Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1998

Motions For Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary wishes the member for Calgary Centre to withdraw the motion, he should have given some advance notice of this in order for him to consider the request.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parks)]

Mr. Speaker, I propose that Motion No. P-45 be transferred for debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion is transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 97(1).

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the other Notices of Motions for the Production Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the 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.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are 206 motions in amendment in the Notice Paper concerning the report 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.

Group No. 1: Motions No. 1, 4, 5, 12 to 24, 27, 30, 31, 34 to 36, 39 to 54, 57 to 63, 66 to 70, 73 to 99, 104, 105, and 108 to 204 will be grouped for debate.

Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 2, 3, 6 to 11, 205 and 206 will be grouped for debate.

Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 25, 26, 37, 38, 55, 56, 71 and 72 will be grouped for debate.

Group No. 4: Motions No. 28, 29, 32 and 33 will be grouped for debate.

Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 64, 65, 106 and 107 will be grouped for debate.

Group No. 6: Motions Nos. 100 to 103 will be grouped for debate.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 12 to 24, 27, 30, 31, 34 to 36, 39 to 54, 57 to 63, 66 to 70, 73 to 99, 104, 105, and 108 to 204 to the House.

Would there be agreement to dispense with the reading of these motions? There are a hundred and some to read and the Chair is going to go hoarse. If hon. members wish to hear them all, of course, I could do so.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would be disposed to having the motions deemed moved, seconded and read so we can get into the actual debate and substance of the matter.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I would concur with the chief government whip because the government has already indicated its intention to invoke time allocation on this bill, so every moment spent reading motions is a moment taken away from debate. I would appeal to all of my colleagues to consider that.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement with the suggestion made by the chief government whip.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous agreement to dispense with reading each of the motions being considered by the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motions in Group No. 1 are deemed moved, seconded and put.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 73.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 74.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 75.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 76.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 77.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 78.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 79.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 83.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 85.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 86.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 89.1.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 90.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 95.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 96.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 97.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 98.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 159

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 160

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 161

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 162

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 163

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 164

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 165

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 166

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 167

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 168

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 169

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 170

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 172

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 173

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 174

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 175

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 176

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 177

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 178

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 179

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Motion No. 180

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 181

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 182

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 183

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 167.

Motion No. 184

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 185

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 186

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 187

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 188

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 189

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 190

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Motion No. 191

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Motion No. 192

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 193

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 194

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Motion No. 195

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

Motion No. 196

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 197

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 198

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Motion No. 199

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Motion No. 200

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 201

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Motion No. 202

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 185.1.

Motion No. 203

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

Motion No. 204

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members are opposed to this bill which is, in our opinion, simply an aberration. It ought not to exist.

What has led the government across the way to want to create one agency after another? Since when have politicians been afraid to act and preferred to have outside agencies make the decisions? Judging by a number of past experiences, these agencies have not been a great success.

Here are a few examples. The food and drug inspection agency, which I do not think is very efficient, and the wheat board as well. Nav Canada, which controls airports instead of the Department of Transport, makes dictatorial decisions, closes control towers without consulting those concerned, putting the flying public at risk. Despite its promises to keep jobs, this agency has quite simply got rid of more than 30% of its employees in the past 18 months alone.

Let us take another example of a government-created agency, Aéroports de Montréal. The purpose of ADM was to promote the Dorval and Mirabel airports, what did it do instead? Quite simply, it destroyed Mirabel by transferring all international flights to Dorval, by fiddling with reports by experts who stated that such a transfer was not the best thing, the status quo was. I am not the one who said reports had been fiddled with. This was the view expressed by Mr. Justice Viau in a decision slamming ADM for its handling of reports.

The Minister of Revenue seems to be more interested in promoting Vancouver and Whistler for the 2010 Olympics than in doing his job, which is to consult people affected by the creation of this agency. The minister is trying to convince us that he has consulted just about everyone and seems to be saying that everyone shares his view. However, no provinces have signed any memorandums of understanding or wanted to have anything to do with the agency. As things now stand, the minister is all alone.

The minister dares to say that the government has created a new tax collection vehicle. Instead of paying experts, engineers, to design this new vehicle, which is really nothing more than a Liberal monster, the minister should have put all this money into promoting and restructuring his own Department of Revenue. The majority of Canadians are beginning to have more confidence in the existing Department of Revenue.

The minister wants to create an additional structure that will cost millions of dollars and that will have friends of the government as its commissioners and members. All this does is increase the number of officials in the system.

However, Department of Revenue employee representatives claim that this new agency will means thousands of lay-offs, close to 40,000 across Canada.

Instead of spending money on this agency, the minister should hire some decent professionals and he should hire enough of them so that taxes can be collected properly. A program on the CBC in the spring revealed that, in Toronto, there is a shortage of between 500 and 1,500 tax collectors at the department of revenue. This shortage of professionals cost between $500 million and $1 billion annually. This is not acceptable.

Creating a customs and revenue agency is totally unacceptable. At the moment we are receiving a lot of complaints and letters in our ridings from customs agents fearing for their jobs and threatened with the loss of their job because of this new agency. Everyone is on edge; everyone is afraid of this new monster.

The minister of revenue, instead of wasting his time promoting Vancouver and Whistler for the 2010 Olympic Games, should come back, do his job, really look at the problems and improve the revenue system.

We have no objection to a single window for collecting taxes, but it should be under the control of the individual provincial departments of revenue. Quebec can handle collecting provincial, federal, municipal and school taxes.

How can my colleagues accept this national agency collecting city tickets? It makes no sense. Can we imagine this agency collecting municipal and school taxes? It is simply ridiculous. But it is empowered to do so. It is just crazy.

I really hope that the minister will withdraw Bill C-43, which is untenable and ridiculous. We hope the minister understands common sense and that all the members of this House understand it as well and ask the minister to redo his basic homework, really consult all Canadians in depth and not just simply say “I met a few people. They agree”.

Most people we heard in committee expressed their disagreement with this bill.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate the motions in Group No. 1 respecting Bill C-43.

The bill is pretty well the only major government piece of legislation before us in this session which proposes to convert the Department of National Revenue into a quasi-independent agency governed by a board, appointed by cabinet and managed by a commissioner appointed by cabinet as well.

The government suggests that this agency would be able to operate more efficiently and would be more flexible in its human resources policies, less bound by the strictures of the current Treasury Board and other statutory guidelines that have hampered its ability to recruit and retain highly skilled professionals in the tax auditing and information technology fields in particular.

The government also suggests that this new agency would be so structured as to work with the provinces on a contractual basis to collect on their behalf provincial source taxes such as provincial corporate and sales taxes.

Given that these are the first amendments before us, I would like to say at the outset that the Reform Party has consistently from the beginning of the debate on Bill C-43 made clear our support for the concept of more flexible management in the public service.

We believe that large sections of the bill are a positive step forward, that by liberating Revenue Canada from the sometimes absurdly bureaucratic regulations in Treasury Board and various statutes on human resources practices the government could be creating an agency which operates in a more businesslike and efficient fashion.

We think this model should not be limited to the tax collection apparatus of the government but rather should be replicated throughout the public service. We do not oppose large sections of the bill dealing with that issue. Nor do we necessarily oppose the creation of a board whose directors would be ostensibly nominated by the various provinces or the prospect of greater federal co-operation with the provinces in tax collection and administration.

However, we have expressed our very grave concern that the bill, absent of some very meaningful amendments, would create the possibility of less accountability in the administration and enforcement of Canada's tax laws.

As I have said before, the power to tax is, next to or along side the criminal law power, the most awesome power which parliament wields. It is the power to destroy economically. It is an enormous power. It is a power that must be exercised with utmost discretion in ensuring in every instance that the democratic representatives of Canadian taxpayers who sit in this Chamber are ultimately able to answer for the practices of our tax collection department.

The last thing Canadians want is an IRS style tax collection agency. The last thing Canadians want is an agency which is a law unto itself, which allows its tax auditors, collectors and agents to enforce the law without regard for the milk of human kindness but with the most rapacious kind of attitude of squeezing money out of taxpayers to the best of their ability. That is not the kind of culture we want to see.

[An hon. member]

Coercive.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

“Coercive”, as my colleague says. A coercive and intimidative culture is not what we want to see in the tax collection agency of parliament and of government.

The official opposition has put forward a comprehensive proposal for a taxpayer bill of rights which would enumerate for the first time in federal law a number of rights to due process for taxpayers in the entire tax auditing and collection system.

Essentially our draft taxpayer bill of rights would include the declaration of taxpayers rights first promulgated by the then revenue minister, Mr. Beatty, in 1985. It would give it teeth, legislative force, and would expand on it. It would essentially ensure in legislation that taxpayers were presumed innocent until proven guilty in the tax process. It would reverse the onus which is now on taxpayers who are too often determined to be guilty until proven innocent by the agents of Revenue Canada.

Furthermore, it would give taxpayers various avenues of appeal which are not now open to them. Currently if taxpayers of ordinary means find, as they find in many cases, that they have been unduly targeted by heartless collection agents at Revenue Canada, they have only one real avenue of recourse and that is through the tax court. The vast majority of people of modest means do not have the resources to use the appeal process through the courts. They cannot hire tax lawyers and spend months and years and tens of thousands of dollars defending their basic rights.

We propose as part of our taxpayer bill of rights the adoption of an office for taxpayer protection that would essentially be an ombudsman to adjudicate legitimate disputes between taxpayers and the revenue agency. It would essentially provide an avenue of appeal far less costly and far more accessible to taxpayers than what currently exists.

These two measures, a taxpayer bill of rights and the adoption of an office of taxpayer protection, would go a very long way toward protecting Canadian taxpayers in the new era of the Canada customs and revenue agency. We can see no good reason, nor has the government offered a single good reason, why a taxpayer bill of rights ought not to be introduced and passed alongside the legislation before us today, Bill C-43.

That is why at the outset of our debate over the next couple of days on the amendments to Bill C-43 I would once again call upon my colleagues in government to consider our sincere, detailed and thoughtful proposal for a taxpayer bill of rights. If the minister were to give us an inclination that he was willing to seriously consider the kind of recommendations we have made, we in turn as the official opposition would seriously consider supporting the bill because of some of the incremental administrative efficiencies that may be achieved by it.

Unless and until the government gets the message that Canadians are not satisfied with the level of fairness and due process in the tax collection system and takes some concrete steps to further entrench and protect taxpayers rights, there is no way we could support a bill which has even a slight potential for spinning out of control into an IRS tax style agency.

Our party opposes put forward by my colleague the Bloc Quebecois in Group No. 1 because they are dilatory motions which seek to delete each clause of the bill. We do not think thee are constructive amendments. We feel that many sections of the bill, including those which these motions seeks to delete, are worthwhile incremental improvements. We will oppose the motions in Group No. 1 and oppose the bill unless amended to include a taxpayer bill of rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about Bill C-43 before the House today at report stage and invite some of my friends and colleagues in the Liberal Party to express their points of view.

Many members in the House have independent spirits. I see my friend from Prince Edward Island across the way. I am sure he would not mind making a speech about the bill and how complicated it will make the process. I am sure he would explain to us why his province of Prince Edward Island, for example, has not signed on to it. He is a good friend of his premier. Why has he not been able to persuade the premier to sign on to the bill?

It is a very important issue. What is being established here is a brand new taxation agency. It will take 40,000 people out of Revenue Canada, which is 20% of the people who work for the Government of Canada, and establish a brand new agency to collect taxes.

Perhaps the idea came from the member for Prince Edward Island, I am not sure, but it came from the thought that the government wanted to get rid of the GST. It wanted to solve the problem of a promise by harmonizing the GST with the PST. However, only three provinces agreed: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. The thought was to have a new tax agency collecting the new harmonized sales tax, federal income taxes, provincial income taxes, maybe even the school taxes, the municipal taxes, liquor taxes and all other taxes. In other words it was to be a super agency.

My party and I are concerned about that for a number of reasons. It is supposed to collect federal, provincial and municipal taxes. Not a single province at this time has expressed any interest in this regard except New Brunswick in terms of collecting one of the small taxes in that province.

I wonder why the member from Prince Edward Island has not been able to persuade his favourite premier to decide on this agency. Perhaps he or his seatmate from Ontario could tell us about their premiers. Why has the Ontario premier, Mike Harris, not signed on to this agency? It is because Mike Harris is against the agency as is the Government of Ontario.

What about Quebec? Quebec, by its very definition, will not participate in this agency to collect taxes. We know that.

[An hon. member]

You don't buy a car before you see it.

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

I have been around here a long time. I heard the member across the way. However, whenever I see a piece of legislation that affects both the provinces and the federal government there is a lot of discussion and agreement ahead of time about how it should be done.

The Canada Health Act is a very good example. All kinds of negotiations take place between the provinces and the federal government when they agree on an agency and then the agency comes forth. However, the government is putting the cart before the horse in this regard. Not a single province has agreed but the government expects us to agree before agreement has been reached with the provinces.

I have an amendment which I hope members across the way would support. It states that we should not proceed until at least half the provinces sign on. That seems to be fair. I am not saying half the provinces with two-thirds of the population or something like that; I am just saying half the provinces.

The member from Prince Edward Island is champing at the bit wanting to participate in the debate. I will not take very long so that he can rise and say his piece on why he has not persuaded his premier and his province to sign on to this agency.

There are all kinds of other concerns. One is the shrinking of the size of government. We hear talk about the united alternative. The Reform and Conservative Parties want to form a very conservative alternative. We have a very conservative government across the way. We have now the smallest federal government we have had on a percentage basis since before the second world war. The bill will once again shrink the size of the federal government.

We see a Liberal Party that is more conservative than the Conservatives who were there a few years ago. Yet the member from Prince Edward Island sits there, clenches his teeth in frustration and does not dare speak out. It seems very strange that some of these members who are reasonably progressive sit back and take this kind of quasi-privatization on this particular issue.

The other thing is the question of accountability. Once again the government is going to establish an agency that will be arm's length from the government, arm's length from the Parliament of Canada. The new agency will have a CEO and a board of directors. The CEO will report to the government through a minister. That will be arm's length from this place.

I worry about the whole question of accountability. In setting up this corporation that is going to collect taxes, what about accountability for the people of this country?

Those are some of the issues we are hearing about when we talk about this bill across the country.

There is also tremendous opposition from the workers themselves at National Revenue, as articulated by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, PSAC.

I look across at the member from Prince Edward Island, a former national union leader in this country and the former president of the National Farmers Union. His brothers and sisters in PSAC are saying “Don't go ahead with this bill. It is a bad bill for workers. It is a bad bill for the people who have to collect taxes”. Yet this former union leader rests silent in his seat. He is afraid to get up and speak his mind. That is very strange for a former national union leader.

We should be listening to the workers. Those who will work in this agency and collect taxes know best whether it is going to be efficient and good for the people of the country, but they are being ignored.

To top it off, the committee did not even travel to any of the border communities like Sarnia or Windsor to speak to the people who are on the front lines in terms of customs. It did not travel to those communities.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It met them.

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

It met a few of them. It had a few hours of hearings, but very few.

The committee did not travel to Vancouver or other parts of British Columbia. It did not go down to the east coast or to the Windsor and St. Catharines border crossings to speak directly to the workers. The government is afraid of what it would hear.

I am sure the member from Prince Edward Island must be hanging his head in shame when he hears some of these reports, coming not only from this side of the House but from members of his own party who, because of our parliamentary system, do not have the courage to stand and speak publicly in the House.

The auditor general released his most report the other day. Yesterday it was before the public accounts committee, under the able chairmanship of my friend from St. Albert. In this very voluminous report there is a section that deals with Revenue Canada. It says many things about Revenue Canada and about its many problems. It makes a comment about the agency. It states that “the establishment of a new agency will not in itself resolve the problems outlined in this chapter with Revenue Canada”. The auditor general is saying that the problems that exist today in Revenue Canada will not be solved by the creation of this new tax agency.

It goes on and on. There is problem after problem. There is considerable opposition around the country. There is opposition from the provinces, in view of the fact that they have not signed on to this particular agency. There is opposition from the people who work for Revenue Canada and the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Yet the government wants to proceed.

We need some serious parliamentary change so that government backbenchers can speak their mind, tell us what they think, tell us what their constituents think and tell us what the workers in this country think. We need that kind of parliamentary change so the minister is not just jerking them around by the neck and telling them what to do. That is the kind of change we need in this country.

This is a very good example of a bill that should not pass, a bill which should be delayed for at least six months until the proper amendments are made, but the government backbenchers cannot speak their mind. That is why we need parliamentary reform.

If that were the case, the member from Prince Edward Island would not be afraid to stand in this House. But he knows that if he does that he may not be a parliamentary secretary any longer, he may not be a cabinet minister, he may not be a chair of a committee and he may be able to take a certain trip. That is the kind of power the government whip has today.

I appeal to some of these members to show courage and to tell us whether they are concerned about the lack of accountability, whether they are concerned that the provinces have not signed on and whether they are concerned about the establishment of an IRS type tax agency in this country like they have in the United States. I am sure they are and I invite them to speak in this debate.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the motions in Group No. 1 respecting Bill C-43.

The issues are quite complex. The government claims that there will be savings of $171 million to $285 million in compliance costs and also savings of $97 million to $162 million in administrative costs due to this new revenue agency. That is assuming that all provinces opt in. That is a very big assumption. The government has not succeeded, for instance, in convincing provinces to sign on to the HST or the blended sales tax, with the exception of a few provinces in eastern Canada.

The Canadian Federation of Taxpayers believes that there will be no major savings from this new agency. The federation is certainly well-versed both in terms of tax policy, tax enforcement and also in terms of pointing out inefficiencies in government. I would suggest that is a very significant criticism of the government's plan to create this revenue agency.

We should be focusing, in a very holistic way, on the simplification of the tax code. We should be working toward a fairer, flatter, less Pavlovian tax code. We should be looking at simplifying both business taxes and personal taxes such that Canadians do not have to hire professional accountants and lawyers to deal with their own government. Instead the government is focusing on the logistics of the administrative aspects of tax enforcement. I believe that this is a misdirected effort at this time.

This revenue agency, the way the government is going about it, is inconsistent with general trends of federal-provincial relations. Provinces want greater autonomy. Quebec, for instance, is not interested, and Ontario is indicating that it may want its own agency. Ontario is looking to gain greater authority over its tax levers and over the enforcement side of it.

It cannot simply be said that the provinces are going to sign onto this. There has not been dramatic indication from the provinces. I would argue that without that commitment in advance this simply should not go ahead.

The government says that it will create this good agency and the provinces will at some point understand what a great agency it is and what a great service it can deliver and they will want to sign on. I am very skeptical, as are members of my party, that that will occur. The provinces certainly have not bought into the government's blended sales tax to the extent they were expected to. Although, we have to commend the government on its flip-flop on the GST. It certainly has come a long way in terms of its support of consumption taxes today as opposed to where it was in 1993. But hypocrisy is only half a mortal sin and I guess we cannot pillory the government too far on that.

I am concerned about the appointment process of the board of directors which will be responsible for this agency. I know that the government is saying there will be federal-provincial co-operation and that, in itself, will eliminate or reduce the potential for patronage. That is the same assurance the government provided, for instance, with respect to the Canada pension plan investment board, and yet, of the 12 members of that board, six are prominent Liberals. In fact, five were significant contributors and one was a former Liberal MP.

The fact is that the process is tainted. The board that is responsible for the appointments has representatives from each province, but that board is chaired by a prominent Liberal, Mr. Phelps. He gave a list of 20 names to the Minister of Finance, and the minister chose 12 people from the 20. I suggest that it is no coincidence that 6 of the 12, 50% of the board responsible for the Canada pension plan investment process, are prominent Liberals.

Members opposite will say there is no patronage. But it is interesting to note that only .2% of Canadians contribute to the federal Liberal Party, and yet 50% of the people on the Canada pension plan investment board are prominent Liberals. So when they say there will be no patronage in the appointments to the board of this arm's length agency, I am very skeptical and for good reasons.

Questions we have to ask are: Why can the benefits being promoted by the government in Bill C-43 not be achieved within the framework of the department of Revenue Canada? It was mentioned earlier that it is the largest government department.

The government indicates that human resources issues are part of the stumbling blocks, including the difficulty in attracting and keeping high quality people, as well as pay issues within the public service. I would say that this would suggest a systemic problem within all of the public service that requires a holistic solution and not the stop-gap, knee-jerk, crisis management kind of approach that this government is taking.

The auditor general speaks to the general government-wide dissatisfaction with human resources management in his report on matters of special interest. The auditor general says that dissatisfaction with existing human resources management is also reflected in the interest among government officials in alternative service delivery mechanisms. One of the driving factors has been that present staffing, classification and compensation systems are too unwieldy and inflexible. The government needs to ensure that the rush to get outside the system does not divert attention from fixing the system.

Many of the human resources issues need to be addressed throughout the public service. This is a prime example of an opportunity for the government to address them, starting with the largest government department, Revenue Canada, which represents one-quarter of the public service, 40,000 to 46,000 employees, depending on the time of year. We should start actively developing a meaningful, holistic, long term approach to the entire public service.

The public service has unprecedented low levels of morale. We are dealing with a public service that is absolutely devastated by the fact that the government has yet to agree to the human rights tribunal ruling on pay equity.

Government members speak in code, but sometimes when they are talking about the public service they refer to the unions as being part of the problem, although they may not say that directly. However, union issues are dealt with in the private sector. There are many proponents of the free market system which recognize that unions play a very important role in that free market system. Without unions representing workers there would probably be a need for a large government department to look after those issues. Ultimately, that would be far less effective and unwieldy.

If companies like Chrysler Canada and General Motors can work with unions and achieve efficiency, productivity and advances, why cannot the Government of Canada? Why can the Government of Canada not lead the way in terms of human resources development, as opposed to leading the way in ignoring issues within its own human resources? Why is it seeking alternative service delivery instead of fixing the problems in its own departments?

If we created incentives within all of our public agencies and departments, incentives that recognize and reward excellence as opposed to encouraging mediocrity and punishing excellence, and if we introduced market incentives within the existing agencies, we could achieve economies without necessarily creating new agencies.

One of the tragedies in recent years with the government's policies toward the public service and with politicians making gratuitous attacks on it is that we have a public service that is extraordinarily demoralized.

There are people who study public administration and learn many of the same types of skills required for a business administration degree, but they study public administration because they want to be a public servant. They have a public ethic. They want to work for the betterment of society and for the people. We have to recognize that and ensure that we have a system which encourages excellence, both in terms of attracting the best and the brightest, and also keeping them.

My colleague from the Reform Party referred to the potential of this agency becoming an IRS type of agency and I concur with that risk.

The issues raised by the member from the New Democratic Party are relative to the agency and the risks to workers and their job security. Keep in mind 25% of the public service is in this. These are significant issues. I am not convinced that the government has made a good case for why we should support this agency.

If the government cannot address these human resources issues, for instance, or if it cannot address why the advantages of this agency cannot be achieved within the existing structure of Revenue Canada, then I suggest the government has a significant deficiency in its human resource management.

We need more consultation with Canadians. I suggest the finance committee or a subcommittee travel throughout the country and consult with Canadians and discuss any matter of the gravity and importance of the new Revenue Canada agency proposed by the government.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the APEC Summit; the hon. member for Davenport, the Environment; the hon. member for Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, Poverty.