.

In dealing with important issues posed by a changing world, Canada and the United States have extensive shared interests that often complement each other's roles. The relationship is thriving because it is carefully nurtured. A further step in this nurturing is the motion we are speaking to this evening.

In 1987 a private American citizen named David Boyer felt strongly that there should be an official recognition of the friendship between Canada and the United States. Mr. Boyer diligently contacted both Canadian and American elected officials urging them to take the necessary steps toward such a declaration.

In the United States a joint resolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives was passed proclaiming that July 2 and 3 would thereafter be known as days of peace and friendship between Canada and the United States.

The Canadian government introduced a similar motion on March 25, 1987, resolving that July 2 and 3, 1987, be designated as days of peace and friendship. The 1987 motion was introduced by then Deputy Prime Minister Don Mazankowski and seconded by the now Deputy Prime Minister and member for Windsor West. The 1987 motion was also seconded by the current member from Qu'Appelle. The motion was debated on March 25, 1987, agreed to by the House of Commons, and subsequently agreed to by the Senate on April 2, 1987.

My predecessor from Erie, Mr. Girve Fretz, spoke in support of the motion as the town of Fort Erie was preparing to celebrate the 175th anniversary of the War of 1812 with a four day friendship festival.

During the War of 1812 Americans attacked and burned government buildings in York, the then capital of Upper Canada which is now known as Toronto. In 1814 Washington, D.C., was torched in retaliation. Similarly Old Fort Erie in my riding was burned by U.S. soldiers. Now Old Fort Erie is one of the venues of the celebration of our two nations in the friendship festival.

Therefore celebrating the end of the War of 1812 is significant because when both Canada and the United States lowered their weapons the peaceful result was the evolution of the longest, oldest undefended border in modern history. That border is not something that divides; it is something we build on. From rivals in 1812 Canada and the United States have become fast friends, best trading partners and staunch allies.

From those modest beginnings of a celebration in 1987 I am pleased to inform the House that last July marked the 11th year of the Fort Erie Friendship Festival, one of the major summer attractions in the Niagara Peninsula where over 100,000 visitors enjoy the cultures of our two countries.

The friendship festival organizers do a superb job of planning the event which runs from July 1, Canada Day, to July 4, Independence Day. It attracts participants from southern Ontario and western New York. It boasts the biggest Canada Day celebrations in the peninsula and is a major attraction for the July 4 festivities in LaSalle Park, Buffalo.

It is interesting to note that recently this annual event was opened by the former Canadian ambassador to Iran, Mr. Ken Taylor, who, at considerable personal risk to him and his staff during the occupation of the U.S. embassy by the forces of the Ayatolla Khomeni, hid members of the U.S. staff from threatening mobs and subsequently spirited them out of the country to safety.

In order to celebrate its 10th anniversary in 1997, the friendship festival approached me about reintroducing a motion to redesignate the days of peace and friendship. Unfortunately Motion No. 327 died on the order paper when the spring election was called in April 1997. When the 36th Parliament returned I immediately resubmitted the motion, and here I stand today.

Due to the delay in being drawn for Private Members' Business the date of the motion still reads 1998. I suggest that the designation of any year should be eliminated and an amendment moved accordingly. The most obvious reason is that the 1998 celebrations have come and gone. Also, by doing so, our commitment to this partnership is clear and without time limitation. It will endure and continue in perpetuity parallel with the positive and beneficial relationship between our two nations.

The fact that people from the Fort Erie community have spearheaded the motion is not surprising. What better symbol to emphasize the peace and friendship that existed between the United States and Canada than the Peace Bridge spanning the Niagara River and linking Fort Erie with Buffalo.

After 70 years since it was first opened by the Prince of Wales, the Peace Bridge is now the second busiest land border crossing between Canada and the United States. Next spring the sod will be turned marking the start of construction of the Peace Bridge twin span, a true testament to the trade and close ties with our neighbours to the south.

Last month, on November 20, the largest duty free facility in North America was opened at the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie, another example in bricks and mortar of the enormous number of travellers who cross our borders each day.

Fort Erie is not alone in its efforts to celebrate friendship between Americans and Canadians. For example, just to name a few, the communities of Windsor and Detroit, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan also have yearly events that strive to bring us closer and to celebrate all that we share together. I am certain they would appreciate this effort to celebrate and mark our special relationship. This continues across the entire country from the maritimes through Quebec to the prairie provinces and British Columbia.

In February 1995, U.S. President Bill Clinton stood in the House and stated that we needed to strengthen that relationship because it was our job to spread the benefits of democracy, freedom, prosperity and peace beyond our shores. We do this as emissaries of the free world and as examples for the entire globe.

Political meetings between our respective countries regularly take place not only between our leaders but at the elected representative level as well. It was with our vital national interests and our close relationship in mind that the 39th annual meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group took place this year in Nantucket, resulting in one of our most productive meetings. Organized in three workshops—trade and economics, political and global, and transborder issues—each group discussed in detail from both Canadian and American perspectives over 38 separate issues.

For instance, in the trade and economics workshop topics ranged from culture to lumber and from potatoes, sugar, grain and dairy to electricity.

The transborder workshop considered issues of congestion encountered at a number of border points across our two countries, stultifying the free exchange of goods and services.

There were candid in depth discussions in the political and global workshop where our views differed and where we held common views on the international field ranging from trans-Atlantic trade to Bosnia, Cuba and China, to the economic fallout in Asia, and to the consequences of nuclear tests in the Asian subcontinent.

At the plenary all issues were reviewed by all delegates. The plenary decided unanimously to start a much more active process to exchange views of bilateral concern in a more detailed way between the annual meetings as all delegates believed a number of these issues required more regular, timely and friendly exchanges. The plenary further decided that there would be a bilateral meeting on the west coast to exchange views on the contentious issues of lumber and fish.

I understand that a meeting will be arranged between our parliamentarians and members of our respective governments to facilitate a common North American front on drug trafficking. Another bilateral meeting is to be arranged between parliamentarians and officials to consider our common interest in a trans-Atlantic trade approach and, it is hoped, a common trans-Atlantic action plan.

We share a common history and a common culture. We are two nations blessed with great histories and resources and we have great responsibilities. We were built, after all, by men and women who fled the old world for the new. We are nations of pioneers, people who were armed with the confidence they needed to strike out on their own and had the talents to shape their dreams in a new and different land.

Culture and tradition distinguish us from one another in many ways, but we share core values, which is more important; a devotion to hard work; an ardent belief in democracy; and a commitment to giving each and every citizen the tools to achieve an understanding of giving back the greater global community a share of the advantages we enjoy.

These common values have nourished a partnership that has become a model for new democracies around the world. They can look at us and see just how much stronger the bonds between nations can be when their governments answer the desires of citizens for freedom, democracy and enterprise, and when they work together to build each other up instead of working overtime to tear each other down.

However the differences have been the true test of our relationship. While we have many similarities, we are different. We disagree on the issue of culture. While Canadians believe that culture is part of our national identity, the Americans view culture as an important commercial export. Canadians believe that with bilateral trade and constructive engagement democratic values can be better implemented in states like Cuba.

Our unique geography and small population impart a unique relationship, one Canadian with another. Our bilingual society reaches populations from coast to coast to coast through public radio and television. Our education, health and justice systems differ substantially as do our political systems.

However, the experience of these two great nations has taught us unity through diversity can thrive, not a new concept for Canadians. By celebrating our friendship and ties we can all come to appreciate and understand those differences. Our diplomacy in dealing with these differences, as I have said before and will say again, is a model for other countries struggling with their relations.

Our economy is another area. Our economic ties remain one of the strongest aspects of our relationship with the United States. I would like to sketch out the extraordinary breadth and depth of the U.S.-Canada economic relationship.

Trade between Canada and the United States has more than doubled since the signing of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement barely 10 years ago. A mind-boggling total of $1 billion in trade crosses our border each and every day. Ninety-five per cent or our trade is trouble free; it is the other five per cent of the trade that grabs all the headlines, be it bilateral disputes over spuds and suds or, more recently, hogs and logs. The value of this trade to both countries is enormous. Exports to the United States account for one-fourth of our gross domestic product.

U.S. merchandise exports to Canada exceed every other trading relationship, including trade with the European Community. Just the two way trade that crosses the Ambassador Bridge between Michigan and Ontario equals all U.S. exports to Japan.

Much of this trade is in the auto sector. General Motors Detroit Cadillac plant, for example, receives seats on a just in time basis from a plant in Windsor, Ontario, as well as other parts from plants in Canada and Mexico. Motors produced in Tonowanda, New York, just outside Buffalo, are installed the next day in motor vehicles bodies in Oshawa, Ontario. Overall autos and auto parts account for about one-third of our bilateral trade.

Energy is an excellent example of an economic sector that was deeply affected by domestic regulations and policies which once complicated our relationship but is now an area of close co-operation and enormous mutual benefit. I do not have to tell the House how well Canada does in exporting oil and natural gas to the United States. Canada is the second largest oil supplier, not far behind Venezuela, to the United States.

The future is even brighter. Private economists say the U.S. and Canada have only scratched the surface on the potential of jobs and higher incomes that economic integration through trade and investment can bring to both Canadians and American.

Since virtually all tariffs on trade between the United States and Canada have been eliminated as of the beginning of this year, much of our current focus in on facilitating lawful trade through removing non-tariff barriers, including more efficient customs and immigration processing of cargo and people.

This has been a central theme of the U.S.-Canada shared border accord announced by the Prime Minister and President Clinton in 1995. The accord incorporates a series of practical projects that mix bilateral co-operation and pragmatism with intelligent transportation technology to speed goods and people across the border.

Let me add that Canada is deeply concerned about the potential of the exit control requirements under section 110 of the 1996 immigration reform to create massive bottlenecks on our land border crossing to the United States. Although section 110 was to come into effect on October 1, the immigration and naturalization service of the U.S. indicated that it will not change its inspection procedures at this time. Canada will continue to work with congressional counterparts to ensure that the implementation of section 110 will be delayed perhaps indefinitely and hopefully forever.

I will conclude on friendship engagement. Canada and the United States have shown the best there is in partnerships between nations. As a monument commemorating the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority at St. Lambert declares, we are “two nations whose frontiers are the frontiers of friendship, whose ways are the ways for freedom, whose works are the works of peace”.

Every day we see the enormous benefits this partnership brings to us in jobs, in prosperity. There is also the creative energy that our interchanges bring. The strength and character of that co-operation is annually demonstrated by the spirit and goodwill which prevails in our border communities, like Fort Erie, Ontario and Buffalo, New York.

Canada and the United States are more than neighbours. Sharing a common past, many interests and objectives, we have become friends, allies and economic partners. Our relationship is a model for the world.

Today more than ever, let us reaffirm and renew our great tradition. We must maintain our partnership. We must make it stronger.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words about this private member's motion and to indicate my support for the motion which is to declare July 2 and 3 as Canada-United States days of peace and friendship.

As the mover has said, this matter was presented to the House about 11 years ago, in 1987 by the former deputy prime minister, I believe it was Don Mazankowski from Alberta. It was seconded by the now deputy prime minister who was then the House leader for the official opposition, and myself.

I want to indicate my support for this motion which will promote greater peace, understanding and friendship between the two greatest trading partners in North America.

We have forever shared a very large and long boundary with the United States. Obviously it is our most important trading partner. I think it is very important to foster a better understanding with the Americans.

From time to time we obviously have many trade irritants, differences and disputes. We are currently having one in my province with some American farmers in North Dakota when we try to ship grain and some farm products to the United States. There is the possibility of another protest developing there today and tomorrow from what I understand from the newscasts.

The fact that we do have disputes is just another argument why we need to set aside a day or two as a time to celebrate and recognize the understanding and friendship between our two countries.

I need not go on any longer than that. The mover has given us a very good outline as to why this is a very good idea, a good private member's motion and the reasons we should be supporting it. I certainly concur with what he has said and offer him my support and hopefully the support of most people in our party.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln for bringing forward this motion. It is a very appropriate motion for today, especially as the world gets smaller and we do more things together instead of trying to create division.

I have lived beside the American people for 35 years. My property was only a couple of miles from the border so we lived as a community more or less. We had a curling rink with Americans. We had a skating rink. The figure skating club was in Smoke Lake. The Americans provided us with a little grocery store and a little bar. If we got too unhappy we could share facilities. It was quite an interesting experience.

Manitoba has one of two international peace gardens. If members ever have a chance to visit the peace garden located just south of Boissevain, in the peace tower is a unique little chapel. The piano was put in such a place that when a person plays the morning hymn during the service, one hand is in the U.S. and the other one is in Canada. It is a service that really binds the two nations. It is a real experience to observe that and see how close we as human beings really are.

There is a funny incident I want to bring forward today. I went on a tour of the Pembina watershed. The largest part of it is in the U.S. On the bus coming back were American and Canadian politicians. We came to the little town of Mowbray, Manitoba which is on the U.S. border. We talked about entrepreneurs and how they looked at different types of businesses in those days. One of the elder gentlemen said “You know Jake, if you were out here thrashing in Mowbray with your team of horses, you could drive down this road, reach into the United States and pick up a glass of beer after a long day. It was the first drive through bar that was ever built”. It was there for a number of years and never ran into political interference. It operated very well. We have lost some of these things because of quicker communications and transportation.

I want to talk a few minutes about the people across the border from where I live. As human beings we all have more or less similar needs. We want to do what is best for our families.

In the Snowflake and Wales areas, most people had relatives on either side. The intermarriage between Canadians and Americans was unreal during the early part of the century. There were no borders and love crossed whether they wanted to regulate it or not. Their girls seemed to be just a little prettier than ours and vice versa. There was always that type of rivalry building.

[An hon. member]

Watch it now.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Well, I am part American too. I do go down south once in a while to get that tan to make me look like a farmer. We do not get too much of a tan in this House. We also change the dialect somewhat. We get that southern drawl. Those are the positive things.

My roots being in the Soviet Union, in the 1980s I could see how big the disaster was over there and what their needs were. I was astounded at the people who had tried to put up a huge defence against the Russians. The American farmers were the first to collect a whole bunch of durum wheat and ship it across to the Soviet Union by plane. It got there and was used to make bread.

The American people have a heart just like we Canadians. That is what we have to emphasize in this motion. It is not just an issue about wanting a couple of days set aside to recognize that our border is unprotected. I am sure that the hon. member will agree with me that with these two days we want to recognize that we are human beings on the same planet. The less distractions, the less friction, the less feuding that goes on between our two nations, the better off society will be and the better off the whole world will be.

I commend the member for bringing this motion forward again. When we see each other's weaknesses and help to overcome them, only then will we gain the strength as two peaceful nations. We have never had a war of any substance that we could call detrimental to us.

[An hon. member]

Not since 1812.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

That is one that we kind of ignore as a sparring match. Probably if we had done it in a different fashion we would not have a border, but we do not know. That is for history to debate.

I encourage Reform members to support this motion. This motion is worthwhile. It can only bring us peace and harmony. It is a motion that will benefit either side of the border.

We can show to the world that even with the friction we have in our trade issues, whether we like the wheat board or we do not like the wheat board, whether we like supply management or we do not like supply management, those things can be ironed out and we can work for the benefit of all. We can work to the benefit of all. It does not say that I have to have my way and they have to have their way and we will separate and go in different directions. We have to go in one direction.

I encourage the government to build a relationship with the American government, to go to the next GATT negotiations or the World Trade Organization and work as a team. Together we are a lot further ahead. We have a lot more strength. We have a lot more to gain than we will lose.

I conclude with an invitation for members to come to Manitoba to see the international peace garden. It would be worth their while, just for the feeling they would get when sitting in that peace tower. The feeling of co-operation, friendship and kinship that we have as North Americans will explode around hon. members and they will go away with a very positive feeling.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this motion. I wish members of the House well and I hope everybody can support it.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise before the House to debate the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln's private member's motion calling upon government to designate July 2 and 3 as Canada-United States days of peace and friendship.

I would also like to congratulate the member for focusing the attention of the House on the very cordial relationship we have enjoyed for well over a century with our number one trading partners to the south.

It is very important that we not take the good relationship we have with our American neighbours for granted. We hear too often of cases where Canadians try to bad mouth our American neighbours. The Americans have been very important to us as trading partners, but also as allies, friends, and for many of us, relatives who reside in the states. We should not take it for granted. We should work hard to keep those relationships on a very favourable ground.

Even before Canada and the U.S. became independent countries, commercial trading was very much a way of life between both colonies.

I represent the constituency of West Nova which incidentally encompasses Annapolis Royal, home of the first permanent European settlement in North America.

There has been a history of trade between the United States and Canada since the beginning of the 17th century, with the arrival of Samuel de Champlain and his fellow explorers in North America in 1604. Our new immigrants quickly took advantage of the fertile farming land and an ocean full of fish to begin trading with the new immigrants to the south.

Even when France and England were at war with each other during the 17th and 18th centuries, trade between the French colony of Acadia and the English colonies in the New England states continued to trade among themselves despite directives from both colonial powers to end this practice.

Throughout the 20th century, many Canadians have moved to the United States in search of work. Like many of my fellow citizens, I have relatives in the United States, particularly in the New England area.

Cross-border relations between the two countries have improved significantly in recent years. Despite rigorous objections from the then official opposition, the Liberal Party, the former Progressive Conservative government concentrated on strengthening Canada's ability to reach new markets by entering into a free trade agreement with the United States.

Despite the fact that some trading disputes have evolved in recent years, mechanisms for dispute resolutions are in place and have adequately dealt with these issues.

I am very pleased to see the Liberal government endorsing our free trade initiatives, particularly after it had promised to rid itself of the free trade agreement once it took power.

I am not surprised by the about-face the government has taken. This government has broken its promise on a number of very important issues, not including its promise to cancel the free trade agreement.

As I am certain everyone remembers, this government broke its promise to cancel the GST. Instead it introduced the dreaded HST that is causing much hardship for residents in the maritime region.

This government has also broken its promise to abide by any Canadian human rights tribunal decision on pay equity, choosing instead to deny mostly low income female workers money they worked hard for and rightfully deserve.

One of the first commercial trading products between Canada and the U.S. was agricultural products. Yet this government appears to have forgotten the important role agriculture plays in our everyday lives.

The Liberal government continues to say it is committed to helping strengthen Canada's farming community yet it has effectively reduced its funding of our farm safety net programs by some 30% since 1995.

Like most of the country, West Nova hog producers are experiencing anywhere from 60% to 70% decreases in their prices. Rather than help sustain our farming industry the government has turned its back on our farmers. The government still has not recognized the serious effects the past two years of drought has caused our Nova Scotia farmers.

Perhaps our agricultural sector is not as large as others but it deserves consideration by the government. I intend to let the government know our farming community has been financially viable in the past and it will be again.

The Liberal government had also promised to implement effective conservation measures for our fishing industry immediately upon taking office because it said if stocks were not conserved now, there would be no fishing industry left on which we could build sustainable development. Conservation was ignored in the lobster fishery as illegal lobster fishing was allowed to operate off West Nova shores almost completely unabated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

With the 1998-99 fishing season less than a week old, fishers have told me that some of their catches for opening day were reduced considerably. Let us pray this trend does not continue throughout the fishing season.

Let me apologize if I appear to have transgressed from the topic at hand. However, I think all members recognize the importance this fishery and our farming industry have had on the lives of my constituents of West Nova.

I think the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln definitely has good intentions with the introduction of this bill. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe Windsor, Ontario presently participates in a very enjoyable joint celebration with its U.S. neighbours precisely in recognition of this close working relationship we have with our American neighbours.

Because I recognize the benefits of maintaining and enhancing this close relationship with our American cousins, I believe we should explore the possibility of perhaps doing some kind of joint celebration with our U.S. counterparts. Perhaps we could generate greater recognition of the important ties that bind our two countries together by having both countries agree to recognize a specific day or to participate in a special event.

I believe the hon. member has stumbled upon a good idea to help foster even greater co-operation between two countries. However, I would prefer we do something in conjunction with our American neighbours.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs I thank the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln for bringing this motion to the House and for reminding us of the deep historical ties that bind Canadians and Americans together.

More than anything else, the unique and enduring relationship between our two peoples rests fundamentally on the broad set of values we share in common, a belief in democratic open societies, respect for the rule of law, tolerance and an abiding faith in the rights and responsibilities of each individual citizen.

Together these values shape our societies and the way we look at the rest of the world. They are the underlying reason our shared border is one of the most open in the world with more than 200 million crossings each year.

Thirty-seven years ago in this Chamber, then President of the United States John F. Kennedy described the relationship between Canada and United States this way: “Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies”.

President Kennedy's words ring as true today as they did many years ago. Among all the countries in the world Canada and the United States are each other's most important partners. The partnership covers the full range of bilateral and global issues, from trade and investment, defence and international security to the furthering of the human rights agenda. But the real measure of our relationship can be found in the everyday linkages between our peoples. For example, millions of Canadians have family members and friends who are Americans.

Canadians continue to occupy key roles in American society, be it in business, popular entertainment, sports, academia or science and technology. Americans visit Canada more than any other foreign country yet it is a mark of the closeness of a relationship that most do not consider Canada a foreign country at all.

Our native peoples share cross-border cultural and historical bonds that are thousands of years old. This continuing flow of people and ideas back and forth between our two countries has been an enduring strength in our relationship and one that has served to cement the bonds between our societies.

Our bilateral trade relationship within the framework of the FTA and NAFTA has grown to create an unrivalled sphere of prosperity for our citizens. Every day approximately $1.4 billion in goods and services crosses the border creating jobs and raising living standards.

Canadian exports to the U.S. support over two million jobs for our citizens. This makes expanding our access to the United States markets a key international trade objective. The joint management of our shared border is another example of how our close and productive partnership benefits both our citizens. However, we believe we can do even more to expedite clearance procedures, avoid the imposition of unnecessary bureaucratic red tape and ensure the creation of a seamless border for the 21st century.

Cross-border co-operation also extends to law enforcement where Canadian and American police forces work together to fight crimes such as telemarketing fraud and illegal child abductions.

The close ties between our two countries are nowhere more evident than in border communities such as those represented by the hon. member. Every day people flow across the border in these communities forging friendships, new opportunities and working together to create a better life on both sides.

The recent example of how communities on both sides of the border helped each other during the devastating ice storm last winter is a good example of the kind of friendship that Canadians and American share. Who can forget the images of exhausted American hydro crews working alongside their Canadian counterparts in the struggle to restore power to cities, towns and villages in Quebec and eastern Ontario, or the thousands of tonnes of supplies and equipment that streamed from south of the border. When the crisis struck our American friends were there to help us out.

Another reason for continuing strength and resilience of our relationship is the respect we have for each other as unique societies, each with its own distinct identity, forms of governance, traditions and political and social cultures. It is fair to say respect is an indispensable condition of any friendship, be it between individuals or between countries.

Internationally Canada works closely with our American friends on a wide variety of global issues, from security to trade, through a variety of partnerships. In the security field our military co-operation has a long and noble history.

Canadians and Americans fought together on the battlefields during three wars in this century. We helped create NATO which even now is working to ensure peace in Bosnia and Kosovo. We co-operate in NORAD to share the burden of the defence of North America. The changes to the international system since the end of the cold war present us with new global challenges and threats that NATO and NORAD are evolving to meet. The United States and Canada are working together to ensure these two organizations adapt to the changing world so they can continue to play a role in contributing to international peace and security.

The hon. member's motion provides us with an important reminder of the incredible number of ways Canadians and Americans co-operate together in almost every facet of life every day. The ties that bind us are strong and run deep. They will continue to be based on the organic linkages between our civil societies. As we consider the motion we must reflect on the fact that our relationship with the United States is all encompassing and a daily reality for many Canadians. It does not do that relationship justice for the government to single out two days to commemorate it.

Informal ease of interaction and the essential simplicity of friendships among individuals, communities and regions across the border is a phenomenon whose continued vitality exists apart from the world of government, politics or economics. In an environment where such a healthy and vibrant co-operation can and does develop of its own accord, need we take the step of a formal declaration?

Every day we celebrate the Canada-U.S. relationship through the actions of our people. Every day a citizen of ours travels across the undefended and peaceful border which is a symbol of close ties. Every day our students seek to expand their horizons and allow for unlimited options by examining the fine institutions on both sides of the border. Every day our businesses strive to expand as they enjoy unprecedented access to the wealthiest market in the world. These are just a few indications of the uniqueness of our close bilateral ties. Do these need a formal declaration to bring them to the attention of our citizens?

We should also consider the possible financial implications of individuals, organizations and border communities seeking funds from government to celebrate these commemorative days. These are just some of the questions that merit additional consideration.

Before I proceed further with this motion it would be helpful to have some idea of possible reciprocal initiatives by our American friends. The hon. member may want to raise this issue within the context of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary association. I thank the hon. member for providing us with this opportunity to remind ourselves of how lucky we are to have this special relationship with the United States.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in this debate to recognize our friends to the south who share in many ways a common heritage of being countries populated by immigrants from around the world. Many of the people who live in both countries, I included, grew up in a foreign land and decided the future would be brighter in North America. They crossed the ocean from wherever they came from to participate in one of these two wonderful countries.

I have enjoyed my sojourn during the 30-odd years I have lived in North America. This country has been very good to me. I have friends and relatives south of the border who enjoy living in the United States. It is wonderful that through our common heritage we are able to share so much and that we have been friends for such a long time. We take great pride in having the longest undefended border in the world.

As a member of parliament representing the people of Alberta, we are especially proud of our relationship with the United States because so much of our oil and gas industry involves communication with people in the United States. We have a large agricultural industry which again depends heavily on markets in the United States. We have tourism that draws heavily from the United States. Of course, we have the Banff and Jasper national parks which draw millions of people every year. Many of these people come from the United States. They come here to enjoy what we have to offer and many Canadians go to the United States to enjoy what they have to offer.

The motion of the member for Erie—Lincoln is quite appropriate, that we join Canada Day on July 1 with Independence Day on July 4, with the two days in between recognizing the peace and friendship that exists between our two countries. There are international parks, such as the one at the border crossing just south of Vancouver going into Washington State, the International Peace Park, as well as other symbols of the friendship between the two countries.

I have to commend the member for Erie—Lincoln for introducing this motion and I hope it passes.