Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1998

Division No. 298

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

There are so many good Liberals.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

I hear the Liberal Party whip saying there are so many good Liberals. Unfortunately for them but fortunately for us, the Liberals may not always be in power. That party has already overstayed its welcome.

The Liberals are eliminating Canada's democratic past. They wanted to give the federal government powers that could have been assumed by a neighbour, a friend or an enemy. They wanted to gloss over our personal convictions so they could confer responsibilities on the federal government, which fulfilled them through the public service. This was a social consensus among all taxpayers.

With this tax collection agency, who says that tomorrow I will not discover that my Liberal opponent in the 1993 or the 1997 election is sending me my tax bill? He could, on the strength of the election campaign in which we opposed each other, ask me to remit whatever he feels like, taking me out of the political circuit and into bankruptcy if he wants. This sort of thing could happen. The government claims to be serious and concerned about ensuring social and civil peace. I doubt it very much.

There are matters the people have put in the hands of government and this they accepted willingly and wholeheartedly. That is what this government is scrapping. That was the word the government used in relation to the GST. They were supposed to scrap it, but scrap the GST they did not. Furthermore, as an admission of their incompetence I am sure, they let Quebec collect the GST. It seems to be working very well.

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

It does not seem so; it is a fact.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

It is indeed working very well. But when we talk about government agencies, I think of Equifax, a company that makes the headlines every three weeks or so. Equifax gathers information for anyone who requests it. It is a sort of collection agency. No so long ago, Equifax sold information to organized crime gangs out to do certain people in. Equifax could not care less, figuring it gets paid to provide information; what it is used for is not its problem. This came out in court recently. Organized crime gangs out to kill an individual simply asked Equifax to gather information on this individual, so they could trace him, catch him and do him in.

That is the kind of ethics these agencies have. This is sad. The Liberals should realize this because, in four years, they will certainly be gone. And the next government will not be a Bloc Quebecois government. That much is sure, because this is not our goal.

The government which will be replacing the present one here in this House will probably hold the same line. Perhaps then they will be the ones who are stuck. Perhaps then they will be the ones who will pay for it. This is a short-sighted policy. They do not see any further than the end of their noses.

They are placing their fates in the hands of agencies. Yet there are political and social risks to this approach. The social risks need to be looked at. Some, I know, will take it very badly to have money collected from them by people who have absolutely no vision of a just and equitable society, people for whom all means to an end are justified, that end being to collect taxes and probably get a commission for doing so. Whether the taxes collected are actually owing is not important, all that counts is the cut for collecting them.

Probably 20% of the federal public service, which was the object of a social consensus, is also being chopped. People said “The government must assume its responsibilities and someone neutral will do this. We will voluntarily submit to the authority of that neutral entity, the public service”. But now we are starting to see the buddies of the regime, the PM's friends, being brought into the picture, and not for the first time.

I see my colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière, nodding, and she is right to do so. Every day, I receive notices of appointments to boards of directors, in agencies such as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited or Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. For the fun of it, I took a look at the big book on financial contributions made to political parties. Without exception, the names of all those appointed to these boards is in the big book that lists those who made contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada, for example last year. This is getting to be a concern. People make contributions to the Liberal party in exchange for political appointments.

During the last parliament, we passed a bill to prevent double dipping, that is to prevent those who are entitled to a public service pension and who are sitting as members of parliament, or those who are former MPs and have a job in the public service, from getting two incomes. This is what we call double dipping.

But we should take a look at what is going on at the Department of National Defence. There are at least eight or nine former generals or high-ranking officers, who are retired from the Canadian forces and collecting a full pension, which, incidentally, does not compare with the small pension a member of parliament gets after two terms. These people are hired as consultants by the federal government at $180,000, $200,000, $225,000 and even $250,000 a year. People get treated very well when they are friends of the Liberal Party.

[An hon. member]

Like Ouellet at Canada Post.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Ouellet at Canada Post. Berger in Israel. A whole bunch of friends of the party have benefited and are still benefiting from the Liberal Party's generosity.

Since not everyone can become an ambassador, the government must find other positions to appoint good Liberal troops, who may not be as educated or as competent. They will work in collection agencies harassing their fellow citizens and clamping Denver boots on their cars. Every trade has its value, of course, but nothing is too repugnant for an appointed Liberal. He can do anything he is asked to.

The revenue agency can have them delivering pizzas if it pays. You can have people do anything you want when their only goal in life is to succeed and make money.

I wonder if members opposite have seen the famous American movie entitled The Grapes of Wrath . We are just about in the same predicament.

In those days, federal prisons in the U.S. used to be run by agencies similar to the one the Liberals want to set up. That system was abolished in 1949. I can assure you that prisoners were not pampered. They were abused, and lost all sense of dignity. They were treated like animals. They suffered from malnutrition.

The only criterion in appointing people to manage prisons was cost effectiveness. It had to be cheap. What is cheap is not a recipe for success. So many thing are cheap. But some are much too expensive. For example, cabinet ministers who come up with ill-conceived schemes such as this one. That is much too expensive.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. I support the motion brought forward by my hon. colleague from Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, who is asking the government to withdraw this pointless piece of legislation.

The government should realize that this bill to set up an agency for the collection of all taxes in Canada is dead in the water, because the underlying principle on which the establishment of this agency is based, namely the signing of administrative tax agreements with the provinces, has yet to be applied in practice.

When the bill was introduced, not a single agreement or even a letter of intent had been signed with any of the provinces. So how do you justify a bill that obviously reflects the government's wishful thinking and the centralizing vision it is trying to ram down the throats of the provinces?

This bill only reflects the centralizing vision of the Chrétien government, and we can never say often enough that, for the federal Liberals, rationalization means duplication and, ironically, harmonization means interference. Did the people in Canada and in Quebec ask for such an agency? To ask the question is to answer it.

Besides being totally out of touch with people's real needs, the government is trying, with this bill, to stretch its tentacles beyond the provincial governments to municipal and local administrations.

Moreover, what can we say about a government that delegates such a fundamental responsibility as collecting and administering taxes paid by corporate and individual taxpayers? Who will ensure that taxpayers' rights are protected? Who will ensure that personal information remains confidential?

In this age of computer information and centralization of personal and financial data, people fear for their privacy, and rightly so. The agency as proposed would have a personal and financial data bank that should be of concern to taxpayers. They should be able to expect their government to protect access to this information.

With this bill the government is abdicating its responsibilities toward taxpayers. Even though the government claims the agency will be accountable to elected representatives, the fact is this new structure would become an entity difficult to get around and to control.

It may seem advantageous for the revenue minister to hide behind the agency to avoid giving a quick answer to embarrassing questions by members of parliament, but the taxpayers and the members of the Bloc Quebecois only see further delays in answering questions and more hurdles between problems and solutions. Moreover, the revenue minister himself should be leery of this new superstructure which might be beyond his control.

I would like someone to explain where the so-called savings used to justify the new agency are going to come from. First, one further layer of bureaucracy is added in the form of an appointed management board which will require time, money and staff. Furthermore, senior executives will be entirely free to pay themselves salaries comparable to those of executives in the private sector. Finally, providing free services to provinces who want to harmonize their program with the federal income tax program will automatically bring an increase and certainly not a decrease in the agency's costs.

Therefore I ask where it is expected that there will be savings. It seems quite obvious to me that if there are any savings, there will certainly be made at the expense of frontline workers.

As a matter of fact, 20% of public servants will no longer come under the Public Service Employment Act. Clause 30(1) shows the government's true intentions, which are barely hidden. It says:

1. (1) The Agency has authority over all matters relating to: a ) general administrative policy in the Agency; b ) the organization of the Agency; c ) Agency real property—

And this is where the section becomes interesting: d ) personnel management, including the determination of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the Agency.

Clause 54 tells us even more. It says:

1. (1) The Agency must develop a program governing staffing, including the appointment of, and recourse for, employees.

(2) No collective agreements may deal with matters governed by the staffing program.

The anti-union nature of this bill is quite obvious.

With this bill, the government shows that it is incapable of being a good employer, doubly so. It introduces a bill that threatens the job security of one-fifth of the public service, and after having shamefully delayed for many years dealing with the pay equity issue. This government has proven that it prefers strong-arm tactics to crush employees' collective demands.

I should point out that in my riding the union at the Taxation Data Centre in Jonquière represents 1,200 workers. Over the last several years, and with the spectre of this new agency looming since 1996, employees and local management have had to deal with a series of unbelievable adjustments, drastic budget cuts, a reorganisation of services between various taxation centres, the use of a large part of their operating budget to avoid the Y2K bug, while implementing costly new technologies requiring less human involvement.

All this turmoil has required superhuman efforts to minimise the impact on jobs. So far, they have managed pretty well to avoid serious problems. The Taxation Data Centre still has an excellent reputation as regards the performance of its employees.

In a region like ours, where unemployment is high, every job counts. What will be the impact of the establishment of this new agency, and how many jobs will be lost in the next two years? Perhaps no job will be lost. However, if there is little or no impact on jobs, then should we not conclude that, in order to save money, we will have to cut services to the public or impose user fees? Indeed, the agency will have the authority to establish user fees for the services which are useful to the users.

Therefore, this measure could mean user fees for individuals or small businesses, and that for the privilege of paying their taxes. This takes the cake.

If the federal government really wants to reduce overlap and duplication between the federal and provincial governments, really wants to reduce costs for businesses, taxpayers and governments, then we agree. In Quebec we already have our revenue department which collects provincial taxes and, since 1992, the federal GST.

As I was saying at the beginning of my remarks, I urge the government to withdraw this bill which will not save any money or simplify tax administration but will reduce parliamentary control over tax collection and administration, at the same time as threatening job security and working conditions for 40,000 employees.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

I would remind the House that the government had announced in the throne speech of 1996 that it would establish this agency to convert the current Department of National Revenue into a semi-independent agency.

The agency's mandate would be to act as a tax collector in Canada, but not only for the federal government. Indeed, as provided in the legislation, the agency could negotiate with provincial and municipal governments agreements for the collection of all kinds of taxes, including sales taxes, property taxes, and so on.

We cannot approve this legislation which, from the start, aims only at centralizing the collection of taxes in this country, at downsizing the national revenue department workforce and, mostly, at establishing an agency that, once again, will come into conflict with the Quebec revenue department.

The quasi-independent agency would allow the revenue department to hide behind it to avoid taking its responsibilities. It would avoid its obligation to protect taxpayers against abuses of power. This is worthy of the imagination of officials who want to increase their power at the expense of the minister in order to make decisions in his stead.

Here is what is to be found at section 30(1) of the bill:

1. (1) The Agency has authority over all matters relating to general administrative policy in the Agency; the organization of the Agency; Agency real property; and personnel management, including the determination of the terms and conditions of persons employed by the Agency.

And who is going to suffer? Certainly not senior managers, because those officials will have the power to pay themselves salaries like those in the private sector. It will be the support staff, the ones responsible for processing the claims, in short, the majority of the employees. This agency is more open to patronage and abuse of power.

The minister does not seem to realize the importance of the powers he is giving to unelected officials who are not accountable to anybody. Under the present structure, Revenue Canada is fully accountable to parliament and to the taxpayers.

However, parliament will have less control over the agency than it does now over the department. An agency would feel much less compelled than a department to be accountable, to provide answers to questions and deal with concerns raised by members on behalf of the public. Do we want to see the government resort once more to an agency to avoid answering questions on tax collection? The answer is no.

With the creation of an agency that collects taxes for provinces and municipalities, do we have any idea of the volume of confidential data this agency will have? With an agency of this size, an incredible quantity of personal and financial information will be in the hands of a single institution, which will be less accountable before parliament and before the minister than Revenue Canada is currently.

The main purpose of the Canada customs and revenue agency is to conclude new tax administration agreements with the provinces. When this bill was introduced, the government did not have a single agreement. Quebec and Ontario were opposed, because this level of taxation should be the responsibility of the provinces, which should administer it. The western provinces, which seemed cool to the idea at the start, are now opposed to it. Even Prince Edward Island has told Ottawa that it is not prepared to transfer other tax powers to the federal government.

So where is the support? The department itself says that the provinces want the agency to prove its mettle before they decide to give it more of their tax programs. It is outrageous to think of supporting the creation of a new bureaucratic structure in the hope that the provinces might participate in it. There are no agreements, but hundreds of public servants have already been released to work on this new agency the minister of revenue wants to impose on us.

The business world should be the first to be interested in this agency. And yet, the CCRA failed to impress small and big business. The bodies representing small business expressed their distrust of the massive powers to be centralized in this agency. In a poll, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated that 40% of the businesses that participated in a study Revenue Canada commissioned from the Public Policy Forum saw no point in having this agency. Over two thirds of these businesses felt that, with such an agency, the costs relating to their dealings with the department would be higher than they are under the existing structure.

By establishing a quasi-independent agency, the government is increasing the risk of fraud and of the sale of confidential information, for which there is a very lucrative market right now in the private sector.

As members can see, there are no benefits in establishing such an agency. Quebec opposes the federal government's intention to centralize all tax revenue collection activities in one Canada-wide agency.

The Bloc Quebecois will continue to oppose the establishment of this agency, which does not benefit the taxpayers in any way, but may in fact cost them all they got, especially in terms of democratic rights. When problems arise, having to do with the administration of taxes or wrong decisions by Revenue Canada, we will no longer be able to question the minister. He will reply that the agency is calling the shots. And democracy will suffer.

The agency is a costly exercise both in terms of money and time, the product of some wild brainstorm of senior department officials. It is an idea in search of a rationale that has yet to be found. We must put a stop to it before any more public funds are sunk into it. Any number of improvements can be contemplated within the existing structure, and they would not involve the kind of costs and disruption inherent in the establishment of an agency that is neither wanted nor required.

What does the taxation employees' union think of it? It has ten arguments against this idea. First, by creating a tax collection superagency, Ottawa's influence would reach right into our communities.

With this agency, accountability to the public and to parliament will be weakened. The agency could threaten our privacy. Fourth, the agency is a classic example of empire building by Ottawa's senior bureaucrats from the isolation of their ivory towers. Fifth, the primary reason for establishing this agency is to sign new tax agreements with the provinces. Sixth, small and large businesses are not impressed with the new agency. Seventh, the agency will bring about new hidden taxes. Eighth, it will bring new costs. Ninth, the agency is already wasting money even if it does not yet exist. Tenth, the agency will be more bureaucratic than Revenue Canada.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill and will be voting against it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-43.

I represent quite a few employees of Revenue Canada in the riding of Winnipeg Centre. The city of Winnipeg is the location of a huge Revenue Canada operation with 5,000 employees. Many of these employees who live in my riding have come to me with a great deal of apprehension and a great deal of fear about what this new superagency really means for them.

No one we have talked to can point to any compelling reasons that we are making this move toward a superagency. If anything, reason and logic do not seem to enter into this at all.

The biggest fear that has been articulated is that it is really being driven by ideology rather than by any good reason, any good logical business plan or expectation of savings. The real opportunities for savings within Revenue Canada will not come from the creation of some superagency. The real opportunity for revenue will come from having an adequate number of auditors to collect the taxes that are owing.

A group of auditors made representations to our caucus just a week ago pleading this very case. Billions of dollars of taxes are left uncollected each year because there simply are not enough auditors in the field doing the job and getting these revenues for the government to use. In other words, people are getting away with murder in terms of taxation because they are not being audited properly. Taxes are not being collected properly. This is the case which was made to us by senior auditors with Revenue Canada in their appeal to us to do everything we can to oppose Bill C-43.

The auditors expect that the situation will only get worse after the creation of the new superagency. The auditors feel, and I think quite justifiably, that the whole move toward a superagency is like a Trojan horse. They think it is wrapped up in a package which would be palatable to the public but in actual fact it contains a lot of surprises waiting to be sprung on us, not the least of which is a move toward further privatization of services.

The road toward ASD, alternative service delivery, superagencies, whatever we want to call it, is the road toward privatization and dismantling the public sector even in areas we know should be managed and controlled strictly through the public sector, like something as sensitive as the collection of our taxes. Other ASD examples have been absolutely disastrous for working people. They are always the last ones to be consulted.

I am thinking specifically of the privatization at Goose Bay. All the non-military personnel were laid off and services were contracted out to an out of country company, Serco, to provide the same services that Canadians used to provide in good unionized well paying jobs. These same people were hired back at half the wages and are now working for a foreign corporation to provide services on our military base. It is absolutely perverse when we think about it.

It is that kind of background and that sort of recent experience that has made Canadians apprehensive about Bill C-43 and the creation of this superagency.

It is not just the NDP and the labour groups that are directly impacted by this who are apprehensive about it. Yvon Cyrenne of Raymond Chabot Martin Paré said in the chartered accountant magazine of March 1998: “The creation of the customs and revenue agency would, for all intents and purposes, be an abdication of political power”. I would add that it would be an abdication of political responsibility in that it would be that much more removed from elected officials having any purview over this collection. It would be strictly in the hands of this freestanding, arm's length superagency.

About 5,000 employees of Revenue Canada work in Transcona and in Winnipeg. Many of them live in my riding and many worked on my campaign. Some of them were actually politicized for the first time in their lives because of what was about to happen to them. They were reaching out for some kind of political support from anybody who would articulate or voice their concerns. I am glad to have the opportunity to that today.

They have good reason to be apprehensive. Nobody really knows what this is going to end up looking like. Will it look like the Canada Post Corporation? Will it be a stand alone agency like Canada Post? I do not think so, although that comparison has been made. If it were, then the workers should fall under the Canada Labour Code, not the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

That in itself is a huge issue for the unionized workers who work for Revenue Canada. Where will the industrial relations be when all of the dust settles? Can anybody answer that? What is going to happen to their terms and conditions of employment? Are they still bargaining with the same employer? Is the employer that much different after they are removed from the public sector in that sense?

There are hundreds of questions that are left unanswered. Many were brought to our attention, as I said, when the employees of Revenue Canada came to our caucus just a week ago and articulated these fears. Representatives from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Union of Taxation Employees and one other labour group were justifiably apprehensive about this.

The term Trojan horse has been used. I have heard the term mega taxman. It does not matter what we want to call this new superagency, it is going to be something that Canadians will not recognize and will not be comfortable with. Will it look like the IRS in the United States, a boondoggle like the IRS that answers to nobody?

This is what we are saying. When we get that kind of independence, there is room for abuse. It is something that can grow out of control, beyond what it was initially designed for.

There seems to be a sense in the public sector, certainly within the federal government, of a belief in this right wing ideology that all things in the public sector are bad and all things privately run are good. There is a belief that some inherent streamlining comes into play when things go into the private sector, as if there is no waste in the private sector. This is an absolute myth.

It is a cruel myth in that this bashing of the public sector goes on. This atmosphere of contempt has been allowed to flourish across the country. Public sector employees are knocking themselves out to do their best, often with limited resources and limited compensation. Abuse is heaped on them. Every time there is a deficit or a cost overrun they say “Oh, it is that bloated public sector. If we could only shed some jobs out of the public sector”. There is this myth perpetrating that we can shrink our way to prosperity.

Even the private sector went through its decade of lean and mean, shedding employees and casting people off. Many of them now realize they have gone too far. They have cut all the fat and have cut into the flesh, the muscle tissue to where they cannot function any more.

That is what is happening to our military. This compulsion, this drive to cut, hack, slash and throw Canadians out into the street has left us with a human resources emergency in the military. The people who are being cut are the highly skilled, middle band of trained workers, the people who actually had administrative capacities, et cetera. We still have the foot soldiers, the grunts. We still have plenty of generals. It is that middle band of competent people who can actually do things which is disappearing. The restoration of funding overnight is not going to bring that middle band back. Those people are gone. They are gone to the point where the whole organization is at risk.

Similar streamlining efficiencies, if we want to call them that, are taking place every time we see this idea of offloading to alternative service delivery. That is really what the superagency is. It is ASD. It is getting the same job done in a different way.

We would argue it is a step backward in terms of service to the Canadian public. We are buying into an unknown commodity for one thing. The reservations brought to us by the UTE, the Union of Taxation Employees, are real, valid and justified concerns. They are vehemently opposed to this.

The government has failed to prove to anybody's satisfaction that this is a good thing to do. All we have heard is complaint after complaint that we are going into uncharted waters, that danger lurks in these uncharted waters. It will probably be the working people who will end up feeling the brunt of it.

The government should also be forewarned that we are going to lose valuable opportunities to collect revenues to the best of our ability. If we listen to the people at the front lines who really know what they are talking about, they say we need 500 more auditors in the field tomorrow, not cutbacks and reductions.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

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.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak again to Bill C-43. The member for Winnipeg Centre said that this bill is like a Trojan horse. I echo his comments and the comments of other members of opposition parties who are very united in their concern about and opposition to this bill. It is a sad day for parliament. We faced a closure vote this morning and we can see that this bill is being rushed through by a slim government majority.

There are questions that need to be asked on behalf of the Canadian people. What is the imperative for having this bill in the first place? What is the imperative for rushing this bill through the House by forcing a vote to meet the government's interests? Those questions have not been answered. That should concern Canadians because the subject of Bill C-43 is the creation of a new, privatized mega agency. That should concern every Canadian and every member of this House.

In the past two years during which this proposal has been contemplated a massive sales job has been undertaken by the minister, by the government and by senior bureaucrats to try to sign people onto the proposal. We see today that as of yet not a single province has signed onto the agency. The reality is that there is not a single binding letter of intent from any province to sign onto this new agency.

We have heard from those who work at Revenue Canada. They know what this agency would do, what its problems would be and presumably what should be done. We have also heard from the professional sector and even from the auditor general. From this we can see that there are problems.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Bill C-43 is not the answer. We have raised this continually in the House. In fact, Bill C-43 is taking us completely in the wrong direction.

As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has pointed out, Bill C-43 will amount to what is probably the largest act of privatization that this government has undertaken. We are looking at the transfer of something like 20% of public service workers. Forty thousand people will be affected by this transfer.

Many of us have heard some of the concerns that have been expressed by the people who work at Revenue Canada. I really believe that their concerns should not be taken lightly. In fact, we should be listening very closely to the issues that have been raised.

What are the issues? First, there is the issue of privatization. I believe that the government has not yet made the case to the provinces, to the House of Commons, or to the Canadian people as to why this privatization should take place. There are very serious concerns about the lack of accountability that will be caused by setting up a super agency that will not have the same kind of relationship with members of parliament that we have seen in the past.

We have to remember that we are talking about one of the core functions of the Canadian government, a function that sometimes people rail against and get upset about, the collection of revenue and taxes. Nevertheless, it is very much a core function. For that very reason I believe that it is incumbent upon us to fight tooth and nail to make sure that this parliament retains a relationship and accountability with this core service instead of allowing it to be let loose, allowing it to be privatized.

Information that came out recently in the auditor general's report is actually very damning about the bill which is before us today. Some of the comments that the auditor general made in his report about Revenue Canada, in particular about the international tax directorate, tell us that only 52% of the directorate's staff at Revenue Canada headquarters are in permanent positions. The auditor general goes on to say that “Because of the complexity and significance of international tax issues, we are concerned that frequent staff movements may prevent the directorate from maintaining the experience and skill levels required to provide an appropriate level of service to taxpayers and to manage the risks to the tax base that are inherent in international transactions”.

The auditor general continues in his conclusions and recommendations to state:

If parliament approves the establishment of the proposed new Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Department will become a separate employer and assume most of the responsibility for human resource management currently shared with central agencies. In the absence of a comprehensive human resource plan and strategies linked to the Directorate's business plan, the establishment of the new agency will not in itself resolve the problems outlined in this chapter.

He goes on to say: “It is important that the analysis, planning and implementation of needed human resource initiatives be carried out as soon as possible”.

I think this is a very serious issue that has been raised. We have been told by the government, as it tries to sell this new super agency to parliament, to the Canadian people and, indeed, to the provinces, that we will see increased efficiencies, that we will see improvements, that we will have a better service and so on. However, it should concern us when we see this information coming from the auditor general.

We find out that there has been a high turnover in staff and that, in actual fact, Revenue Canada has lost billions of dollars in revenue because it has not been able to attract the kind of personnel at a very high level to do the very complex audits which must be carried out.

This issue, which was been flagged as far back as 1991 and again in 1996 by the auditor general, has simply not been addressed by Bill C-43. In actual fact the government has lost a potential $2.5 billion to $3 billion in revenue since 1995 because it has refused to pay adequate salaries to attract the highly trained professionals who would perform these very complex audits. This year alone we lost a potential $1 billion in tax revenues from some of the largest corporations because these audits have not been carried out with sufficient frequency because the personnel is lacking. Even Revenue Canada has acknowledged that it has lost about $500 million in tax revenues in the Toronto area alone because of the shortage of 500 tax auditors.

This is directly related to the obsession of the government with cutting the public service, cutting out these kinds of key positions and now it is going further down the slippery slope toward privatization where we as members of the House will have less and less control and accountability over what this agency does.

The opposition has tried to put forward amendments to prevent this bill from going forward which is a reflection of the increasing and mounting concern around the proposal of the government to move in this direction and to ram this proposal through.

Again I say to the minister and to the government if this proposal is so good and so beneficial then why is it that not a single province has signed on. The answer is that we know there has not been a sign-on because there are serious questions that have not been answered. It is time for the government to acknowledge that the bill should be stopped and reviewed . We should return to what the auditor general said and look at the real issues and address the problems contained within the department.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the opposition talk about the fact that not one province has signed on to this bill.

There is a reason for that. The provinces, with the exception of Quebec, enjoy the fact that the government collects the taxes and the provinces do not have to take the heat for it. When filing income tax in Ontario there is a section which gives the formula for calculating provincial tax. If the tax is being done by the taxpayer or an accountant, when they get to that page they are still in the mindset that they are filing their federal income tax and they are not thinking about the fact that there is a totally separate regime of tax collection at every provincial level. Why would the provinces want to kick up a fuss about this? The provinces want the federal government to have a system of tax collection that lets them off the hook and simply allows us to transfer the money. It is not a surprise at all.

It is also not a surprise to me that not one province has signed on to this. And I have not received one phone call in my constituency office in Mississauga about this issue. And yet, as members I am sure will admit privately at least if not in this place, this is a bill that has had extensive work in this place and in committee. It has been kicked around, dragged around in every one of our caucuses. It has had presentations made. It has been analysed from one end of the legislation to the other and yet there is not a public outcry or concern being expressed that we should, as the member says, scrap this piece of legislation. I believe there is a reason for that as well.

We all talk at times in this place about there being only one taxpayer. I use the example often of the ad I saw in a newspaper that had a mobile sign outside of a private garage called Paul's garage. The sign said “Our price includes the PST, the GST, the EHT, the MBT, the MPT, the UIC, the WCP and the CPP”. On the bottom it said “We would have included profit but we ran out of room”. The point I make is that we have a lot of taxes. Mr. Sekora, nice to see you. We have those taxes simply because—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member meant to refer to the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam and not to his name which he knows is out of order.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was just seeing if you were paying attention. Thank you for correcting me in that instance. I could not remember the hon. member's riding.

Getting back to the point of taxation, with all these taxes that are there for legitimate reasons, that have been put in place by successive governments and regimes in various parts of the municipal sector, the provincial sector and the federal government, they are there to deliver programs to Canadians. It is a burden, I do not deny that. We hear people talk on the other side that we should just cut taxes, but what they do not talk about is what we do with that tax revenue. What they do not talk about is the fact that I think it is high time that a huge organization like Revenue Canada is reviewed and changed.

This is not about privatization, as the member opposite says. It is about more accountability. Members opposite, particularly in the New Democratic Party, say is it not awful, because they would purport to represent the union involved in this which is frightened for jobs. I do not blame them for being concerned about jobs, but the members opposite should know that there are a number of points that will ensure this place continues to have strong oversight over this agency.

Parliament will review the agency's corporate business plan, just as it now reviews Revenue Canada's plans.

We will also review the agency's annual report regarding its performance during the preceding year. I serve on the public accounts committee and we hope we will see it come to that committee. We will be able to have witnesses come before us from the agency. We will be able to investigate to find out if they are doing their job and serving Canadians well. We will have opportunities for members of parliament to address us at the public accounts committee or speak in this place if constituents have concerns about the efficacy or how they are being dealt with in any way whatsoever.

Before the agency is allowed to spend dime one, parliament will have to approve its appropriations, just as we do now for Revenue Canada. This sky is falling mentality that we are hearing is nonsense.

There is an additional opportunity in this legislation for parliament to review the agency. The legislation requires, for the first time, a full scale review of this legislation five years after it comes into force, and that is not an option. So we know that once this bill is enacted and the agency is set up, it comes before our public accounts committee every year. If we call people we can review their budgets every year. They cannot spend money without the approval of parliament. But we know there is a mandatory five year review of the agency. It is a five year mandatory review but it does not prevent us from reviewing the agency on an ongoing basis if that is what we so desire.

It is interesting to me to hear members talk about less accountability to parliament when in fact this is a bill that will establish an agency that will be more accountable to Canadians, that will be more business friendly to Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh. Oh.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Members can laugh if they want, but that is clearly the intent of the minister. The minister of revenue will continue to have control over that.

I want to deal with an issue that we voted on earlier today in relation to this bill, time allocation or what the members opposite would call closure.

The Bloc has put 188 motions to the bill. There happen to be 188 clauses in the bill. So every single one of its motions reads the same, that clause 1 be rejected, that clause 2 be rejected, that clause 3 be rejected. There are no suggestions for positive change coming from the opposition. It is just trying to stall. If we had good ideas, if any came from time to time from that neighbourhood, we would be interested.

What is most astounding in all this is that the Bloc knows that Quebec is the only province that collects its own taxes. We do not even collect its taxes.

I know this day will never come but if I were ever sitting as the Chair in this place and had the opportunity to rule, I would have to rule that those amendments are contrary to the bill and are therefore out of order. Therefore we should not need to put in time allocation.

Members talk about time allocation as if it is some kind of terrible thing. But the reality is that when we have opposition members simply being obstreperous, simply putting forth amendments with no thought whatsoever that are completely contrary to the legislation, then any government worth its salt with any—

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. member requires a lesson in parliamentary procedure. He is not to challenge the Chair, a lesson I have learned well, and I think he should pay attention to that rule. It is very important that he do that.

[The Speaker]

I hope all hon. members would pay attention to the Chair and take that into consideration when they are making their remarks.

The hon. member had about 12 seconds left but we will go to Statements by Members.

Philip Graham

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the outstanding volunteer efforts of Mr. Philip Graham of Minden, which is located in my riding of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock.

Mr. Graham has volunteered his time for 50 years to weather reporting for Environment Canada. On the rare days he has not been able to record the weather readings, his wife Jane or a close friend has recorded the information.

Environment Canada has a network of nearly 2,000 volunteer weather watchers such as Mr. Graham who help keep an important historical record of weather conditions across the country. Few if any have been keeping an eye on the weather as long as Mr. Graham, a retired Ontario Hydro employee.

Congratulations, Philip, and thank you for your valued contribution to important historical information for Canada.

Impaired Driving

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Christmas season is a time when Canadians get together to celebrate a miraculous and blessed event. It is a season of peace, happiness and joy. But every Christmas season unfortunately the incidence of impaired driving dramatically increases and tragically and senselessly Canadians are killed and injured by the reckless acts of people who choose to drink and drive.

I ask all members of the House to join with me and hundreds of thousands of Canadians to recognize MADD Canada's red ribbon campaign against drunk driving. If by displaying the red ribbon on our vehicles we can prevent one death or one injury this season we will have helped in the fight.

I say to all Canadians today over the Christmas season that if you drink, please do not drive.

Ymca

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as one of Canada's oldest and most diverse charities, the YMCA serves over one million people and is a pre-eminent volunteer organization. The governor general recently named new members to the YMCA's Fellowship of Honour. These were selected for distinguished leadership in the Y movement at home and abroad.

The new members are Russ Davey of Geneva Park, Rowley Hastings of Vancouver, Henry Labatte of Toronto, Bill Ridley of Montreal and Hal Studholme of Winnipeg. The sixth new member is Doug Kirk of Peterborough. Doug has devoted untold hours of time and energy to our Y.

Volunteers are the glue that holds communities together. I congratulate Doug and all these wonderful honourees who do so much work asking for nothing in return. Their hard work and dedication in organizations like the Y keep our communities strong.

Ukrainian World Congress

[Lou Sekora, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Ukrainian World Congress as it holds its seventh world congress this week in Toronto.

The congress is an international co-ordinating body and is spokesman for the world-wide Ukrainian community in 20 countries and over 230 organizations and represents over 20 million Ukrainians.

Violence Against Women

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every year since 1990 Canadians have commemorated December 6 as the national day of remembrance and action on violence against women. This year is no exception.

This year, 1998, says that nearly eight full years have passed since the tragic deaths of 14 promising young women at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. By remembering these 14 young women and acknowledging our collective laws we can be inspired to create a more peaceful society.

I wish to recognize today the important work accomplished by the men and women of Oakville and indeed those across Canada who provide a safe environment for those escaping violence in the home, as well as counselling, legal advice, education and support.

This year as in years past let us pause and reflect, ensuring that Canadians never forget this terrible moment in our history.

Agriculture

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the crisis in agriculture is the focus of much attention by politicians. The conclusion is that we need a large cash bailout over the next few years.

In that light it is very interesting a group of grain farmers in western Canada has made an offer to the government to give up the cash they are entitled to if the government would give them the right to market their own grain. Let me quote:

Many farmers feel they are ready to stand on their own feet, many individuals who are suffering the current cash flow problems are convinced this could have been averted if they had enjoyed the flexibility, opportunities and price management tools that the open grain market offers.

The government must pay attention to this offer. It is refreshing to see someone put their money where their mouth is.

Will the government take these farmers up on their offer to give up compensation in order to be able to market their own wheat and barley? Do they own their own grain? Can they have the same rights as those who live eastern Canada used to enjoy or who produce other commodities?

Violence Against Women

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, December 6 is the National Day of Remembrance and Action against Violence.

It is a time to stop and reflect about the 14 young women who lost their lives so tragically at Montreal's École Polytechnique in 1989, along with all women in Canada whose lives are marked by violence.

In 1991, this Parliament established December 6 as a day to remember the tragic loss of these 14 young lives. It is a day for reflection and for thinking about community measures which can help put an end to systematic violence against women. These 14 young women who lost their lives symbolize our mothers, our wives, our daughters, our sisters, and our female friends.

I encourage my colleagues to take a moment to think about the families of these 14 victims and all other victims of violence.