Madam Speaker, this is the second time I have risen in the House to speak to this bill.
I began my last speech by saying that Bill C-43 is a bureaucratic aberration, a serious blow against democracy, protection of personal information, respect for jurisdictions and service to the people, nothing less.
After further consideration, I would say all that and more, because the purpose of this bill is not just to replace the Department of Revenue, but to create a body that will provide services to the provinces and municipalities for the implementation of programs and activities. These words appear beside the words customs and taxes throughout the bill.
This is an agency that will not be subject to democratic control, that will operate at arm's length from the federal government, that will have the appearance of a public agency but that, in reality, will not be accountable to parliament.
It is another attempt to lump all the provinces together and is the antithesis of what federal government is all about. It is bureaucratic and undemocratic. But the government goes much further; this bill gives it the authority to replace any other level of government in their program activities. It is unbelievable.
Protest has been widespread. What is this government doing? As usual, comfortable with its five-member majority, it charges ahead, creating problem after problem, with the mindset of a central government that, in the regions, would only have to deal with municipalities.
It is serious, especially on the eve of negotiations on the social union issue. It is serious because, while the provinces are fighting as hard as they can to maintain the powers given to them under the Constitution, the federal government, without warning, is moving ahead, ignoring all the legitimate protests, fears and concerns and muzzling the opposition. Why? Because it is annoyed with the opposition parties for expressing their disagreement.
I have a few new arguments to make. I said this agency will be a business. Who will it serve, the public? No. It will serve clients. These clients will be provinces or municipalities. What will the directors' mission be?
Clause 42(1) says:
Every director of the Agency, in exercising their powers and performing their duties and functions, must a ) act honestly and in good faith—
Yes, but why? This is why:
—with a view to the best interests of the Agency—
So much for that. We have here a business that will act with a view to its best interests and whose job will be to collect revenues from taxpayers with whom it does not have the same relationship as the one that exists between the taxpayers and the state, the income tax return being a contract between the taxpayers and the state. We can say that. There are countries where things are done differently.
The system we have developed here is based on a voluntary contract, namely the personal income tax return, which contains all kinds of confidential information. Trust is absolutely vital in exercising this civic duty.
The government also has the duty to build that trust. But how can that happen when we know from the start that this agency will be made up of an extremely large number of employees—40,000 is the number we have been seeing—who will no longer come under the Public Service Employment Act and who will therefore have difficulty keeping their union? I hope they will be able to keep it.
They will no longer be protected by this act, which allows them to fulfil their duty to the state and to the people. Will they be serving the people's interests? No. They will be serving the agency's interests, and that agency is planning to sign contracts with provincial and municipal governments for various activities and programs.
The agency may licence, sell or otherwise make available any patent, copyright, industrial design, trade-mark or other similar property right that it holds or develop. That is what the minister's bill says. It is an aberration in terms of democracy, in terms of personal information and in terms of service to the public. It does not make sense. It is unthinkable, but the government is doing it anyway. This is serious.
Let us just look at the personal information aspect. We know that the people who will be processing income tax returns will no longer be protected by legislation. They will receive bonuses as a reward. That is what the bill says.
The Minister of National Revenue should reflect on this some more and withdraw this bill that has to be a cause for concern for Canadians. It breaks the fundamental contract of trust between the taxpayer who signs his or her income tax return and the state, because the state is abandoning its role and its responsibility. That is the most serious part. There are a lot of other things too but, essentially, that is the most serious part. The minister can say what he likes, he will no longer be accountable to this House because he will be able to blame the directors or the commissioner. He can smile all he wants, but he will not be able to restore people's trust.
Without a union and without the protection of the law, employees will be vulnerable to all kinds of pressure. We can think about employee turnover, which will make the issue of personal information an even greater concern.
With all my colleagues and all the people who are interested in this matter, I urge the minister again not to go ahead with this undemocratic bill that goes against the public's interest.