Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1998

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 298

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

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 in Group No. 1.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I know that with time allocation on this item members will want to get on with the debate. Those who would like to debate are impeded from doing so in light of the significant number of conversations going on in the Chamber. Could those who wish to talk retreat from the Chamber so those who wish to debate can remain here and do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and make a few comments on this bill to establish the customs and revenue agency.

This legislation creates a national revenue collecting agency, the Canada customs and revenue agency, to replace Revenue Canada. The CCRA transforms Revenue Canada into a quasi-independent tax agency to take over the collection of personal and corporate income tax, provincial sales tax, the goods and services tax, customs duties and excise taxes on gasoline and alcohol levies.

Some provincial finance ministers have shown interest in this single tax collecting agency but they have not committed to participating. Certain provinces are asking for greater flexibility in this tax policy which is an issue not directly related to the Canada customs and revenue agency. Sometimes caution is one of the better ways to go with an agency of this magnitude.

A possible condition for Reform support would be a strong taxpayer bill of rights. Any taxpayer bill of rights would include a very clear statement on the accountability of the agency and a reinforcement of ministerial responsibility through an independent ombudsman and an office for taxpayer protection. Having an independent ombudsman would be the direction to go on this issue.

The government claims the agency should save the taxpayer some administration costs. The projected estimates of savings run between $97 million and $162 million. That is quite a savings provided that the projected efficiencies are built in.

The agency would facilitate integration of tax information and reporting systems thereby improving the prospect of single window reporting and reducing the paper burden on small and medium size businesses. This is something businesses and farmers have been asking for for years. They have been asking for a simpler tax form and a simpler way of computing tax so they can better understand the regulations and how taxes are computed.

The way the agency will be set up kind of throws up a red flag. It will have a board comprised of 15 directors. The chair and two directors will be selected by the federal government. This is similar to the set up of the Canadian Wheat Board for the time being. The other 11 directors would also be appointed by governor in council with input from the provinces which is a good idea. I could support that as long as these positions did not become more or less political plums. So often that is the case.

One very good example is the Manitoba Freshwater Fish Marketing Board. We have seen the appointment of a chairman being so political that in the end the friction which developed in the board resulted in the chairman having to resign from his position. This is something we want to prevent in these types of government quasi-judicial at a distance organizations.

Revenue Canada clients are looking for more streamlined services, improved response times and the reduction in the paper burden associated with compliance for tax, trade and customs transactions. They want faster service that is easier to access and which is more responsive to their needs.

What taxpayers and people who deal with this organization want most is accountability and a fair system which a lot of taxpayers feel is not there. The conditions attached to the revenue collected in payroll taxes and GST seem to indicate that people are not treated equally and fairly.

An independent ombudsman is a must. We certainly do not want to create an agency that appears to be similar in power to the IRS in the United States. That has created a lot of problems by false or improper taxation. It has also led to people serving jail sentences that should never have been imposed.

Why am I worried about this organization being accountable and responding to the taxpayer as well as to government? I have a couple of examples of what I have run into during the last year or two as a member of parliament.

A year ago I was informed that a businessmen in a neighbouring town had a severe problem. A day or two before Christmas his and his wife's accounts had been frozen due to what Revenue Canada felt were irregularities. Imagine what kind of stress this put on the businessman during a period of celebration when people are happy and family come home to spend a joyful Christmas.

The businessman contacted me after Christmas to explain what had happened. I was astounded that a person could be put into this type of position. He had contracted to build a place of business, a manufacturing plant. The people who signed the contract with him had not fulfilled their commitment. They had cancelled some of the building project. He was stuck with a contract where he owed payroll taxes and GST, but he had never completed the project.

He had submitted $14,000 to an account so that Revenue Canada could re-evaluate the payroll taxes and other benefits it felt were delinquent. When this became known, Revenue Canada quickly backtracked on the type of service the taxpayer had received and the account was settled under very reasonable conditions. But the stress and fear in this businessman were unbelievable. The personal tragedy of it was that he spent a Christmas worrying about what would happen to his business, not what other business people were encountering.

The other thing I point out is the Dave Sawatzky case where revenue and customs laid charges against him and fined him. He appealed and won that case. The government appealed it and lost but revenue and customs are still prosecuting other farmers under the same conditions.

This is not the democracy Canadians expect from the government. This is the type of democracy we hear about in third world countries where the government is the sole authority and does as it pleases. This is why people in Canada are very hesitant to give an agency the power that the Canada customs and revenue agency will receive under this bill.

We as members of the House must be vigilant and look at it seriously, amend it where possible to make safeguards available to the taxpayers and put trust back into the customs and revenue organization.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions with all the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent that the amendments which have been given in the name of the member for Calgary Southeast will be deemed to have been moved and seconded.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am at a bit of a loss to comprehend the member's request. We have a set of amendments before the House now that has been moved and seconded. Is the hon. member by his request seeking to have other amendments moved later in the day, assuming we get to other groups? Perhaps the hon. member could explain the circumstances.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have some amendments that were put forward by the member for Calgary Southeast. It was my understanding that we were to deal with those one at a time as we go to the next group. I am just asking for unanimous consent that they be deemed to have been moved and seconded when we get to them.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that all motions standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, when we reach them during the course of the day, will be deemed moved and seconded?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by deploring the time limit that has been set on our debate, courtesy of the government party.

This procedure is termed a gag order because it limits our ability to pursue debate and exchanges on a bill. When a gag is imposed, it prevents us as parliamentarians from continuing the exchange on matters of great importance.

When there is little opposition to a bill, when we reach agreement promptly, when a bill is well put together and when everything appears to be in order, we make interventions in order to make some improvements, and then, relatively promptly, the debate leads to its logical conclusion, which is unanimous passage of the bill or, more often, its passage following a division to settle the outstanding points.

When a bill is more sensitive and more complicated, and when the positions of the various parties with something to say on the bill are harder to reconcile, then we need more time.

For some reason, the government deems it preferable to prevent us from continuing debate in an attempt to bring the various positions closer together and to find acceptable compromises. The government prefers to impose a gag order.

What will the outcome be? We will end up with a bill on which there will be a division, while considerable dissent still remains and consensus has not been reached, or in other words a bill that will be passed, despite its being badly put together.

It is an affront to our democratic principles. It is an affront to the quality of work that should come out of this House and, finally, it is an affront to the public's right to the best legislation possible in Quebec and Canada.

This is the situation we are facing. This bill was not unanimously received, quite the contrary, and we oppose it for a number of real and significant reasons. Rather than try to compromise or to align positions, the government, it seems, is insisting on its own position, will not budge, will not compromise. That is why it is imposing closure.

We should now, because we have a limited time, simply reiterate our positions in the knowledge—and note how frustrating it is—that the government will not budge one iota on the bill before the House.

It is frustrating to know that, despite our efforts, our recommendations, our research and our concerns, the government is turning a deaf ear, preferring to stop discussions and have the bill passed. Naturally, since the government has a majority, it knows it can impose its bill.

The House of Commons does not exist for the government to impose bills. A government that respects the opposition does not impose bills. The government is making a mistake, because this is an important bill affecting everyone. One day, it will realize that there will indeed be the negative effects we predicted, and the public will let the government know just what it thinks in an election.

Two years ago, in the last parliament, the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP and the other opposition parties accurately predicted the adverse effects of the employment insurance reform. We put our finger on its major flaws, which would end up depriving people of the income they need when they lose their jobs. We predicted the adverse effects of the reform on the dynamics of the labour market and on the employment situation.

We pointed all this out. Two years later, it is obvious we were right. The minister and government of the day took no notice of our objections and made no attempt to incorporate our suggestions for improvement into the bill. Since the legislation has been in effect, hundreds of thousands of people have been hurt by the major flaws in this legislation.

Not one government minister would set foot in an airplane thrown together the way the House sometimes throws its bills together.

The bill before us is ill-drafted. If it were an airplane, it would never get off the ground. But it is proposed legislation, and the government is determined that it will fly, with predictable results.

There are still ordinary folks who will have to defend themselves against this unjust and inefficient legislation, who will have to prove that they are right. Worse still, even if they are right, if the law says they are wrong, then it is the law that will apply regardless.

I would also like to point out that the bill before us wants to concentrate tax collection in one agency that is, to all intents and purposes, independent of the minister. It is a bill that separates tax collection in Canada from our responsibility as parliamentarians. This is a serious matter.

It is serious because, the day something goes wrong in this agency, we will rise in the House and question the Minister of Revenue. We will tell him that there is such and such a problem that should be corrected. Like all the other ministers hiding behind commissions and agencies, the minister will tell us that the agency in question is an independent body, with its own problem-solving mechanisms, and that it is able to take care of matters itself. He will tell us that there is a complaints commission and that we should butt out.

With a bill like this, it is not the opposition the government is telling to butt out, it is the poor population of Canada. The problem is that the responsibility of parliament for an important agency in charge of tax collection is being removed.

There is an old principle “No taxation without representation”. To confer on an organization operating almost at arm's length from parliament the power, duty and means to collect our taxes is certainly stretching this principle to the limit.

I will go one step further. In Quebec, we have our own department of revenue. My question to the government is this: Since the social union project to allow a province to opt out of a federal government program is now on the table and will be in the coming weeks the subject of further debate between the provincial premiers and the federal government, could and should Quebec not opt out of this project to have tax collected by an outside agency and collect both provincial taxes and all federal taxes and then, through the Quebec revenue department, send taxes collected on behalf of Canada to the Minister of Finance? The Quebec revenue department already does it, with great success and efficiency, for the GST.

Since I am running out of time, I want to say that I appreciate having had this opportunity to express my views. I hope the government will consider withdrawing this bill forthwith.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency.

It is a rare honour to witness a government bill that we believe is moving in the right direction. I am pleased to see that Bill C-43 may reduce tax collection, administration and compliance costs, particularly if the provinces decide to opt in. My understanding at this time is that there is some interest by the provinces in these revisions. However, none of them has yet made any kind of formal commitment. Let us hope we can get them on board.

Corporations, businesses and individuals alike will be pleased that they will no longer have to deal with a plethora of agencies. By focusing the tax collection needs with the Canada customs and revenue agency, overall costs should be reduced. I believe all Canadians would be in favour of reducing the cost of government and its associated departments.

While I believe there are some significant steps forward in this bill, there is a a lack of autonomous accountability in both the existing and the proposed bills.

The proposed role of the agency is to be responsible to the Minister of National Revenue. I believe we can do better than this. When we deal with taxpayer money individuals want to be assured there is full accountability and redress if and whenever necessary. If we want to upset someone we can be successful by telling him or her that they owe the government X number of dollars and that their options for disagreement are limited. This is true of people whether they be small business owners, corporations or individual taxpayers. Financial accountability is very important to all Canadians.

The Reform Party is very much in favour of a cost efficient use of Canadian taxpayer dollars. This is one of our basic principles. It is a grassroots principle that remains very important to all our constituents and to all Canadians. The inefficient use and waste of tax dollars may be seen in many different examples at almost every level of government today. Citizens are always pleased to hear of positive changes and improvements to the government's use of their financial resources.

What appears to be lacking in the proposed revisions in an accountability process for the taxpayers. We have heard it said already today but I believe there should be in place a taxpayer bill of rights. Why would we need a taxpayer bill of rights? The answer may be seen in a letter I received from a constituent who had difficulties with Revenue Canada. I will read his letter for members and see if they do not agree that a multitude of problems exist with this situation. The letter is dated August 27, 1998, addressed to the hon. Minister of Finance:

I am writing you this letter because I have run into a problem with Revenue Canada which I hope you can help me with, as I feel you may have inadvertently caused this. Approximately 4 years ago when the Liberal Party first came into power, you and [the Prime Minister] requested the Canadian public to check their income tax for possible mistakes, as the country was severally in debt and could use any extra income it could find to help pay off the debt. If there were mistakes found there would be no penalties charged.

Since I had never filled out my income tax, I felt that this would be an excellent opportunity to have the company who always does my taxes checked out. So I requested Revenue Canada audit 4 years of my taxes. They found one error and charged $700.00.

I then took this information to my tax preparation company, who admitted to the error, however, there was supposed to be a deduction from the $700.00 which Revenue Canada had not credited to my account, which would have reduced this amount by $350.00, leaving a balance owing of $350.00 which I paid. It seems that even Revenue Canada can make errors.

I returned to Revenue Canada to inform them that they had made an error and stated what my tax prep person had told me. I then received a phone call from a lady from Revenue Canada. She informed me that Revenue Canada only gave one free audit and that they had decided that my penalty would be $350.00, the exact figure of the error that Revenue Canada had made, so that would leave me owing another $350.00.

I phoned Revenue Canada in Victoria to complain. I was then informed by a gentleman from Victoria that “If I was stupid enough to request an audit then I got what I deserved”. I was really angry after that. I went to my Liberal member of parliament for my riding and complained about the whole situation. I was told they would look into the situation. After 3 months when I returned to his office, they stated that they were unable to help. The only way that they could see (a solution) would be to write to the appeals office in Victoria, which I did. I then sat waiting.

I informed the MP's office that I wanted to take this to the media as I did not want to see anyone else get shafted. They stated I should wait and see (what) would happen as they were sure that things would be straightened out.

I waited a year and the only thing that changed was the balance owing to Revenue Canada, as I had refused to pay this penalty. I returned to my MP's office and they stated that they would see what happened. I was informed a month later that the appeals office (had) never received the information from them and I should write you first.

However, an election was called and I did not feel that this would be an appropriate time for you to look into this or (for me) to go to the media. Now that the election is over and everything is settled in, I would like you to again look into this matter. I now see that Revenue Canada has a program for doing personal income tax. With the problem I have had with Revenue Canada, I would not recommend anyone have Revenue Canada do their income tax and then charge them a penalty. They would have no recourse and be stuck in the same position that I am in, as I would go to court before I would pay this penalty.

I have been disabled now for the past two years and have not been able to work. I now do not have the money to fight this in court, so I would have to go public and ask for money to fight this penalty, which I feel was unfair.

Would you look into this as they have taken my last GST cheque and the interest is mounting?

Thank you,

Mr. George Gravonic

Shawnigan Lake, B.C.

I sincerely hope that no one else has to endure what Mr. Gravonic has gone through. However, I am sure they do.

I think we would all agree this case would make anyone angry and very untrustworthy of the tax system. I am thankful and hopeful that not every tax situation is like this one. However, even one case is one too many.

A taxpayer bill of rights would ensure that Mr. Gravonic and people like him would have recourse within the system rather than spending hard earned dollars on court appeals. In order to be effective, the taxpayer bill of rights must include several key points.

Taxpayers must be able to read and understand the tax laws in plain language terms. Legal double talk only confuses the situation. Taxpayers must be treated professionally and with courtesy.

Taxpayers must have a recourse method that allows them to complain about service and treatment that is below standard. This process must allow the taxpayer the right to move up the seniority roster and be heard by a senior official and in turn their superior if the answer is not satisfactory.

Taxpayers need the right to only pay the amount of tax due, no more, no less. Taxpayers need to know what any collected information will be used for.

When dealing with the proposed Canada customs and revenue agency, taxpayers need the opportunity to represent themselves or to have someone represent them through any dispute resolution process. Those people who are in dispute with the CCRA need the opportunity to record any meetings. All disputed claimants need the right to appeal first administratively and then, if necessary, legally.

When taxpayers have acted in good faith and without any intention to evade, the proposed CCRA shall waive penalties and interest. In cases where reassessments will cause severe and undue hardships, alternative repayment methods shall be made.

The proposed CCRA will be entitled to seize or freeze assets when fraud and/or evasion is suspected, but only when the CCRA can show why such action should be taken.

That is a long list but I believe they are all necessary. They will only be strong when there is an autonomous office willing and able to stand up and support them. This office needs to be an independent voice for the Canadian taxpayer which will represent and fully support the interests of all Canadians.

This office should be set up as an independent voice of the taxpayer, an office for taxpayer protection that represents the interests of the Canadian taxpayer. I see this office being set up similar to the role of the auditor general, a role that would report annually to parliament on the status of taxpayer and CCRA relations.

Do we need a taxpayer bill of rights in conjunction with the changes proposed by Bill C-43? I believe so. I believe that the 53,500 taxpayers who filed appeals and objections last year all believe we need such a process in place.

For the above reasons I find that unfortunately at this point I must oppose Bill C-43 unless the government commits to passing the taxpayer bill of rights with an office for taxpayer protection.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join my Bloc Quebecois colleagues in telling the government why we, on this side of the House, are opposed to Bill C-43. There are four reasons for this.

I will list them, then comment on each.

First, the establishment of this revenue collection agency is, in my opinion, an abdication of political power. Second, the establishment of the agency is also an admission of powerlessness on the part of the minister. Third, I believe it is an anti-union measure. Fourth and last, but not the least, it reflects the centralizing vision of the Liberal government opposite.

Why do I call this an abdication of the political power? Because, given the wording of the bill establishing this agency, the minister will now be able to hide behind the agency and say it is the agency's staff, not the minister, that is responsible for any wrongdoing, thus leaving it up to the agency to face the music. At the political level, we will no longer be able to question the minister in the House regarding any problem. I heard the Reform Party member mention one such problem earlier. Clearly, we must protect and, more importantly, maintain the principle of accountability to parliament.

I also said the minister was powerless. I have always of him as a nice guy, because I have worked with him on other issues in the past. But, on the face of it, when I read the bill, I realized he is the only person I know who wants to fire his whole staff. He will not have anyone left, except perhaps his chauffeur. Why, then, should we keep the minister? Is the government telling us that we will no longer have a minister responsible for this issue? All this indicates that no one will be accountable in the House any longer.

I also feel this initiative is an anti-union measure. I must remind hon. members that the public servants involved in customs or tax collections account for about 20% of the entire Canadian public service, one-fifth. With one fell swoop, with passage of this bill, one-fifth of the federal public service would no longer be public servants, they would be employees of the agency instead. They would then be subject to whatever new rules the agency felt like imposing.

I have some problems with the centralizing view of the government, because the intention in establishing such an agency is “to collect taxes from all Canadians”. Provincial taxes were also mentioned. The bill even states that contracts could be signed with municipalities and other organizations. This is really wanting to grab the whole pie, slamming the door so no one else can get any.

I have trouble with all this talk of establishing agencies. The Liberals tell us it will simplify things and avoid duplication, but it seems that those two words are synonymous for them. By wishing to simplify things, they will create duplication. For example, if this agency wanted to collect all of the GST and the TVQ, these are already rolled together in Quebec, and collected by Quebec. So what, exactly, are they up to?

Every time the Liberals over there speak of harmonization, it is synonymous with interference. They end up with their hands in the pockets of individuals, provinces and municipalities. This business of the social union is proof of this, as they are saying “We might give you part of it back, provided you meet certain criteria, ours”.

I hope the other provinces and the municipalities will not blindly fall into the trap of this new agency the government is creating.

The creation of this agency will remove its employees from the application of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. In addition, the agency will be removed from the application of the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and the Official Languages Act.

We are told that this is certainly not the case. So if all this changes nothing, why create this agency at all? We are told “It is to modernize the Canadian public service”. “Modernize” is synonymous with “privatize” in the mouths of the Liberals. It is becoming a bit annoying.

However, the word “privatize” frightens and bothers me. I will give an example. The Canada Post Corporation used to report to the government. It was privatized. Shortly before or after we were elected, Canada Post bought another private company, Purolator. So this means possible amalgamation. The government still talks of mail or equipment delivery.

Is the government perhaps contemplating an amalgamation involving this agency? Does this mean that, following privatization, the agency would be in a position to decide what it wants and could decide to buy H & R Block, a company that helps people prepare their tax returns? Could we expect the agency responsible for collecting to also be the one preparing the returns?

I hope those on the other side of the House will be able to say this is not the case. However, in many cases, and I could point to a number of examples, some of which involve the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the government annoyingly wants to be both judge and jury. That is not a very good thing for Canadian justice.

I would also like to speak briefly to clauses 15, 22 and 25. I also have a point to make about clause 30. More specifically, clauses 15, 22 and 25 provide for its operation, with a board of 15 directors. Of course, these 15 persons will be appointed by the governor in council. The public must understand that what this really means is that they will be appointed by the government.

Who will the government appoint? Its friends of course, defeated candidates. These jobs are for a term of five years, and renewable to boot. This will make for a comfortable retirement to look forward to for some members opposite. The former solicitor general may want to look into this. We shall see; the future will tell.

Under clause 30.(1), the agency has decisional authority over its organization and general administrative policy. Basically, it will have control over all matters relating to organization, real property and personnel management, including the determination of the terms and conditions of employment. What does this mean?

In the context of privatization, budget restraint and streamlining, should the employees who are declared surplus and probably have to take the jobs they are offered in the new agency already expect a salary cut?

This is not clear. The Liberals across the way never tell us about the nasty tricks they are about to pull. We have to be able to read between the lines.

I am afraid that they might not only cut the salaries of those working for this agency but at the same time increase the salaries of those running it. Will future directors or vice-presidents of this agency want their salaries to match those of their counterparts in a major bank, because they handle roughly the same amount of business? Is salary inflation to be expected? I am afraid so.

To conclude, I have noticed some consistency in the way the people opposite approach privatization. They started by privatizing postal services; this was done a long time ago. But under this government, railways, ports and airports have been privatized. Now they are talking about establishing a tax collection agency.

My message to the rest of Canada is this: Is Canada being put up for sale piece by piece? All the symbols on which this country was built—ports, airports, railways, and now tax collection—are being privatized and sold off one by one. This is the conclusion I leave my friends from the rest of Canada to ponder.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43 shows that what the government has in mind is a long term project, of which this bill is but one step, the third one if I am not mistaken. To illustrate my point, I will refer to the establishment of two other independent agencies, ADM, the Montreal airports administration, and Nav Canada.

Bill C-43 seeks to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency, which will enjoy, under an illusory control, the excessive and even kingly power to collect taxes. It is a power that, until now, was the state's exclusive prerogative, although there was a time when such was not the case.

During the middle ages, until the 14th or 15th century, there was in Europe an institution called farmers general. These individuals were despised by the public, because they were mandated by the king to collect taxes. So, we are going back to the middle ages in this area. This is clearly a step backwards.

I want to say a word about ADM, because of the obvious similarities between that agency and the one that the government wants to establish now.

ADM was given the power to manage Montreal's airports, without any government control. Seven people decided the future of Dorval and Mirabel airports. We all remember ADM's decision to transfer international flights from Mirabel to Dorval. So, seven individuals were given the power make a decision that turned out to be disastrous for a region of Canada called the greater Montreal.

At the time, I asked a question about this in the House and was told that it was not the minister's responsibility, that it was up to ADM. In other words, the minister told me he was washing his hands of the whole affair, in this case Mirabel airport.

Nav Canada, which is responsible for navigation aids, was another similar creation. It too is almost completely autonomous. If Nav Canada were to decide tomorrow—and it could—to shut down a control tower, and we were to ask the minister about it, the minister could easily tell us that it was up to Nav Canada, not him, and that he was washing his hands of the whole affair, so to speak.

The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is more of the same. It is part of a deliberate and long-term plan by the government, which is once again creating an agency behind which it can hide.

From airport management and navigation aids, we have moved on to tax collection. In creating these agencies, the government is looking for two benefits. The first is to be able to reward its political friends with plum jobs not governed by public service pay rules. The second is to create a buffer zone from which the government can safely blame the agency for anything that happens.

This is scandalous, but I am objective enough to point out that there is one benefit to creating this agency, and that is that it will provide one more argument in convincing Quebeckers that there is only one way out of this rotten regime and that is sovereignty.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak at this stage of Bill C-43.

The Bloc Quebecois has expressed constructive opposition to this bill from the beginning. The government is laying open to question a vital principle, with its desire to create an instrument for collecting taxes that would allow it to encroach on others' areas of jurisdiction. Take, for example, the taxes that could be collected in Quebec.

There is also the fact that the taxpayers' independence will be greatly diminished if they have to deal with this huge bureaucracy for tax collection. Every citizen must contribute his proper share, must participate in the government budget, but not excessively.

We are familiar with the cases of a number of people who have received notices of assessment and then, after these are looked into, it is found that a compromise could have been reached, that more could have been done. Most of these cases are settled through the usual mechanisms, but not all.

This bill will lead to more such cases. The government says it must collect a lot of money. Such is the philosophy behind their collecting money for employment insurance, money deducted at source. I fear the same attitude will be behind the proposed agency.

As well, the employees of this agency need to be independent, and in the past their independence was linked to their status as public servants, which is likely to undergo a significant change. They may end up more vulnerable to political interference. In the end, the people will be less well served by the new formula proposed by the bill.

The argument that the provinces, Quebec for example, could voluntarily come under the new proposal for this federal agency to collect all taxes, strikes me as rather fallacious. It smacks of Plan B. Some years ago, Quebeckers decided that they wanted part of their taxes to be collected by Quebec, so that the money would be divided as the Government of Quebec wanted. We agreed on the GST. The GST is collected and administered by Quebec, which then hands it over to the federal government, and the future lies much more in this direction.

If people, even federalists, were prepared to consider taking the opposite approach and, instead of letting the federal government collect taxes and giving it spending authority in all the provincial areas of jurisdiction, were to let any province so wishing collect taxes and remit a portion thereof for its share of services provided by the federal government, the entire dynamic of Canadian federalism would be altered.

The bill before us is not based on this approach. Instead, it is based on ensuring that the federal government has an increasing number of ways in which it can invade the provinces' areas of jurisdiction, gradually strangle them and take their place. Ultimately, the federal government is becoming ever-present. This is one more way of confirming the old vision of Canada as a country with a single level of government, in which the provinces are seen as little more than overgrown municipalities. They have very limited powers and they are certainly not seen by the public as the central authority.

If I may digress, last night I was astonished to learn that the first thing Mr. Charest did as leader of the opposition in Quebec was to ask that Canada's flag be present in the National Assembly. This from someone who says he is in touch with Quebeckers.

It is my impression that he has not completed his “Quebec 101” course, and that it may take years for him to understand. Sometimes too, a person has to be willing to understand. There is, perhaps, something missing here.

This whole dynamic is what underlies the bill before us. The main focus of government for Quebeckers, the control centre, is the Quebec Legislative Assembly. Quebeckers want to see it collecting as much of their taxes as possible. We are not prepared to go before the federal government like lambs to the slaughter and to forgo our fair share of autonomy.

This bill was dormant for a long time. Preparations were under way for a very long time to try and get it past Parliament, and finally it was decided to table it. But it is running into considerable opposition, particularly from experts in the field and from all those who work for the department and feel that this bill will make the taxpayer the loser in the long run and deprive them of the necessary autonomy to perform their duties.

I am going to propose another possible mode, one which the government ought to consider. Instead of steamrollering a bill through like this, the provinces ought to have been consulted in order to see what model might have been acceptable to them, and whether there are any conditions which might prove to be of interest without making a government such as the Government of Quebec feel caught in a trap.

Tax collection is certainly not the answer to all the country's ills, but it is the kind of issue that goes to the heart of what is really bothering people. In its determination to ram this bill through, the federal government is invoking closure so as to cut off debate before all parliamentarians have had a chance to express their views.

There is no rush. We do not have a national or international crisis. We have a bill that is sadly in need of improvement. It is clear that the bill would have needed many more changes at report stage to be acceptable to the majority of parties in the House.

This is the sort of issue that demands that we take the time to reach a consensus because it has a direct effect on the public through tax collection and through negotiations with individuals and with companies. There has to be broad consensus on the approach. This was not a bill that had the support of the majority, such bills often standing up very well in the long run because enough thought went into them at the outset.

Instead, we have a bill passed by a majority that has its head in the sand and has decided to ram the bill through, without making the necessary amendments.

For these reasons, and for all the reasons mentioned by the Bloc Quebecois members, I think it important that this bill be considered further and sent back to committee, or withdrawn so that it can be worked into something acceptable.

We would do better to take our time to produce something acceptable and to remove all the irritants the bill contains for those who would like a government, such as Quebec, to be allowed to retain and to broaden its autonomy with respect to tax collection.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-43, which creates the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency. This Liberal bill is not new. The government first mentioned it in the throne speech in February 1996.

At the time, like today, the Bloc Quebecois strongly rejected this bill, which we deemed centralizing.

Allow me to explain to you some of the reasons behind our opposition to this Liberal initiative. First, this institution will become a superstructure, a super tax collection institution, which will enable Ottawa to extend its influence to all levels of government.

We already know that this agency sprung from the imagination of senior tax officials in Ottawa. They would really like to control a gigantic fiscal octopus extending its tentacles beyond the provinces to municipal and local administrations.

Their intent is to administer everything from provincial sales taxes to gasoline and alcohol taxes. We should ask ourselves “Do Quebeckers and Canadians want to give such power to a single government agency?” The answer, as you will agree, is no.

We oppose the creation of this agency because the government's obligation to account to the public and to Parliament will be weakened. In its present form, Revenue Canada is responsible to taxpayers through the Department of National Revenue. So at the moment, the government cannot evade difficult questions, such as the family trusts scandal, for example.

However, the new agency would not be subject to the direct control of the House of Commons and would therefore face less rigorous parliamentary scrutiny. Once again, do Canadians and Quebeckers want to have an agency that the government can use as a cover? The answer is no.

This answer becomes even clearer when one is familiar with the Liberal approach to management: they constantly hide behind inquiries and independent agencies to avoid answering embarrassing questions. That is how they reacted to the questions raised concerning the involvement of senior military officers in the Somalia affair. That is also how they reacted to questions on air safety. They reacted the same way with respect to food inspection.

This morning, in the Standing Committee on Health, we heard the assistant to the auditor general and the president of the food inspection agency, another independent agency established recently, which is similar to the one contemplated by the government in Bill C-43: the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

I urge hon. members to read the section of the auditor general's report dealing with how this transition was handled. When I toured Quebec over the summer, I visited a distribution centre, an income tax return processing centre in the riding of my colleague from Jonquière. I met more than 500 public service employees. All of them cautioned us about two things. The first one is the infamous pay equity issue. I will not bring it up again, because it has already been the subject of extensive debate in this House.

The second point raised by public service employees, residents and voters from the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière, is their concern about the agency that will be established under Bill C-43.

Let me go back to this morning's meeting of the standing committee on health. The auditor general once again showed that the transition from the Department of Health to a food inspection agency had generated major distortions. I will not draw a parallel, but allow me to voice my concerns about Bill C-43, which will establish a similar independent agency. I believe there is cause for concern.

My colleague, the Bloc Quebecois critic on this issue and member for Saint-Eustache, expressed concern about it. It is important to take note of that concern.

The government continued in the same vein to avoid having to deal with the Prime Minister's involvement in police violence against students at the Vancouver APEC summit. We refuse to give the Liberal government another excuse to take cover and avoid answering the public's questions in an area as important as the collection of taxes.

The Canada customs and revenue agency could also be prejudicial to people's privacy. As members know, we live in a world where computer technology is becoming increasingly important, and where private sector organizations buy and sell more and more personal information. The federal government has already dealt with the sensitive issue of protecting personal information in Bill C-54.

My colleague from Chambly will be speaking soon. I remember his comments about the concerns raised by Bill C-54. The Liberal government is consistent. It is so uncomfortable with the principle of protecting personal information, that it even attempted to downplay this objective in the title of a bill that is supposed to do just that.

Bill C-54 is entitled an act to support and promote electronic commerce—“support”, “promote” and “commerce” are the three key words—by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances.

It is obvious that, with this bill, the Liberal government is giving priority to commerce over the protection of personal information. We now fear that it may be pursuing the same objective with this agency, that is to maximize government revenues, without regard for the protection of personal information.

So, the government is consistent, in Bill C-54 and Bill C-43. How can we confidently hand over so much personal information to a super-powerful federal agency, when it was designed by a Liberal government that will not give priority to the protection of personal information over the promotion of unfettered commerce?

The answer is obvious. Canadians and Quebeckers cannot trust such an institution. We have serious concerns about the balance of powers that will prevail within the new federal agency.

Who, exactly, will decide? In the end, who will be accountable? These are questions we have.

I conclude by saying that if the federal government truly wants to improve the administration of tax laws and streamline their application, the solution is simple: Quebec already has a revenue department that does a good job of collecting taxes. The federal government should simply, once and for all, hand over to Revenue Quebec the responsibility for collecting all taxes in Quebec, and it should do the same with all the other provinces that want to do so.

Such decentralization would give some credence to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who claimed again yesterday that the Canadian federation was open and decentralized.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, things are getting off to a bad start for Bill C-43. The government party is muzzling and gagging the opposition. We are criticizing this bill, which will perhaps not foment a revolution, because that is already under way with Nav Canada and Aéroports de Montréal, for example, where partisan appointments are still being made consistently to a committee or a company, as those appointed are always friends of the party in power.