Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1998

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

I am asking the Minister of Canadian Heritage to join in our enthusiasm and feign applause at least for Mayor L'Allier. I believe she needs encouragement to do so.

We feel obliged to explain to everyone listening why we, as a responsible opposition, I would even venture to say one of the best oppositions ever in the House of Commons, are opposed to—

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Let's not get carried away here. We were in opposition too.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

—this bill, which creates the Canada customs and revenue agency.

Hon. members should take just a second to imagine what it will mean if we pass this bill—and I cannot imagine in my wildest dreams that the hon. member for Hamilton East would stand up and vote in favour of such a bill. If we pass this bill it will mean that we have no belief in ministerial accountability and no belief in the quality of the Public Service of Canada.

If such a bill is passed, in one fell swoop, without any warning, and in a cavalier, peremptory and grotesque manner, 20% of the Public Service of Canada is eliminated.

I wish to tell all ministers present, and I wish to tell the somewhat left-leaning wing of the Liberal Party personified in the heritage minister, that if they want to show interest in the public service, they ought to call for anti-scab legislation with all their might. If the Liberals want to do something about the public service, what needs to be done is not getting rid of people but addressing the real problems.

If the government wants to legislate labour relations, why does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not rise and congratulate the Bloc Quebecois, which since the early 1990s, when it appeared in the House, when she was on this side and was the Rat Pack incarnate in her vehemence, why does she not rise and congratulate the Bloc for having introduced antiscab legislation very early on? Is this not democratic? Is that not honourable? Is this not an issue the government should raise?

There is a whole lot of legislation we would support as the opposition, but do not ask me or the members of the Bloc to support this centralizing, anti-union, anti-province pile of papers.

I have a challenge to put to our ministers present. I would like the Minister of Canadian Heritage to stop writing and listen. Perhaps she could tell us if there is one province supporting her bill.

I challenge her to rise. We all know her sweet voice that is sometimes cruelly silenced in Oral Question Period. Could she tell us as Minister of Canadian Heritage and to the best of her knowledge—I know she is not responsible for this and has her arms full at the moment—but could she tell us if she can whether one province, her province of Ontario for example, supports this bill? Does her friend Mike Harris support a bill like this?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

He is certainly no friend of mine.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

We know full well that there is no support for this bill, which is obviously an unreasonable measure. This is a bill that you should forthwith ask all your pages to collect, Madam Speaker, so that we never hear about it again. That is the best thing that could happen to it. Do not think for a minute that we will let it go through without putting up a fight.

We are all here today to let our listeners know that, if passed, this bill will result in the establishment of a government agency that is not accountable to this Parliament.

Why is the Minister of Revenue—who was so voluble when it came to promoting Vancouver's bid for the Olympic Games—unable to explain by virtue of what principle it is consistent with ministerial responsibility to surrender our powers and offload onto non-elected representatives the responsibility of destroying 20% of the public service? This is not serious. I think this bill should be immediately withdrawn.

There is at least ten good reasons justifying the Bloc Quebecois' opposition. First, as I said, there is no support for such a bill. There is an old principle in the British parliamentary system, which the heritage minister must know and which states that lawmakers must not legislate for no good reason.

How is it that a bill like this does not address the real problems? If the government wants to talk about taxation, it should get cracking and introduce a bill on Canadian transfer payments that would return to the provinces the money taken away from them.

Between 1993, when the Prime Minister closed the red book, and now, the provinces have been done out of $42 billion. Quebec alone lost $7 billion. Is this the kind of federalism the Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to see? Once again I ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage to listen to what I am saying and to tell me whether this is the kind of federalism government members favour, that is to say a system that allows the central government to literally destabilize the public finances of the provinces.

When I was a hot-headed and dashing young university student thirsting for knowledge, I was taught that federalism had three characteristics. I was told it was a political system with two levels of government: a central government and provincial governments. In their respective areas of jurisdiction, each level of government was supposed to be sovereign. That was the first characteristic.

The second characteristic, they said, was that, under constitutional law, a higher level of government was not supposed to interfere in the affairs of so-called lower levels of government. Well, what about bill like this, which goes right to the heart of taxation in Quebec? I know that you will hardly believe it, Madam Speaker, but if this bill is passed, municipalities might even be asked to help with tax collection.

Is there anything more closely related to provincial governments than municipalities? Why would the federal government need to interfere in an area such as this one?

The problem is that there is nobody in cabinet to defend Quebec's interests. Nobody in this government speaks for Quebec. They have no backbone when it comes to defending Quebec's interests. I am convinced we could not name a single minister who did so. Certainly not the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges. He does not talk much. He is not one to raise his voice.

As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, if I asked you, would you be able to name one minister who defended Quebec's interests when it came to putting an end to such interference by the federal government? No.

That is the sad part about it. If not for the members of the Bloc Quebecois who are totally dedicated to defending Quebec's interests, which is why we are respected and have the support of the people, this bill would have passed without a hitch.

No, we will not let it happen because we have too much respect for the Government of Quebec.

We fought hard to have our own tax system in Quebec. We just have to think of Maurice Duplessis, of the Union nationale, who asked Ottawa to give him back his loot. He was the first to create a direct taxation system in 1948.

So we will not let it happen. The day is not over yet, and we still hope this bill is withdrawn.

Madam Speaker, would it be possible to have the unanimous consent of the House—which, I think, will be granted—to continue my speech for another ten minutes? I am not finished yet.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House to continue his speech?

[An hon. member]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member does not want to mislead the House. He mentioned a $7 billion cut in transfer payments, when he knows this is totally untrue. I want to give him the opportunity to correct this—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please. I am sorry, but the debate must resume.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, in February 1996, in a rather trivial throne speech, the federal government announced the establishment of a national revenue collection agency. We believed this plan had been dropped, when just before the House adjourned last spring the revenue minister introduced Bill C-43 establishing the Canada customs and revenue agency.

I want to say I support every amendment aimed at reducing the scope of Bill C-43 because the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the creation of the Canada customs and revenue agency.

What the minister pulled out of his hat like a rabbit, is not an innocuous collection agency, but an evil creature, a bureaucratic monster that threatens privacy, the rights of Revenue Canada workers as well as provincial jurisdiction over tax collection. Even the business community is against the creation of the agency.

The minister said he wanted the House to pass Bill C-43 before the holiday season. Why the rush? One wonders why he is going ahead when nobody wants this customs and revenue agency.

The minister is proposing to alter the current structure of Revenue Canada by turning it into a quasi-independent agency. Therein lies the danger. This agency would be responsible for collecting taxes on behalf of the federal government, but also all manner of other taxes including sales and property taxes, if collection agreements are signed with provinces and municipalities.

I will set out the arguments against this bill.

First, the customs and revenue agency is a threat to the privacy of Quebeckers and Canadians. In this era of electronic communications, the risk of trafficking in personal information increases proportionally with the concentration of information within private organizations. If it sees the light of day, this agency will have access to an incredible quantity of personal and financial information.

What is more, this agency would be less subject than Revenue Canada to ministerial responsibility and parliamentary control. Consequently, the dissemination of this personal information on taxpayers would not be under public surveillance.

Second, the CCRA could prejudice the working conditions of Revenue Canada employees, and even threaten their jobs. In fact, 40,000 Revenue Canada employees would be removed from the Public Service Employment Act. In two years, therefore, it could cut salaries, dismiss people, or decide on their working conditions, without their having a word to say in the matter. By adopting this bill, the government is using a heavy hand to modernize the public service, instead of seeking to reach an agreement with the unions.

Third, the CCRA does not greatly impress small business owners. Business was meant to be the primary beneficiary, yet announcement of its creation met with an ambivalent reaction, to say the least. Organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business expressed their distrust of the concentration of powers in the agency.

According to a public policy forum study commissioned by Revenue Canada, fewer than 40% of businesses had any interest in the agency. More than two thirds felt that it would cost as much if not more than the existing structure.

Finally, and this is vital, the Canada customs and revenue agency contravenes the federal principle that the provinces are sovereign in their areas of jurisdiction. This is not the first time that the Liberal government has come crashing into provincial jurisdictions. This agency will violate the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces. If the provinces have separate revenues, they should collect them themselves.

Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who we cannot call overly sovereignist, rose some 30 years ago in opposition to the practice of having the federal government collect more tax than it needed to implement policies that were not within its jurisdiction. He even thought at the time that such action was illegal. In 1957, he wrote that “the federal government cannot legally have money in its coffers it claims after the fact to be for provincial use”.

What will happen if the federal government gives a central, Canada-wide tax collection agency the power to collect taxes in the place of the provinces and the municipalities? In our opinion, it would be impossible to stop the centralization of the Canadian federation once the federal agency is given the power to collect taxes belonging to the provinces and municipalities.

It is reasonable to assume that the federal government collects its own taxes so it can carry out its responsibilities under section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. However, its plan to entrust appointed officials who are not directly accountable for their actions with collecting provincial and municipal taxes is unacceptable.

In conclusion, at a time when the federal Minister of Finance is announcing that he has billions of dollars in surpluses, he should comply with the consensus reached by the provinces and give back the revenues he slashed in recent years, to allow them to look after health, education and social services, for which they are responsible under the Constitution Act, 1867.

Unfortunately, we should not count too much on the members opposite in that regard. Indeed, the Liberal members' mandate is to defend the federal government, not the interests of Quebeckers.

The example of the customs and revenue agency should convince those who have not yet realized it that, for the past 50 years, Canada has been headed inexorably toward centralization. The federal government, and particularly this Liberal government, has always tried to annihilate any desire for autonomy, whether at the Quebec, provincial or regional level.

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

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

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

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address this House on Bill C-43, establishing the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. This bill stems from the Speech from the Throne delivered in February 1996, when the government announced its intention to set up a national revenue collection agency.

The CCRA for short will be spawned by the conversion of the existing Department of Revenue into an agency operating almost at arm's length from the government, whose mandate will be to negotiate with the interested provinces and municipalities an arrangement for the collection of all taxes in Canada. This is what this agency is all about.

But where did the idea to establish this agency come from? Obviously, this has to do with the centralizing vision of this Liberal government, which keeps trying to strip the provinces of their powers in the pursuit of a single vision dictated directly from Ottawa.

The consultations carried out across Canada show that this centralizing vision does not appeal to any of the provinces. None of them readily supports this bill. I do not understand why we are still debating it, when those concerned have not shown any interest in it, quite the contrary.

We support the principle of single window tax collection, whether the taxes are provincial or municipal, but in Quebec, the provincial department of revenue should continue to collect taxes as it has done quite competently for many years. We are able, within the present structure, to collect all taxes, even federal taxes and the GST, until we no longer have to.

Unlike the proposed federal agency, Revenue Quebec is fully accountable, as is Revenue Canada, at least until the federal government turns this department into a bureaucratic monster.

I like to talk about accountability, because some words have apparently dropped from favour. “Responsibility” is one such word. But “accountability” has sunk even further in the popularity polls. Whenever a minister is responsible, accountable, we at least have someone we can address, blame, make demands of.

We are living at a time when the responsibility of people and the accountability of those to whom they report is not valued. In a society such as ours, a modern society where youth are watching what their elders do, and I am one of those elders, I think it is too bad that we eliminate this very important aspect of the role of those in charge of large organizations.

There is a major political abdication here. An independent agency would mean that the Minister of Revenue could evade his responsibility to protect taxpayers against abuses of power. When we are talking about the Canada customs and revenue agency created by this bill, this is serious. This government is forever taking cover behind independent agencies and shifting the blame.

In the case of scrapie, to which we devoted much time and emotion, we never managed to find out who was responsible. We were told it was the agency, it was someone in the agency, or it was an agency regulation. There was so little accountability that I would estimate they succeeded in destroying 10% of Quebec's livestock before the Bloc Quebecois woke people up demanding that they do something, and stop destroying flocks, because something was wrong and they had not looked into the matter. But it was not serious, no one was accountable, it was the agency's fault.

This situation went on for months. We raised the issue in the House several times. So if they have to keep increasing the number of agencies, it puts a society like ours at a very great risk.

Why create an agency? The bill does contain some very important provisions, such as clauses 30 and 50, to do with the agency's authority. The agency has authority over “personnel management, including the determination of the terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the agency”. Clause 50 deals with public service staff relations. The agency would have control over classification, training, development, terms and conditions of employment, hours of work, awards, merit recognition, and so on.

As a result of the authority granted to the agency, we will have two classes of employees, those employed by the government, and those employed by an agency partly accountable to the government.

I was a public servant once, luckily only for a short time, thank God. I always wondered when I was in the public service why things that were simple were made so complicated.

If the area of taxation and revenue has a culture, as a government organization, which is such that the strict and austere rules of the public service as a whole do not apply, I believe there are all kind of ways to improve efficiency while keeping the same rules with some exceptions—this is what we look for within an accountability framework.

I want to talk some more about accountability because I believe it is a major issue. Why chose a complicated roundabout way, create different structures from those already in place and working fairly well—even though there is always room for improvement— to end up with two classes of employees, public servants and quasi-public servants who will be better taken care of because the agency will be able to do so? I object to that completely.

There are also very interesting things to be said about this bill. I am thinking, for example, of the accountability to the public and to Parliament. It always boils down to accountability.

In its present structure, Revenue Canada is accountable to Parliament and to taxpayers through the Department of National Revenue. The government cannot avoid difficult questions even though he would like to sometimes. When we discussed the family trust scandal, we could talk to someone, ask questions and get answers. If everything is diluted in an agency, things will happen and sometimes we will not even be aware of what is going on.

The agency will be subject to a less stringent parliamentary scrutiny than the one currently imposed on the revenue department. An agency would be less inclined to answer questions that members would ask on behalf of the public, compared to a department that has to be accountable. We know how the government is behaving these days, constantly hiding behind inquiries and independent agencies to avoid answering questions regarding air safety, food inspection, abuse of power by the RCMP and all kinds of things.

In this context, it is very difficult to see what we would get out of it. However the worst part of it, apart from the lack of accountability and responsibility, is the possible threat to our privacy. It is a major concern. Tests conducted with our social insurance number have shown how many firms, agencies and people have access to our personal information through a computer. It is a bit overwhelming when you go to a bank and ask to see the information they have on you. Three quarters of that information was not provided by you, but obtained through your SIN.

In a world where computers are everywhere and employees are supposed to be bound by professional secrecy—but we know how things are these days—and no one is accountable at the top, we have good reasons to ask ourselves serious questions. What kind of information do they have on us? Who are they allowed to sell it to? We know it has been done before. What will happen of all that?

The new agency would be less accountable than Revenue Canada, which is itself subject to leaks. I do not know if people remember the old TV series on the future called Future Shock. It tried to define how to protect people's interests and it came to the conclusion that even our brain can be protected.

I would not like to end up in such a situation. For all those reasons, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the bill and will oppose it at all stages. The easiest way to put an end to our debate would be to simply withdraw it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 1. 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]

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 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.

For Group No. 2, pursuant to order made earlier this day, Motions Nos. 3, 7, 8, 10 and 11 in the name of the member for Calgary Southeast are deemed to have been moved and seconded.

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

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-43, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 22 and 23 on page 1 with the following:

“(a) that Parliament authorizes the Minister, the”