Debates of Dec. 8th, 1998

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-43 on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

Bill C-43 will repeal the Department of National Revenue Act and convert Revenue Canada from a fully accountable government department to an autonomous arm's length business oriented agency. The proposed legislation, Bill C-43, sets out new powers of the minister, the structure of the new agency and its authority over all matters relating personnel management, contracting, organization, the prescription of user fees, general administrative policy and real and intellectual property. In addition, the agency is given authority on legislation which for most other federal departments and agencies is vested in the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission. For instance, the agency will have full authority to enter into agreements with its bargaining units.

The objects of the agency reflect the current mandate of Revenue Canada such as customs services and trade administration, tax administration, for example the GST, and the delivery of social and economic benefits for provinces and the federal government.

The New Democratic Party opposes the passage of Bill C-43 and has since it initial introduction. Why do we oppose Bill C-43? We believe the creation of the customs and revenue agency would for all intents and purposes be an abdication of political power. We believe the agency is the largest Liberal Trojan horse for privatization. Revenue Canada's 40,000 employees make up about 20% of the federal public service. The move would involve the transfer of more than $2 billion in annual parliamentary estimates. This is way beyond the concept of delivering better services. It is part of the government's drive to privatize and downsize the public service in the name of cost cutting. The government glorifies the role of private sector appointees and seems to think the public sector can only run on private sector principles. The government would also take credit for slashing expenditures by $2.2 billion.

We believe it is appalling that the control of tax collection which is an historical prerogative of the state is abandoned by stealth to the private sector. Even the most right wing economists and classical philosophers such as Adam Smith and John Locke acknowledge that collecting taxes is the raison d'être of the state. Even Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl, both champions of privatization, never went so far as to privatize their tax agencies.

The NDP opposes a single privatized tax collection agency for political reasons as well. The government is moving toward an independent agency without the support of the four major provinces. Nor does it have the support of the majority of its workers. The major stakeholders are not buying into this idea. The majority of public service workers oppose the concept of the independent agency and stress that there is no valid reason for it. There is no firm support by the provinces for a single taxation agency. The federal government has reached no agreement with the provinces, not even a non-binding letter of intent.

Ontario, Quebec and P.E.I. are firmly opposed to Bill C-43. B.C. and Saskatchewan have not endorsed the concept. Alberta has supported the concept of an independent agency for ideological reasons. While Alberta does not have a sales tax and administers its own programs, there is a fading possibility that it might sign on the administration of its provincial income tax to the agency.

While Mr. McKenna's New Brunswick supported the concept, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have not bought into the concept but are bound by their tax administration agreements to the federal government and are unwilling to cede further authority. It is clear that all provinces generally see the agency as an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

Canadian businesses have major reservations about the proposed agency. The public policy forum study commissioned by Revenue Canada found that 40% of businesses surveyed by the PPF saw no advantage to a single tax collection agency. Sixty-eight per cent thought that a single tax agency would either increase their compliance costs or have no impact at all. The NDP opposes the creation of a single privatized tax collection agency as well for economic reasons. There is no valid case for an independent agency. The government claims that the agency will bring about significant cost savings or stronger partnership with the provinces. These are at best exaggerated.

For example, the economic rationale for the proposed agency originated in 1996. It was seen as a means of administering the planned harmonized sales tax that would blend the federal GST and provincial sales tax. The idea was originally set up so that the Prime Minister could keep his promise to harmonize tax and hide the GST. The agency's biggest savings were to come from the harmonization which is a non-starter in all but three of the Atlantic provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The initial plans for a federal-provincial council on tax administration were quietly dropped from the original agency proposal.

Harmonization occurred in three of the Atlantic provinces while Revenue Canada was a department. The overwhelming unpopularity of the HST in the Atlantic provinces has eliminated any talks of further extending it to the rest of Canada. Canadian taxpayers are asked to support the creation of a new layer of bureaucracy in the hope that the provinces might participate.

Both the auditor general and internal Revenue Canada reports confirm that the government has lost billions of dollars because of unaudited tax statements due to a shortage of qualified auditors. The Provincial Institute of the Public Service of Canada estimated that over $2 billion of tax revenue was lost in 1997-98 alone. The federal Liberal government gutted the civil service workforce, inflicted a six year tax freeze to the survivors and allowed executive managers an increase in compensation of up to 19%.

It now has the gall to say it needs an independent agency to afford hiring qualified auditors. Nothing prevents the government from hiring these auditors now. The cost of hiring these auditors is ridiculously low compared to the billions of losses in tax revenues and to the lethal blows inflicted on the morale of civil servants and thereby on the public in general.

The government is jeopardizing the careers and stability of 40,000 civil servants, the cost of which will be far exceeding the tax and cost savings estimated at $116 million to $193 million for Canadian business and $37 million to $62 million in administration costs for all governments.

The agency is an excuse to cut out workers and inflate executive salaries, a worst case scenario for the civil service. Professor Vern Krishna, head of the CGA tax research centre, University of Ottawa, stated that these executive salaries could double or triple. The 40,000 employees moving to the agency will be considered to have transferred outside the federal public service and receive reasonable job offers with only a two year employment guarantee.

The plans to exclude the agency from the Public Service Employment Act and establish it under the Public Service Staff Relations Act means that employees will lose job security and the right to negotiate staffing and classification matters. Thousands of Revenue Canada employees will likely pay the price with their jobs, as this was the case in Australia.

Employees of the agency will have no guarantee to the same right of third party redress as other public service employees in case of non-disciplinary demotion or termination. Details of the recourse mechanisms are not available and are not provided by the legislation.

The agency will impose user fees for specific services, for example services that provide a specific benefit to service recipients. The agency has every incentive to slap on user fees because unlike revenues from tax proceedings that have been paid into general revenues, the proceeds can be accumulated. Tax collection is big business in Canada and this has the potential for abuse.

The agency has the potential to attract more business by provinces and municipalities that will turn over to the agency's administration more taxes and programs, including a property tax and even payroll taxes such as workers compensation. This is a lose-lose situation for jobs and will result in downsizing of administrative and collection departments at the expense of provincial and municipal civil servants.

The NDP opposes Bill C-43 for philosophical, ethical and economic reasons. We believe Bill C-43 is both bad legislation and dangerous legislation. To borrow from a slogan which we have used regarding banks, we need a better taxation system, not a bigger, privatized tax collection system. Canadians need a better taxation system to move us into the 21st century, a taxation system which is fair and equitable for all. For all these reasons the NDP will be voting against Bill C-43.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to Bill C-43.

The issue of cost savings is the one that has been trumpeted by the government most vociferously, that the government can save $171 million to $285 million in compliance costs and also savings of $97 million to $162 million in administrative costs to the taxpayers with this new Revenue Canada tax agency if all the provinces sign on to it.

That is a very big if, because the fact is the government has not been successful in achieving the agreement or the buy-in of the province to date despite significant lobbying efforts by the federal government. The track record of the government in this area has not been that successful. For instance, only three provinces have signed on to the concept of a blended sales tax, those being in Atlantic Canada, one of which is Nova Scotia which I represent.

The Canadian Federation of Taxpayers believes there will be no major savings to the government by implementing Bill C-43 to create this new Revenue Canada tax agency.

At a time when we should be focusing on tax reform, on reducing the level of taxation and also in creating a fairer, flatter tax code that actually enables Canadians to compete globally, we are spending an inordinate amount of time focusing on the logistics, on the minutia of tax collection, finding out better ways of plucking the goose.

We have significant difficulties with this piece of legislation. We have the risk of the amount of very personal, private information concentrated in a new arms' length agency that will not have the same direct linkage to parliamentarians that it does today.

We have a difficulty with the fact that this heavy handed approach of the federal government on any number of issues continues to violate the principles of federal-provincial relations. At a time when provincial governments like Ontario are speaking about wanting more access to the levers, the government is looking to create more or larger mega agencies to effectively control the processes of government. At a time when Canadians are looking for greater accountability this agency will provide less accountability.

The biggest risk we have with the creation of this agency is the potential to create an IRS type tax agency that will be less impeded when it goes after Canadians. Currently there are significant concerns that Canadians have right now with Revenue Canada and the collection processes and the enforcement processes that Revenue Canada has utilized over the years.

Those processes have improved over the last several years largely due to political pressure from elected representatives in the House, largely due as well to measures by former minister of national revenue Perrin Beatty with his taxpayer bill of rights which led the way to ensuring Canadians had more enshrined rights in defending themselves against Revenue Canada. Some of those principles are also being promoted by the Reform Party currently in some of its motions and recommendations. We are supporting those motions and recommendations which originated with the Conservative revenue critic and eventually a Conservative minister of revenue.

The government has not articulated in a convincing way the benefits to Canadians of this new agency. There are risks and there is a down side to this agency. We are not convinced of the government's validity and ingenuousness in promoting the benefits or what the benefits are.

The government speaks euphemistically about the importance the human resource factor has in its decision. It speaks about how human resources cannot be maximized under the current civil service. The government is actually talking about unions. It says it is not capable of working with the public service in Canada and the unions.

At a time when government should be a standard bearer in labour relations and at a time when a government should be demonstrating to Canadian companies how to work with labour and how to develop policies that encourage productivity and forward thinking and co-operative effort between management and labour, the government is saying that it is not possible.

Chrysler Canada has as a member of its board a representative of the CAW. In the U.S. automobile industry members of the boards of the big three are from the unions. This government is saying “We cannot work with the public service. We are willing to take all these risks because we are willing to abdicate responsibility for effective labour management and to offload that to an arm's length agency”.

Governments should be setting an example in this area because labour relations is a cornerstone of productivity. Good labour relations can help demonstrate to all Canadian businesses how they can become more productive. We should not be surprised that the government is taking a hands off approach to productivity issues. The Minister of Industry has said high taxes actually encourage productivity. There has never been a statement of economic illiteracy as profound as that. This is a government whose minister responsible for the economic strategy and industrial strategy of the country believes high taxes actually help productivity. It is little wonder the government cannot wrap its mind around the concept of positive labour relations as a cornerstone of productivity.

It is little wonder the government does not accept its role in both the secular decline of the Canadian dollar over the past several years and, more specifically, the 9% decline in the Canadian dollar over the last several months, 30% of which is due to productivity that is lagging in Canada behind our trading partners and behind the other OECD countries.

I will speak about the Canadian dollar and the relationship of the government's decision on Bill C-43 and the idea of government being unable to harness the power over the public service and has seemed to improve productivity in the public service. It is directly related to the Canadian dollar because a large component, and perhaps some would say too large, of the Canadian GDP is government related. If we do not get our minds around creating a more productive and efficient public service as opposed to trying to offload those responsibilities to arm's length agencies and specifically to the private sector, we will continue to wallow behind our trading partners in areas that are very important like productivity.

On the dollar issue, I know the Prime Minister thinks it is probably a good thing. He says it will increase tourism, which actually represents 1% of our GDP. He is spending too much time golfing and not enough time governing.

The fact is that a low dollar does not benefit anybody. In the short term there may be some minute benefits to Canadian exporters. In the long term, however, we cannot devalue our way to prosperity.

When lagging productivity within the public service is acting as an albatross around productivity levels for all Canadians, this is a time when the government should be embracing the opportunity to take this department, Revenue Canada, which represents about 20% of the public service of Canada, and revolutionize the delivery of service within that department.

This is a time when the government should be setting an example. Instead the government is putting its hands up in the air and saying “We give up. We can't do that. We are willing to risk the downsides of this agency. We are willing to risk the creation of an IRS type of agency that can run rampant over Canadian taxpayers simply because we lack the intestinal fortitude and the creativity to create good labour relations within our own government”.

This is the same government that has referred to a tribunal the pay equity issue and now it is backtracking on its commitment to abide by what the tribunal said. It is no wonder that our pubic service is at an all time low in terms of morale levels.

My cousin was headed for the public administration department at Dalhousie University. We have had discussions over the years about the similarities of public administration programs and business administration programs. Many of the same skill sets are taught in both business administration and public administration schools.

The difference is that there are some people who have a certain public ethic who want to be part of the public service, who want to serve their country and who want to participate in a positive, forward thinking public service that provides the best service to Canadians. It is those people who are being let down by a government that refuses to work co-operatively with the unions.

This is a government that refuses to create a sense of co-operation, proactivity and productivity that can lead the public service and set an example for all private sector entities in Canada that can lead Canadian productivity rates upward as we enter the 21st century.

I must say that I am not only frustrated with this legislation, I am also frustrated with the haste with which this government is pushing this flawed legislation through the House of Commons.

This bill represents legislation which would dismantle 20% of the public service of the country, yet Canadians are hardly aware of it. Canadians have not been consulted about it. There has been some lip service paid to it and the minister has travelled throughout the country and talked to some people. To my knowledge, as recently as a few weeks ago, the minister has yet to sit down to have a face to face meeting with the minister of finance of Ontario. Ontario being the largest province in the country in terms of population, it would certainly make sense for the minister of revenue to sit down with the minister of finance of Ontario to discuss a change in public policy of this magnitude. But in fact the minister has not had a face to face meeting with the minister of finance of Ontario.

There has been no real public consultation on this incredible sweeping change. There has been no discussion. There has been no cross-country consultation by the finance committee or a sub-committee of the finance committee. That is what we have suggested. We suggested that at committee. We suggested that in this House.

That is the kind of consultation Canadians are looking for. Canadians are looking for greater transparency in all of the institutions that represent them, including the institution of parliament and the institution of government.

A systemic abuse of power pervades this government. Its members feel that if they have an idea it is obviously right and that Canadians, whether they like it or not, are going to get it. What this government has not realized is the degree to which Canadians have evolved over the past 30 years, largely due to things such as the Internet and the education system.

Canadians have access to the same information now that we do as parliamentarians. In fact, Canadians who are utilizing the Internet and utilizing the worldwide web have access to more information than many parliamentarians in this House today.

Thirty years ago we may have been judged based on the information that Canadians did not have. I would not have been judged because I was only one year old and it would have been difficult to get elected at that point. However, 30 years ago parliamentarians may have been judged based on the information they had because they had access to more information than Canadians.

Today, in an age where Canadians have access to the same information, we are going to be judged based on the quality of the decisions we make with that information. Canadians, in fact, want input on that decision making process at a rate that is unprecedented. Canadians want in. They want to participate in these types of important decisions.

It is absolutely unconscionable that the government is pushing ahead with legislation that will impact the lives of Canadians as dramatically as this legislation will without actually consulting Canadians and telling them the truth about the gravity of this decision.

I call again on this government to do what is right and to engage the finance committee. It should not treat the finance committee as a branch of the ministry of finance or the ministry of revenue. It should go back to the model used by the previous Conservative government where Don Blenkarn led a finance committee that had autonomy. It actually disagreed with the government periodically. It actually did what committees were supposed to do, and that is to stand up for Canadians.

I call on this government to stop its haste and pressure and bullying opposition members into agreeing with its decisions and to start engaging Canadians and giving Canadians some input to ensure that the decisions we make as parliament, that the decisions we make as individual members of parliament and as caucuses reflect the views and the needs of Canadians.

We will not be supporting Bill C-43. I would hope that this government would reconsider not just this legislation, but its style and arrogance on any piece of legislation it has been ramming through this House and pushing down the throats of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about the remarks made by my colleague from Kings—Hants and to ask him a question.

He said he is a new member of Parliament, and we appreciate that and congratulate him. He expressed frustration over the way the government rammed Bill C-43 through the House by using a gag order. He is asking the government to go back to the public for renewed consultations.

Here is my question: Does he think that these renewed consultations will be similar to those being held by the finance committee, and that despite all the money and energy we put into listening to those who come to testify and to table briefs, all this will be ignored? We see no trace of those consultations in the budgets tabled by the finance minister. What is the use of consultations if all the results are being shelved?

That was my question and I would like to hear the hon. member's answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that very important question. He is quite right that the committee structure as it stands now in this Canadian Parliament, under this government, has strayed significantly from what was intended.

It was intended as a means by which independent members, private members, could work together in a non-partisan way to gauge and to receive the views of Canadians and then to discuss those views as well as the expert advice of individuals who have intrinsic knowledge in these areas and then to develop policies.

The difficulty with the current structure is that the committees are being operated, by and large, as branches of the ministers' offices. They were not intended for that purpose.

We spend our time travelling throughout the country, putting on a charade for Canadians and pretending that their views are going to be taken seriously. Then we come back after weeks and weeks of travel, after hearing hundreds of Canadians, and we devote, as we did yesterday, two hours to the discussion on a draft report written by members of the research staff. To their credit, they have been working very hard and they deserve a lot of credit for their hard work in the finance committee.

If we devote weeks and weeks to listen to Canadians, and then devote two hours for a discussion on those recommendations, it is a sham.

We have seen a secular decline in the role of the MP. We have seen an emasculation of MPs since the late 1960s in this House. It is time, as the hon. member suggested, that private members have an opportunity to contribute to the fullest of their abilities and to actually participate in the creation of public policy.

The best vehicle for that is through the committees. They should be allowed to work in the way that they were initially designed and in the way they worked under the previous Conservative government under committee chairs like Don Blenkarn.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from across the way for his remarks. I concur with some of the points he has made, in particular with regard to the arrogance of the Prime Minister and the arrogance of the minister imposing this new structure on the people.

I think the Minister of National Revenue indicated he had not been successful in getting the co-operation of the premiers to do this, partly because he is not providing any safeguards.

The point my hon. colleague made a moment ago about the common sense of the people and listening to what they have to say is significant and I commend him for that.

Could the member outline how we could get a true picture of what the people think? As well, could he suggest how we could get some sort of true, honest to goodness co-operation among the federal government, the minister and the premiers of the provinces? Finally, how can we ensure that some of the privacy violations that have taken place in the past will not be perpetrated again by this new agency?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I will deal with the privacy issue first. Revenue Canada has actually come a long way over the last several years in being a kinder and gentler department. That is not to say that there are not significant abuses periodically and that is not to say that it could not be improved.

My fear is that the progress that has been made could be largely undone if we develop an arm's length agency that will have, whatever way the government cuts it, less accountability than the current agency which is tied directly to parliamentarians in this House as a department and which reports to a minister.

In terms of the basic ways to improve consultation with Canadians, I would suggest that the government set a standard for its committees and actually give committees the ability to pursue public policy in a creative, non-partisan, consultative way. There is no shortage of great ideas. Most of the people with the greatest ideas are not in this House because they are too smart to run politically or they are not masochists.

There are great ideas out there and we need to make our political parties, our committees and this parliament more receptive and welcome to those people who have good ideas.

As I mentioned earlier, Canadians have more access to information now than they ever have before. We as a parliament have a duty to engage Canadians in dialogue on public policy issues, not to tell them what is good for them necessarily, but to engage them in a discussion about what is good for them. Periodically we could actually learn something.

We do not have to reinvent the wheel. We need to go back to the committee structures that have existed and have been productive in channelling public opinion and thought into good public policy.

We also have to be careful that public policy does not simply reflect short term public opinion. That can sometimes be bad as well.

There are some great ideas out there and we need to work with Canadians. If we work with Canadians and listen to some of the expert advice out there we will find that Canadians want and need a fairer, flatter tax code.

As polling indicates Canadians recognize that we have the highest tax of the G-7 countries. Despite what the Minister of Industry has stated, this is an albatross on the productivity of Canadians. It is holding us back as we enter the 21st century. It is part of the secular decline in the Canadian dollar. In the long term that decline can reduce productivity even further. Canadian businesses are denied the opportunity to buy some of the equipment and software they need to compete globally because much of it is imported.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We could go a long way if we were to ensure the committee structure as it exists was actually used by the government and parliament the way it was designed to be used. We should stop muzzling committees and operating them like branch plants of the ministers' offices.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party. I am glad to hear him talk about using committees. Since I have been here the department has deliberately abused the committees.

There is one thing that bothers me with the federal and provincial governments and it is part of the nineties. It appears that it is actually deliberate that provincial and federal governments stage information leaks. In doing so the governments are able to get a course in public opinion for much cheaper. That is an abuse of committees. It really makes committees look like tools of the government that are not able to fulfil their original purpose.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. I would not want to accuse the government or any committee member of leaking information. I do not know who is leaking the information from the committees but eight committees have had their reports leaked over the past several months. That is clearly unacceptable.

In answer to this, the government is talking about clamping down on the media. That is so perverse. As hon. members of this House, we pledge a certain code of conduct. For the government to say it will clamp down on the media is absolutely ludicrous.

[An hon. member]

It is a joke.

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

The hon. member says that it is a joke. It is quite perverse and it is a joke but it is not that funny. It is a systemic issue that has to be dealt with. I would certainly hope the government departments are not somehow behind these leaks but it reduces the credibility of the individual committees and it reduces the credibility and the impact of those reports. Sometimes I fear the credibility of all parliamentarians is reduced when this kind of behaviour exists.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga South.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to discuss Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency. As we conduct this final House of Commons debate on Bill C-43, I would like to talk about the people who work at Revenue Canada. I would like to talk about the fellow citizens they serve, the fellow citizens we serve.

It is the minister's firm conviction and it is my firm conviction that the new Canada customs and revenue agency will be good for our current employees and the Canadian public. We need to show leadership. We need to create the conditions that will make it possible to streamline the tax system. That is what the agency will accomplish.

When I sit down with the department's employees, be it in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, or Windsor, I am struck by their dedication and their determination to make the system better. They more than anyone understand the frustration of taxpayers when they are confronted with different auditors from different levels of government. They more than anyone see the need for new technology to permit most Canadians to cross the border with a simple Canpass so that time can be spent on higher risk areas. They more than anyone see the need for faster hiring practices and more flexible management of human resources.

The employees of Revenue Canada see better than anyone how taxpayers could benefit from a single window for taxes and one-stop shopping for tax information.

Those are the reasons why we are proposing the new agency. If we want a simpler system for taxpayers, we need to bring the provinces and territories on side. If we want faster hiring and more flexible human resources management, we need to create a separate body with the authority for such issues as classifications, training and development and terms and conditions of employment.

The new agency would have such authority. At the same time, it is critical to show that we value the Canadians who work at Revenue Canada and who will work at the new agency. That is why any personnel rules of the agency will be premised on fairness and equity.

Under Bill C-43, permanent employees of Revenue Canada are guaranteed two years of employment at the new agency. This guarantee is more than any employees of the federal public service now have. Collective agreements will remain in force. Pension and leave credits will remain intact. Employees will have the right to compete for jobs in the federal government departments.

Believe me, the minister is determined that all employees will be treated with fairness and decency. He will strengthen the legislation to do just that.

The Public Service Commission will have the power to review and report on the agency's staffing procedures. There will be a mandatory review of recourse mechanisms by an independent party after three years. And of course, there will be a five year legislative review by parliament.

Perhaps more importantly, the Minister of National Revenue will remain answerable for the actions of the agency on the floor of this House of Commons.

I am convinced that the new agency will offer meaningful new opportunities for employees. A reduction in the number of occupational groups and levels will make it easier for employees to move between jobs. There will be more career mobility. Vacancies will be filled in a few weeks rather than many months. A flexible agency will be able to adopt more extensive use of flexible hours or work at home arrangements.

There are untold numbers of new possibilities to expand programs and services for the provinces and territories. There are untold possibilities for new ways of performing work, especially with the growth of technology.

The critics say this is a downsizing exercise. I say with great respect that they are 100% wrong. This is an upsizing measure providing more opportunities for employees, more opportunities for growth and more opportunities to serve Canadians more effectively.

That brings me to the second half of the people equation: service to the people of Canada. The employees of the Canada customs and revenue agency will be better placed to serve the needs of Canadians.

The small business owners in my riding of Hamilton Mountain are, like millions of other Canadians, honest, hardworking people who are willing to pay taxes. What has frustrated them over the years is the paperwork from the federal government, from the provincial government, from the regional government, from the municipal government.

The new agency offers a genuine chance to bring an end to much of that overlap and duplication. It offers a genuine opportunity for all kinds of programs to be administered from a single source.

By simplifying the process, we can save millions upon millions of dollars for taxpayers. That too is a clear example of better service to Canadians.

In its presentation before the Standing Committee on Finance, the Public Policy Forum made a vital point. For big business the cost of filing tax or customs forms is relatively small in proportion to sales or profit. For small businesses however, that is not the case at all. The filing of forms and the costs of dealing with multiple audits is often a make or break situation for a smaller company. This new agency can be the first step on the road to righting that situation.

There is another way in which a new agency can help business flourish in our country. With the phenomenal growth of electronic commerce comes real concern about security and privacy. If governments work together through the new agency, we can make Canada the global leader in the development of the most secure software and hardware.

The agency can be on the cutting edge in developing the programs that will give Canadians the confidence to engage fully in electronic commerce.

That is what this bill is all about. Better service through savings in time. Better service through savings in money. Better service through wise use of technology. Better service through new opportunities for partnerships. Better service through more employee flexibility and autonomy. Better service through streamlining and simplifying. The people who work at Revenue Canada will be the better for the agency. The people of Canada will be better for the new agency.

Bill C-43 is a positive move for public servants and a positive move for the public. We have put people first in establishing the agency. We have put people first in the mandate of the agency. We have put people first in the operation of the agency.

I congratulate the Minister of National Revenue for this bill. I say to every member of parliament, let us pass this bill as quickly as possible. In the end, this bill is in the public interest. In the end, this bill serves the people of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to read Hansard carefully tomorrow.

She says she spoke with the government employees at Revenue Canada and that everyone is in favour. But she forgot to speak with Mr. Lampron. The committee received a brief from Mr. Lampron. She also forgot to speak with Mr. Flynn of Revenue Canada and with Mr. Tutti, who lives in the riding of the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. She forgot to speak with all these people.

The hon. member also said she consulted with small business owners in her riding. Well, her riding is like no other riding in Canada, for she claims that everyone is happy with the new agency.

But the federation representing small and medium size businesses across Canada submitted a brief featuring a survey it conducted. The hon. member should have reviewed this survey and its findings before delivering her speech. It shows that 8.1% of those surveyed saw the new agency as a very positive development; 24.8% as not very positive; 36% had no opinion; 18.6% saw it as a negative; and 14.5% as very negative. Where did my colleague get her information?

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did speak to a lot of people in the department, people across Canada and small businesses. I have some questions that they brought to my attention and the answers we were able to give them.

One of the questions I received from employees within the department was when would the two year employment guarantee begin. It will begin the day the agency becomes a separate employer and employees are transferred. In all likelihood this will be a few months after the passage of Bill C-43. Time is going to be needed to establish the board of management. All employees will be informed in writing with regard to the effective date of the transfer.

Another question that was asked was would employees be able to transfer to a government department after the two year guarantee. The simple answer is yes. Agency employees will most definitely be able to transfer with the same mobility rights that Revenue Canada employees currently possess.

We have also been asked by employees what employee benefits carry over to the agency. The job offer that employees will receive on the transition to agency includes the carryover of the salary, core benefits such as health and disability insurance and dental plan, accumulated sick leave and vacation credits, and pension benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Act. Years of services which are used for calculating leave entitlement and severance pay will also carry over.

A question that I was asked just last week is what unions will represent employees under the agency. On the given day that the agency is created and becomes a separate employer, currently existing collective agreements will remain in effect until they are renegotiated. Employees will continue to be represented by the same unions for a transitional period of 120 days or until the Public Service Staff Relations Board makes a ruling on the agency bargaining unit structure. After that time there will be unified certification processes.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks earlier this morning I asked why the government voted against all the opposition motions including some very substantive ones which I thought were constructive.

I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary why last night the government voted against a motion which would have required that the legislation be enforced in a manner which respects the principles of fairness, impartiality and accountability.

Why did the government vote against fairness, impartiality and accountability? Why did the government vote against a motion which would have clarified that the minister was responsible for all aspects of the agency? Will the government support our proposed taxpayers bill of rights which would enumerate more clearly in a single piece of legislation rights to due process for taxpayers?

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to answer all those questions, but I will say that fairness is already included in the act and has been included for a number of years.

As far as accountability, there were five major accountability mechanisms already in the Revenue Canada Act and there are three new ones. Eight accountability mechanisms will be included in the agency.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency.

As with any new government undertaking there is always the question of what the costs will be. During the committee's consideration of the bill the Minister of National Revenue tabled a report with the committee on the amount of money spent by the department to develop this agency concept. As I am sure members of the committee have realized, these expenses have been very reasonable, especially considering the significant proposed changes to the agency.

Over the last two and half years Revenue Canada has had between nine and fifteen persons working at any one time directly on this agency proposal. This staff has been drawn from other areas within the department. The total cost over that two and a half years has been just over $3 million.

In addition, considerable work has been done on the design and development of a new human resources regime. This work has contributed to the broad objectives for public service renewal such as la relève, as well as the human resources requirements for the agency. Like all other departments, Revenue Canada has been focusing a great deal of attention on its human resources needs. The expenditures to date of about $2.8 million over three years will be a very worthwhile investment in the future of Revenue Canada employees.

I emphasize that the money spent today on design and development is an investment that will reap tremendous benefits in the future efficient and effective management of the Revenue Canada agency.

We are talking about some very important changes in management style as well management processes and procedures which will bring productivity gains that will pay for the development costs many times over. The agency will benefit from a significant reduction in time and effort spent on complex and cumbersome administrative processes. Reducing hiring time and eliminating the large number of vacant positions will substantially reduce staffing costs.

Simplification of the classification system will also allow employees to transfer more easily to jobs that need to be filled. Simplified and more responsive recourse mechanisms will also significantly reduce the waste of time and energy and the cost of litigation.

The result of all this will be to allow employees at all levels to concentrate on their job of providing service to the Canadian public rather than wasting their time on administrative activities.

Savings from the productivity gains will be reinvested in the tax and customs programs of the agency in order to improve levels of service to the public while maintaining the integrity of our overall income tax system.

There are savings to be made through modernizing many of the administrative processes that Revenue Canada must now follow. To do this effectively new authorities are required. The fundamental changes that are foreseen simply cannot be accomplished in the existing departmental structure. The changes are too great and the existing structures are all too rigid.

There are some very important safeguards in the proposed new structure, especially in so far as financial management is concerned. I can assure that the parliamentary oversight of the agency's financial management will be retained. The agency will still be governed by the Financial Administration Act as well as the policies and procedures of the Treasury Board and the Receiver General for Canada with respect to matters of financial management and the treatment of public moneys.

The budget of the Canada customs and revenue agency will still have to be approved as part of the government's overall expenditure management system. It will be subject to the normal Treasury Board approval process and no money will be spent before being approved by parliament. Parliament will also continue to receive at least as much information for the agency as it does now for Revenue Canada. The agency's financial statements will be prepared in accordance with standard government accounting practices.

I want to talk a little about the user fees issue for a moment. Quite a myth has been built up over the potential use by the agency of increased user fees. I want to lay this myth to rest. Nothing in the bill would give the agency the authority to set fees. The situation respecting user fees will be the same as it is now with Revenue Canada. There are many controls in the current system over the charging of fees to which the agency will be subject. Let me outline these controls.

First, the minister will have to approve any new or increased fees.

Second, the full regulatory process must be used for new or increased fees, including the requirement to consult with those affected and to receive governor in council approval.

Third, the agency's corporate business plan will have to outline the strategy related to the spending of fees. This plan must be approved by Treasury Board and the summary must be tabled in parliament.

Fourth, parliament will have to approve the agency's appropriations which include the proposals for the spending of fees.

There is no danger that the agency will abuse user fees because the government and parliament will have full control over how fees are established.

Some significant savings will arise from the new agency as have been outlined by a number of colleagues who have already spoken on the bill. The public policy forum, an independent organization with extensive experience in public sector management, outlined in its study examining costs of compliance with and administration of Canada's tax systems and the savings from a single administration system, said there could be significant savings to Canadian businesses, particularly small businesses, from a single revenue administration.

Mr. Peter O'Brien, vice-president of Atlantic Canada for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, confirmed this when he appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on November 24, 1998. He said:

There's only one taxpayer in the end, and to have more than one agency... I think is inefficient.... Time is very significant for business, particularly smaller firms.

More precisely, the public policy forum study estimated that the level of compliance savings to business each year would be between $116 million and $193 million at a minimum. The study also examined the administrative cost to government of tax collection and the potential savings. It found that there was a high potential for savings in the areas of personal income tax, corporate income tax and payroll tax because of the similarities at the federal and provincial levels as well as in a common collection system. This reduction in overlap and duplication will result in real savings to governments at all levels.

As the study outlined, in total it was estimated that administrative costs to governments could be reduced by between $37 million and $62 million annually at a minimum.

Right now the provinces, the territories and the federal government have tax measures and tax administrations that deal with similar kinds of transactions with the same taxpayers. This in essence is the reason why consolidation of these activities is so important.

Provinces and territories will obviously invest their money where they can achieve real savings from the central administration of a program. A single administration would result in real cost savings to the provinces. The point to be made is that the potential savings to individual Canadians, businesses and governments far outweigh the start-up and new operating costs of the proposed agency.

We are entering the new world of the 21st century. There will be a vast array of new technologies. Electronic commerce is becoming one of the most important new mechanisms of the 21st century, which has the potential for creating significant improvements in productivity of Canadians in general. It also has the potential for making it much easier to deal with the tax man through such mechanisms as electronic filing.

Electronic commerce, which involves the transfers of billions of dollars from one jurisdiction to another, also has frightening potential to hide money. Transactions that take place in the wink of an eye are very difficult to track. We need to be able to respond to that. It concerns me that the federal and provincial governments might take approaches to this issue which are not well co-ordinated. One way to start co-ordinating this activity would be to have tax administrations that are well co-ordinated.

Modern problems require modern solutions. The time has come to seize the opportunity presented to us with the new Canada customs and revenue agency for the generation of benefits to the provinces and the territories as well as to Canadian businesses and our citizens.

In conclusion, as we enter the new millennium, Canada needs a revitalized and more comprehensive Revenue Canada to serve the best interest of all Canadians.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had to laugh when I heard my colleague from Mississauga South mention that this new agency would be able to solve the long standing problems that have been plaguing Revenue Canada.

This is trying to fool people, especially when we see what the agency will have to offer. There is an old saying that “Taxation without representation is tyranny”. Others say that representation, now that we have it, is worse than tyranny.

The government wants to set up an agency whose decision-making powers are removed from the elected representatives. It will have many powers including the authority to administer and impose regulations that might take unfair advantage of taxpayers even more than now. The current government seems to turn a blind eye to the increasing poverty in this country. It seems bent on reducing taxes for the rich.

I would like to put a question to my colleague regarding clause 8 of the bill. This clause seems to grant limitless powers to the agency. I would like to ask the member for Mississauga South for his views on this clause.

I will now read the most significant sentence of this clause:

The Minister may authorize the Commissioner... subject to any terms and conditions that the minister specify, to exercise or perform on the Minister's behalf any power, duty or function of the Minister under any Act of Parliament or of a province.

Does this not mean that the agency has total freedom to do whatever it wants at the expense of Canadian taxpayers and their elected representatives?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the governing of a country is not a laughing matter. Had the member been listening to the speech, he would understand that there is no change in terms of the accountability and control of the minister or the accountability or access of parliamentarians.

The member should stop with the rhetoric and start understanding that as Canada enters into the new millennium the whole concept of e-commerce, the whole concept of productivity and the whole concept of working smart and not hard are very important to embrace. Revenue Canada is in a situation right now where it cannot move forward with the existing structures and existing rigidity in its system. We have to move into the next millennium. Whether the Bloc wants to come or not is its decision.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the member for Mississauga South just berated the other member for engaging in rhetoric. I do not suppose all that millenarian stuff has anything rhetorical about it.

The member said the changes which the government seeks could not be achieved without becoming an agency. It is rather circular thinking to stay it cannot become an agency without becoming an agency. I do not deny that but I what I do deny is that we could not make the personnel management policies more flexible without becoming an agency. The Library of Parliament says so, the public policy forum says so, the Canadian Tax Foundation says so. The government has presented no evidence to say it could not amend Treasury Board guidelines and the public service governing legislation to allow them to employ people on a more flexible basis as needed.

Does he not believe that with a board and a commissioner between ourselves and the agency's day to day activities accountability could and potentially will be diminished under the new agency?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Revenue Canada could be restructured in any way the member wants.

As I said to the previous questioner, we have to work smart, not hard. It is like changing the oil in your car without changing the filter. It does not good because you continue to have some of the same fundamental problems. It is time to get a renewed Revenue Canada, a revitalized Revenue Canada, a Revenue Canada built on a foundation for the new millennium, not for history.

The member asked about the board. There is no question that to have a board to oversee the day to day operations is important. Members of parliament and the minister will have absolutely no diminished accessibility or accountability. It is all still there. The member is worried about the spectres of somebody else being between us and the people in the front lines. Frankly, I am not afraid of our Canadian public service being able to do a very good job on behalf of all Canadians regardless of who is administering day to day.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have you in the chair again. It seems to becoming habitual that you happen to be on shift just at the time I am giving my speeches. It is nice to have you trapped there. Even if the House is empty you are forced to listen to my speech, so I thank you very much for that.

I will be splitting my time with the member for New Westminister—Coquitlam—Burnaby.

The member who just spoke mentioned the new millennium. It made me think of the fact that the new millennium actually starts at the end of the year 2000, that is December 31, 2000, not at the end of 1999 when the government will waste huge amounts of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, on meaningless millennium celebrations. It is typical of the government to be totally out of touch with reality.

The Swiss apparently are not going to celebrate the change of the millennium until the correct time which is the end of 2000, typical Swiss punctuality. They make good watches so they know how to measure time.

Somebody asked me what New Zealanders are doing and I am not really sure. I could get myself into trouble with that.

One other thing I wanted to mention in relation to this before getting into the meat of Bill C-43 is that the government has moved time allocation on every stage of the bill. This is the government that when it was in opposition screamed like crazy every time the Mulroney government moved closure or time allocation. When we look at its record in the 35th parliament it moved time allocation 32 times and closure times. In this parliament, just less than a year, it has moved time allocation 10 times.

The total since it took office in 1993-94 is time allocation 42 times and closure 3 times. I can see the government is shocked at that.

I know when it was in opposition it was shocked at Mulroney for doing it at about half that rate. This government is actually worse than the one that preceded it.

It seems any discussion about this bill, an act to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency, must of necessity involve the detailed consideration of the need for accountability and for transparency of operations in such a new agency.

Plenty of Canadians consider the existing Revenue Canada to be less than appropriately accountable. It is important that we address their concerns when we are considering this whole application of Bill C-43.

To illustrate the point, how many members have actually tried to call Revenue Canada to ask about a tax problem, but not as members of parliament? Members have have secret telephone numbers that are not published and we can get through directly to real people.

I hope they have tried to do that because it is an incredibly frustrating and upsetting experience. Not only is it rare to reach a real person by telephone but when someone does, it is virtually impossible to get the name of the person.

If the person ever has to call back, my goodness, it is almost guaranteed that they will get someone completely different and they will have to explain the entire problem all over again.

If someone tries to make a personal visit to the place from which emanate these notices of taxes due or the ones that contain all sorts of errors that we are constantly trying to fix, they would be in for a surprise.

Many of those offices do not actually seem to have real people there. Some tax offices whose addresses are shown on the envelopes that we receive in the mail from these places do not even have a public reception area.

A visitor to the building gets the distinct impression the employees sneak in the back door so that they can avoid recognition. Even for MPs, though, with this special and privileged access through these unpublished numbers, it is not always easy to get answers or to get action.

There is a great and pressing need for a better level of service along with the greater efficiency that would flow from allowing taxpayers to at least speak to the same person each time they call. This alone would surely invoke enormous efficiencies and I hope the government would consider that.

Imagine not having to explain one's tax problem story all over again to a different person every time they call Revenue Canada. What a pleasure it would be to be given the name and direct contact number for a Revenue Canada employee who looks after a certain set of accounts. Problems surely could be dealt with more efficiently if that sort of system were in place.

The well documented experience with the existing agency demands of us that we build into Bill C-43 some accountability. Some sort of taxpayer bill of rights is a great idea. I know my colleagues have mentioned this in their speeches as well as establishing an independent ombudsman type of office for taxpayer protection.

Such an office would have the right to demand accountability and would obviously have access to all the files in the new agency. It would have to be directly accountable to parliament, something that must happen with the new Revenue Canada agency anyway.

We cannot allow a government created agency that touches on the lives of each and every taxpayer or potential taxpayer to operate without direct accountability to parliament and to the members of parliament. It is simply not good enough to establish accountability to the minister. There must be a greater amount of transparency and accountability than simply to the minister.

The present agency and the proposed new one would come in for far less criticism and attack if this government would take steps to reduce the taxes presently collected from citizens.

People are so financially stressed by the tax load imposed on them that they are going into the underground economy. Some small businesses are not able to pay their instalments and people are getting into difficulties with Revenue Canada simply because they are overtaxed.

They are taking on more and more of a personal debt load as a result of that income shortfall and the ministers of taxation, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue, live high on the hog as multimillionaires as we know.

What do they know of the pressures being felt by the small business operators and the average wage earners across the country? I would say little or nothing. As we know, they live in a dream world of parliamentary receptions, state dinners, holiday residences in the country and international travel.

Perhaps like the Prime Minister they get their advice from imaginary homeless people. There is no doubt, though, that they are hopelessly out of touch with the real world of the average wage earner.

It reminds me of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is out in B.C. at the moment travelling around trying to promote the Nisga'a treaty even though 40% of the Nisga'a themselves rejected it. Nobody has asked why 40%, almost half, of the Nisga'a rejected this treaty. Maybe the government and the minister should do that but they do not want to listen.

It is just like this bill. The government will not listen to input that comes from the average person. Eighty per cent of B.C. residents have expressed displeasure with the treaty and all they hear from this government is that they have a racist attitude when it is in fact genuine concern.

The minister lives in a dream world of political correctness. She applauds Nelson Mandela but here she is trying to set up an identical sort of apartheid like system in B.C. with these types of treaties where we could have as many as 50 different governments in B.C. each with its own set of laws and no protection whatsoever for the rank and file members on the reserves to have the money and benefits flow to them.

We have so many bands in B.C. that are not democratically structured where there are high ranking chiefs in place who are taking all the benefits and flowthrough that come from these types of treaties.

I have a Squamish band in my riding. In the last week alone five different band members have called, urging me to vote against Bill C-49 they are afraid that all the benefits will flow to the chiefs. On the Squamish band reserve in North Vancouver there are 16 different chiefs. It is all hierarchal with no democracy in place.

It is not just for this bill but for all the measures this government is looking at, it really needs to get a little more down to the grassroots and start listening to the average person and the input that comes from them.

Unfortunately, because we are running out of time, I cannot go through all this other wonderful stuff that I have down here which I know would amuse some of the members opposite, but I will try to get another chance to get up later in questions and comments.

I finish by urging the government side to listen to the input that has come from my colleagues on this side regarding a taxpayer bill of rights. There is really a good logical reason to have at least a set of principles by which the new agency should act.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the first three-quarters of his speech in which he outlined the precise reasons why it is important for this new revenue agency to be set up. He outlined very clearly and very sincerely all the areas in which Canadians want and deserve better service. I therefore thank the hon. member for giving such wonderful support from the Reform Party for this new revenue agency.

The member spent the last portion of his speech talking about a different issue, the Nisga'a agreement. I overheard some colleagues commenting that when the member had a problem with 60% in favour and only 40% opposed, what about that 40%? He said it was terrible but this is the party that argued that 50% plus 1 was okay to break up the country. What irony; 60% is not good enough for a treaty but 50% plus 1 is good enough to break up a country.

The member did touch on two items relevant to the bill or at least what he thought was not in the bill. First was the issue of an ombudsman. He answered his own question by suggesting that members of parliament do have these special facilities to communicate on behalf of their constituents with Revenue Canada. Therefore Canadians do have an ombudsman. In fact, they have 301 ombudsmen. Each and every one of us has that responsibility. I know we have all served our constituents.

The other item, and this is the point of the question I would like to pose to the member, was with regard to the taxpayers bill of rights. It is an interesting notion. Would the member articulate two or three examples of what might be included in a taxpayers bill of rights?

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to comment on the opening remarks of the member opposite.

In terms of the things that I identified which should be in the bill and the changes that should be made to Revenue Canada, yes this is true, these are changes that everyone feels should be made. We feel that this bill does not go far enough in establishing the criteria that should be taken into account. We want to see democratic consideration of what the people out there in the world want in this new tax agency. In just a moment I will come back to some specific points on that.

What I would like to mention first is in connection with the percentages of people who vote for one thing or another. I made no judgments whatsoever about whether the Nisga'a vote being 60% to 40% was an appropriate percentage to create a country within a country or to break up a country. I made no judgments about that at all.

The point I made was that 40% of the Nisga'a people voted against what the politically correct government over there thinks is a wonderful treaty. My point was why not ask the 40% who are not being asked why they did not like it. Maybe that 40% had some critical reasons why they did not like it. I can tell the member why they do not. It is because they are afraid that the power and the benefits will flow to a few at the top. If the member does not recognize that scenario from his own party, then he needs more lessons on the topic.

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether 50% plus 1% is appropriate for Quebec separation, or whether 60% is appropriate for the Nisga'a to separate. They certainly are separating if that treaty goes ahead because there will be a new country within a country. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Since the member opposite does not appear to have read the document that the official opposition put out called “Protecting the Rights of Canadians—The Office for Taxpayer Protection”, I will give him a few points from it.

The office for taxpayer protection under the chief advocate would be responsible for assisting taxpayers in resolving disputes or problems where the mechanism within the agency itself was not being helpful. They could propose changes to administrative practices within the new agency in order to minimize problems that are encountered by taxpayers. Sometimes those close to the action do not always see the best way to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I see you are cutting me off again. This is really bad news. There is such a lot to discuss here but I will take your ruling and I will sit down.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I know that the hon. member would have preferred to have the full 20 minutes instead of sharing his time but since he shared his time, I have to enforce the rules.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is Christmas time in Canada. It is known as the time of giving, not taking.

We are here today talking about government behaviour and how it takes its taxes. From my historical reference book which sits on the clerk's table in front of me in the centre aisle of this Commons chamber, I want to quote a relevant portion about taxes at Christmas time. The book is the fundamental legal and cultural base reference work for Canadian society, where we look at the roots of our Canadian origin.

We can understand from the reference I will quote that it has long been viewed as legitimate that governments can tax, can count its subjects and render economic recompense to the central authority. Specifically the Bible says in Luke, chapter two:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, (because he was of the house and lineage of David) to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife—

We learn from this venerable reference that indeed taxes, levies or a portion of production including the census of all, has traditionally been taken from individuals to serve the purposes of those in power. Therefore in history governments tax and people pay. It has always been that way.

However the fundamental political question for our society now is how the government takes or collects its taxes and how, with its degree of wisdom, does it use the revenue taken. For some years now Canadian governments have taxed too much, spent too much and thus we owe too much. And now at Christmas time we are presented in this parliament with a whole new regime of federal taxation.

The bill changes the legal basis of how taxes are collected. We are creating a new agency that is something akin to a crown corporation, as we have known them in Canada, as the final controller of economic life.

Specifically the government has proposed Bill C-43 which establishes the Canada customs and revenue agency to carry out the mandate of the Department of National Revenue and repeals the Department of National Revenue Act. The Minister of National Revenue is named as the minister responsible for the agency.

The minister continues to be accountable for the administration and enforcement of federal tax, trade and customs legislation. The agency supports the minister in the administration and enforcement of such legislation and the minister directs the commissioner of customs and revenue and the agency employees in that regard. The enactment also authorizes the agency to contract with the provinces to administer provincial tax and other programs.

This enactment sets out the responsibilities, accountability regime, organization, human and financial resources regime and planning and reporting framework of the agency. It establishes a board of management to oversee the management of the agency and gives the commissioner of customs and revenue responsibility for day to day management of the agency as its chief executive officer. The minister may issue written directions to the agency in matters within the authority and responsibility of the board that affect public policy or could materially affect public finances.

The agency continues to be subject to Treasury Board's requirements with respect to financial management but has its own authorities for matters such as human resources, contracting and property management. The agency must annually submit a corporate business plan to the minister for recommendation to the Treasury Board and the minister must table a summary of the plan in parliament. The plan must include the strategies the agency intends to use to meet its human resources and other administrative objectives as well as the proposed operating and capital budgets.

This bill may be the sleeper hold on Canadians which will catch us unaware. The bill is a dramatic historical change. It is powerful and pervasive.

Consequently the official opposition has put forward a comprehensive proposal for a taxpayer bill of rights. It would enumerate for the first time in federal law a number of rights to due process for taxpayers in the collection system. There are rights existing now with manuals of operation, interpretation bulletins and various rulings, but a single charter list of performance standards and actionable rules that are listed up front for taxpayers to hang on to just is not there. It has never been administratively convenient for bureaucracies to be user friendly or too willing to provide its servant clients with too much bargaining power against the official edicts of the department.

Essentially our draft taxpayer bill of rights would have legislative force. It would essentially ensure in legislation that taxpayers would be presumed innocent until proven guilty in the tax process. It would reverse the onus which is now on taxpayers who too often are determined to be guilty and financially penalized before even being ruled innocent. Furthermore it would give taxpayers various avenues of appeal.

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

We propose as part of our taxpayer bill of rights the adoption of an office for taxpayer protection which would essentially be an ombudsman to adjudicate legitimate disputes between taxpayers and the revenue agency. It would essentially provide an avenue of appeal and mediation which would be far less costly and far more accessible to taxpayers than what currently exists. These two measures, a taxpayer bill of rights and the adoption of an office of taxpayer protection, would go a very long way toward protecting Canadian taxpayers in the new era of the Canada customs and revenue agency.

We can see no good reason, nor has the government offered a single good reason, why a taxpayer bill of rights ought not to be introduced and passed as part of the bill before us today. I call on the government to consider our sincere, detailed and thoughtful proposal for a taxpayer bill of rights. If the minister were to give us an inclination that he was willing to seriously consider this kind of recommendation that we have made, we in turn as the official opposition certainly would seriously consider fully supporting the bill because of some of the administrative innovations that may be achieved by it.

It is clear that many Canadians are not satisfied with the level of fairness and due process in the tax collection system. There is a need to entrench and protect the taxpayers rights as the agency becomes more distant from government. In a previous speech I outlined some of the suggested specific terms of a list of written rights which parallel some of the rules of fundamental justice concerning due process. There are some rights now but taxpayers do not know them and there is no tax charter.

In conclusion, it must be a fundamental principle and it would be of a Reform government, that the rights of taxpayers must supersede the efficiency enhancements or the interests of the agency. We must guard against agency interests overwhelming taxpayer interests. Let us never forget about who works for whom. Certainly we have evolved somewhat since Caesar taxed the world.

As Reformers proceed to get support for a more simplified and flatter tax system, we are going to try to be vigilant to monitor that any benefits derived from the new CCRA are not lost due to the greater damage wrought upon taxpayers through poor implementation and assaults upon taxpayers' basic dignity of the person. An office of taxpayer protection in place to enforce the taxpayer bill of rights represents a very low cost, partially self-financing, effective tool for protecting citizens and ensuring that the human cost of change and implementation are carefully considered. For, in spite of the technical nature of revenue collection, it is still all about people and how we as a society organize ourselves to be governed with fairness, equality and above all, compassion.