Debates of Dec. 8th, 1998

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member really wanted to talk about the taxpayer bill of rights. Bill C-43 is a bill to establish an agency, virtually to create a new foundation for an existing government department. The member is a lawyer. Does he believe that a taxpayer bill of rights would be better positioned within Bill C-43 or would it make more sense to incorporate it into the Income Tax Act itself as a provision or regulation of the act where it legitimately belongs?

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could take the example of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code spells out the offences which would be the equivalent of the tax act itself, the technical parts. Yet when we deal with young offenders, we want to give special consideration on how we deal with children. The Young Offenders Act deals with process.

This bill is a covering bill which sets up how the collection of taxes is going to be done in this structure. This is the more appropriate place to have a charter of basic rights that would be actionable, that talks about how in spirit as well as with the office of the ombudsman and so on that tax would be collected. I think it is the most appropriate place to put it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what the hon. member for Mississauga South said to one of my colleagues, because I was insulted.

If I understand correctly, he said that making changes to the revenue department for the next millennium would be like changing the oil without changing the oil filter. This is an insult to the employees of the revenue department.

The hon. member for Mississauga South should have compared the establishment of this agency to the construction of a new vehicle, as the revenue minister did.

I answered that the new vehicle put together by the department does not look too good. The best clients, the provinces, were not even consulted, so we could find out whether or not this vehicle would sell. In my opinion, it will not sell.

I would like the Reform member to tell me why the provinces will not buy Bill C-43.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the provinces will adopt a wait and see approach. If the government in its carrying forward of the bill is sensitive and works in a co-operative partnership manner perhaps it will build support. That is the same approach we are asking for in the taxpayers bill of rights to deal with the taxpayers who basically pay the bill, the very reason the agency exists.

Why can it not be said clearly upfront that taxpayers have a right to be treated in a professional manner? The professional manner has been well defined in the schools of public administration. Taxpayers have the right to understand laws with which they are required to comply. There are international discussions between parliamentarians about what plain language means. There has been a lot of debate about plain language. One can get a master's degree on that point.

Taxpayers have the right to pay the amount of tax required to by law and no more. Revenue officials should inform taxpayers of overpayment. Taxpayers have the right to record any and all meetings with Revenue Canada-CCR officials without being required to give notice to do so. If the government does the right thing it will develop co-operation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I have heard debate from both sides of the House today. On one side I heard about coming onstream, being smart and getting into the new century.

Why are the provincial governments not jumping on board the new taxation vehicle that is being created in the bill that has come before us through closure?

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

Mr. Speaker, the record is that they have not been doing so. None of the provinces have jumped on board. We will see if the agency actually delivers what it is said to deliver. This is something the auditor general talked about in the past.

We have legislation and a lot of fancy advertising that proposes certain things, but when they are examined for their dollar value they do not deliver what was proposed. We will see whether or not the agency is innovative. The true test is in the pudding. The provinces may sign on if the government makes delivery in a proper manner.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

The establishment of the new Canada customs and revenue agency is a major undertaking. Questions have been raised during consultations with the provinces, territories, clients and the public. The question of accountability is one that came up frequently during these consultations. It is an important issue and I will address it in my speech.

Basically, everyone wants the proposed new agency to be responsible for its actions and for the manner in which it operates. I wish to assure members that ministerial accountability for program legislation will be maintained, as will overall control of the agency by the government.

As is now the case, members will be able to ask the Minister of National Revenue to look into the handling of a file.

Bill C-43 establishes a number of accountability mechanisms that will ensure the agency, despite its new structure and potential increased services on behalf of the provinces and territories, will remain accountable to parliament, to its clients and to the public for its actions.

For instance, the minister will remain accountable as provided in clause 6 of the bill. The auditor general continues as the agency's auditor as stipulated in clause 87 of the bill. There is a five year legislative review as specified in clause 89 of the bill.

A corporate business plan is to be submitted to the minister for recommendation to Treasury Board for approval. The minister then tables the summary of the approved plan in parliament as provided for in clause 49 of the bill. An annual report on operations will be tabled by the minister in parliament as stipulated in clause 88 of the bill.

The Public Service Commission can periodically review the compatibility of the principles governing the agency staffing program and those governing staffing under the Public Service Employment Act. It may report its findings in its annual report as outlined in subclause 56(2). There is a mandatory review of recourse mechanisms by a third party after three years as provided for in clause 59 of the bill, and a summary of the results will be included in the agency's annual report to parliament.

The Minister of National Revenue will remain responsible for the administration and enforcement of program legislation such as the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, and the Customs Act. He will also be able to direct officials in the exercise of authorities under this legislation.

The minister is currently named 1,470 times in various pieces of program legislation as the person with the authority to exercise specific actions, such as assessing tax returns.

The minister will continue to be the person named to exercise those authorities. This means that the minister will retain personal accountability for the way tax and customs programs are run. This direct accountability ensures that the minister has the authority to inquire into any matter of program administration. This is important, because the minister can ensure that clients of the agency have been treated fairly and equitably.

The minister will continue to respond to questions in the House and from the public on program and policy matters. He will continue to be able to respond to members of parliament when their constituents seek their help in dealing with tax or customs matters. However, while the minister is accountable for how the programs are carried out, the agency has a considerable amount of autonomy in matters of internal management.

The agency will be directed by a board of management which will be accountable to parliament through the minister responsible for management policies of the agency such as human resource activities like staffing and compensation, mandates for negotiating with its bargaining agents in collective bargaining agreements, services and performance standards, and the appropriate allocation of internal resources.

Some people have expressed concern that the board of management consisting of private sector individuals might ignore the public interest and act in a way that is motivated only by revenue generation. There are sufficient checks and balances in the bill to ensure that the agency will remain within the overall government policy framework.

I quote Mr. Robert Spindler of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants when he appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on November 24:

We recommended that the existing ministerial oversight of the revenue system exercised by the minister of revenue be maintained.... It is clear that the comments provided on this issue during the consultations were heard and taken into account. We're pleased that under Bill C-43, the minister of revenue will retain responsibility for the agency and it will be structured to allow for close ministerial oversight and, in particular, that the minister's power of inquiry into any activity of the agency will be maintained.

In addition, the commissioner, who is a member of the board of management, would act as a full time chief executive officer of the agency and be responsible for the day to day operations of the organization.

He will be accountable to the minister for the administration and enforcement of program legislation. He will also be accountable to the board of management for the day to day management of the agency.

With regards to accountability for the administration of provincial programs, the commissioner will offer to meet with provincial and territorial finance ministers and to report on such matters as service and revenue levels and to receive feedback from them.

The important and necessary relationship now in place between the Departments of Finance and National Revenue will continue between the Department of Finance and the agency.

In summary, ministerial accountability, overall control by government, and parliamentary oversight will be maintained for the new agency.

And those being served by the agency, especially the provinces and territories, will have new means at their disposal to ensure that the agency is accountable to them for its performance.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech made by my colleague opposite.

The concern for the opposition, and the member will certainly understand that, is that all these agencies that have multiplied under the Liberals, whether it be Nav Canada, Canada Post Corporation or Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation, are all independently managed. There are accountable to the House only once a year when they table their financial statement, and if it is even ever so slightly positive, there are no questions asked. If there were no losses, there were no problems.

However, if the taxpayers want a precise answer to a particular question, the minister washes his hands of everything and says he cannot do anything because it is an agency. That is what all the opposition parties are speaking out against in the House, namely the fact that the government is making sure that it does not have to answer our questions from now on.

I want to ask the member if he does not see the risk that this kind of agency could become a patronage haven, as was unfortunately the case with Canada Post Corporation, for example. Are these agencies required to go to the lowest bidder when awarding a contract or do they just go down the list of Liberal Party contributors?

Does the member not see the danger in taking assets out of the hands of regular public servants to have them managed by friends of the government? We want to hear what he has to say on that particular point and nothing else.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member listened more carefully to what I said, he would have realized that this agency is different from the other agencies he just mentioned. The minister remains responsible for the agency.

We parliamentarians will continue to have the opportunity to ask the minister to intervene, if our constituents, our voters, have a problem with the agency. This is not how it goes with other agencies.

This is why I believe this agency will be more accountable. Every year, the minister must submit a corporate business plan to the President of the Treasury Board, who in turn will table it in the House. The auditor general will be auditing the agency's books. This agency is different from the others in many regards, in my opinion.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what our hon. colleague thinks about the trend this bill seems to be setting, in terms of Canada's evolution. This is a concern to me, as a Quebeckers and a sovereignist.

Can he tell me, since this agency will have the power to collect taxes on behalf of the federal government—taking the place of Revenue Canada, which, in itself, is a major step, given the drawbacks my colleague from Chambly just mentioned with respect to parliament's role—and on behalf of the provinces, municipalities, school boards and those private businesses that wish to avail themselves of this service, where this is leading Canada as a political entity.

Does it not look like provincial governments will soon be nothing more than regional government? Are we not moving toward a centralized, unitary Canada, where Quebec will not truly feel at home?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing we must take into consideration is the fact that the agreements the agency may sign with the provinces or any other government are voluntary agreements. The provinces that do not want to participate do not have to.

Second, I am surprised that members of the Bloc Quebecois, who always say they want to avoid duplication and overlap, do not see this as a perfect opportunity to try to avoid duplication and overlap.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by noting that accountability and fairness are the cornerstones of our government's legislation, policies, regulations and processes. Certainly residents in Waterloo—Wellington, indeed Canadians everywhere, understand and know this to be true.

Fairness is an essential foundation to the entire revenue administration. It is a system based on voluntary compliance and if the clients do not believe they are being treated fairly, one cannot expect them to comply voluntarily.

Revenue Canada is already a world leader in treating citizens in a fair and equitable manner in the delivery of customs and revenue programs.

Despite this excellent record, the Minister of National Revenue launched the fairness initiative in March of this year to solicit feedback on the fairness of the department's programs. More specifically, it looked at the measures that were in place, evaluated how well the department was doing at providing fairness and identified improvements that will be made to provide a greater level of fairness to Revenue Canada's clients.

The consultations were broad and comprehensive. Canadians from all walks of life were asked for their views on the department's record at being fair as well as to identify opportunities which would make the system even fairer. Consultations included speaking to and listening to the general public, the department's independent advisory committees, stakeholder groups and Revenue Canada's managers and frontline staff.

To ensure the entire process would be objective, Revenue Canada partnered with the Conference Board of Canada to analyse results, hold a national symposium to verify priorities and to produce an independent report.

As well, a comparative assessment was undertaken of the best practices of other customs and revenue administrations around the world. As a conference board report states, Revenue Canada is well regarded among Canadians and among international customs and revenue agencies as a leader, an innovator and an effective organization, truly a strong voice of confidence to it.

Many suggestions have been received to make further improvements to the fairness of Revenue Canada, and its officials are in the process of developing an action plan for the minister's consideration. This action plan, along with the conference board report, will be released by the minister in early 1999.

One message was crystal clear in all this. Revenue Canada needs to continue strengthening the organization to make fairness an ongoing part of every employee's job. Taking the responsibility for fairness out of Revenue Canada and giving it to the taxpayers' advocate and ombudsman or an office of taxpayer protection is not what Canadians are calling for. The conference board reports that Revenue Canada has already made significant strides in this direction and is well equipped to provide fairness to Canadians. Revenue Canada is constantly striving to improve its services to all Canadians. We are living in a constantly evolving world and Canada's business, economic and social environment is dramatically changing. It is one of the reasons that the agency is being created, to respond to those changes and to provide better service to all our clients. Good service is fair service always.

Fairness means being open, clear, courteous, responsive, timely and accessible. Applying legislation fairly for Revenue Canada and for the new agency then means applying it impartially, consistently and responsively. It means as well that commitments Revenue Canada makes to fairness will be commitments for the Canada customs and revenue agency. That agency is all about providing better and more effective and efficient service to Canadians. Fairness is part and parcel of service and an efficient organization that is not fair to its clients is not an effective one.

Feedback as well from the fairness initiative reinforced the longstanding practice of building commitment to fairness throughout the organization as opposed to isolating it in a separate office.

Creating and office of taxpayer protection as some have suggested would also carry additional expense and would detract from the ability of members of parliament to deal directly with the Minister of National Revenue to resolve their constituents' problems.

Members of parliament should have the right to call the minister to task if the agency appears to behave unfairly in its ways and to its clients. The agency's clients should also have the right to have a member of parliament raise concerns directly to the minister in the House of Commons on the actions of the agency. That is very important.

Some hon. members have also suggested entrenching a taxpayer bill of rights in the legislation. Their rationale is that the agency may become out of control, leading to taxpayer complaints on the scale of those facing the United States Internal Revenue Service in recent years.

I remind them that Revenue Canada's declaration of taxpayer rights was the first of its kind in the world, introduced in 1985. The declaration has been periodically updated to remain current with the law and societal needs and is entrenched in the day to day operations of the department and is part of the public service ethos that will carry over to the agency.

In addition, feedback to date from the consultations on the fairness initiative indicates that Canadians are pleased with the current declaration of taxpayer rights.

The Canada customs and revenue agency will not be an arm's length agency like the IRS and therefore what it might need is not what we need.

Garth Whyte, vice-president of national affairs for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, pointed out when he appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on November 24: “The problem is once you put it in the act it is pretty hard to enforce. We want to see this as a cultural change happening in the department and a dedication to service. You can write it in the act, and we have seen many things written in the act but then people think it's done. I think it should be done at the department level”. That is well worth remembering.

In addition to not being necessary, adding a taxpayer bill of rights to the agency legislation would have the effect of amending program legislation such as the Income Tax Act.

Provisions such as those proposed should therefore be directed specifically at that act and other similar statutes the agency would administer.

Unlike the situation with the IRS, there will continue to be a minister of national revenue who will continue to be accountable to the public and in the House of Commons for all aspects of the agency's performance, including its fairness.

Canadians certainly expect no less and Canadians deserve no less. I therefore urge all members to support this very worthwhile legislation.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see a government member has finally directly addressed the official opposition's proposal for a taxpayer bill of rights.

The hon. member mentioned the current declaration of taxpayer rights introduced in 1985 by then Minister Beatty. Would he not agree with me that this declaration has not statutory force, no sanctions and is merely a declaration of intent? Would he not also agree the entrenchment of such rights to due process would be preferable?

He points out that it is not efficient to incorporate this into the actual revenue agency legislation. Would he not agree that it would be worth considering adopting a separate piece of legislation to incorporate the kinds of rights that now merely exist on paper in the form of a declaration?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the very good question. The declaration of taxpayer rights really is an evolving piece of legislation that will be part and parcel of this new agency.

It will underscore the kind of commitment that certainly we as a government want to see carried forward in the best interests of all Canadians as it relates to this agency in a manner that is meaningful and consistent with the kinds of information that certainly we on the government side have been given with respect to the importance of carrying forward in this manner.

In answer to the hon. member, the declaration is a very valuable piece of legislation that is in keeping with the kinds of values that we as Canadians want to promote.

[The Speaker]

There are still about three minutes left for questions and responses. I wonder if we could proceed to Statements by Members and pick up here after question period.

Rick Chaplin

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Cambridge's native Rick Chaplin was recently awarded the United Kingdom's prestigious Association of MBA's Independent MBA Student of the Year Award.

A professional management recruiter with Canadian General Tower of Cambridge for 13 years, Rick returned to school at age 38 and attended the MBA program at the University of Bath, England.

One of only five award winners in all of the United Kingdom, Rick was recognized for his contributions to the staff-student liaison committee and his exceptional mentoring skills.

Cambridge has long been proud of Rick's ongoing contribution to making our community a better place and we are all proud of his achievements.

I know the people of Cambridge and members will join me in offering Rick our congratulations.

Search And Rescue

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, words cannot describe the shock and sadness Canadians felt when a small commercial aircraft crashed into the St. Lawrence River yesterday, taking the lives of seven of the ten people on board.

It tears at our hearts and leaves us with a deep feeling of emptiness and hurt. As we remember and grieve for the loss of life we must also give praise and tribute to those who helped preserve it.

The incredible rescue of the three survivors began when a six year old girl witnessed the crash and, upon notifying her mother, set in motion a series of events that led to a privately owned helicopter racing toward the downed plane.

Facing snow squalls and poor visibility and risking their very lives, the crew of the small chopper arrived at the crash sight in 17 minutes. They flew low enough to the turbulent waters to snatch the three survivors from the icy grip of the St. Lawrence just before the tide rolled in and hope was slipping away.

To the Quebec provincial police, Canadian armed forces and the coast guard, but above all to those who notified authorities and flew the small privately owned helicopter, we salute your courage. We salute your valour. Above all, we salute your selfless deed and for risking your lives to save the lives of others.

Huron—Bruce

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, despite my best efforts to uphold my humble demeanour, I am again forced to my feet to regale this House with yet another example of why Huron—Bruce is one of the finest constituencies in all of Canada.

Each October the town of Port Elgin in the northern part of my riding hosts its annual Pumpkinfest. This festival, commonly known as the olympics of gardening, provides an opportunity for the pumpkin growers of Ontario and the northern U.S. to collect together to determine who among them is a premium melon cultivator.

This year, as described by talk show host Jay Leno, the Port Elgin Pumpkinfest stepped into the record books. I am pleased to report that the 2000 edition of the Guiness Book of World Records will formally recognize the 1,092 pound gourd grown at this 1998 event.

As I witnessed at the weigh-in, the competition was intense. Again Port Elgin has secured its place as a world leader in the field of growing giant vegetables. Perhaps next year my colleagues in this place might add the Pumpkinfest to their summer agenda.

Agriculture

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all members, urban and rural, know there is an income crisis in some sectors of agriculture for reasons that are beyond the control of our farmers.

I urge the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to provide assistance directly to the farmers, especially the smaller scale farmers. I urge him to provide this assistance soon and in a creative way that lays the foundation for income safety nets of the future.

I realize that this is a federal and provincial matter and I urge the provinces to co-operate with our minister in his efforts to solve this problem, but the federal government should show leadership in this serious national matter.

Let us act now.

Plane Crash At Pointe-Lebel

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning, a little after 11, there was a terrible plane crash at Pointe-Lebel, near Baie-Comeau. Seven people lost their lives and another three were injured. All were from the North Shore.

I congratulate the rescue teams that were able to save the three. However, this is a most regrettable accident, which has plunged many family members and friends into mourning.

To the survivors we wish a speedy recovery and a prompt return to their families.

We pray for the victims, the injured and their families.

Canada Post

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this week a delegation of postal franchisees is in Ottawa to fight for survival.

The minister guaranteed us that there would be no losses due to Canada Post's reduction in stamp commissions. The fact is that one week after implementation 30 postal outlets have notified Canada Post of their closure. It is only the beginning. The franchises predict that 100% of urban postal outlets will be closed by August 1999.

Yesterday the minister turned down a request to meet with the franchisees directly. Is it because he knows they are right? Is it because it is difficult to look into the faces of those who are losing their livelihood?

The minister may be able to hide in his office now, but in the new year he will have to justify to hundreds of franchisees and millions of Canadians why he allowed Canada Post to systematically destroy the postal network across this country.

Governor General

[Raymond Lavigne, Liberal, Verdun—Saint-Henri, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, December 5, my beautiful riding of Verdun—Saint-Henri was honoured with a visit by Governor General Roméo Leblanc and his wife.

I had the pleasure of spending a magical day with 200 children from my riding, a day which featured balloons, candies, an excellent lunch, a troupe of magicians, and Santa.

On behalf of the 200 Verdun children who will have life-long memories of this excellent initiative of bringing the party to their community, I wish to thank the Governor General and his wife.

I hope very much that this custom will continue for many years to come.

My thanks to the organizers, the group Toujours Ensemble, and all the volunteers.

Victims Of Gulf War Syndrome

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Maurice Bédard, a member of the military in my riding, who retired after 26 years in the Canadian forces, continues to believe, like several of his former colleagues, that the federal government is not taking adequate action to shed light on the health problems of those who claim to be victims of gulf war syndrome.

Since several members of the armed forces remain skeptical about the impartiality of the Canadian forces in revealing the circumstances that triggered this syndrome, would it not be appropriate to have a commission of inquiry, independent from the Department of National Defence, look into this issue?

As a member of the UN security council, Canada has a moral obligation not to leave any doubt regarding the equality of treatment provided to its own military personnel.

This is what Mr. Bédard wants to reaffirm by asking me to return to the Government of Canada, through this House, the medals he was awarded during the gulf war. From now on, these medals will be associated with shame, not pride, in the minds of many.

Violence Against Women

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since 1989, December 6 has been a date to remember Canadian women whose lives are affected by violence and, in particular, the 14 young women who tragically lost their lives in Montreal at École Polytechnique.

December 6 has come and gone, but we must continue to fight violence against women and remember those who are affected every day, not just one day a year.

I am proud to be part of a government that has made significant changes in the justice system to reflect the impact of these crimes, not only on the victims, but on society as a whole. We have legislated gun control. We have eliminated self-induced intoxication as a defence for violent crimes like sexual assault and just last June our government announced a $32 million a year national crime prevention initiative aimed at developing community based responses to crime, with the emphasis on women, children and youth.

Our government is committed to ending violence against all people in Canada. We hope these measures will help make our society safer.

Elwin Hermanson

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand today to recognize in the gallery my good friend and political mentor Mr. Elwin Hermanson.

As many will recall, Elwin was the member for Kindersley—Lloydminster in the House of Commons from 1993 to 1997, serving as both the House leader for the Reform Party as well as its chief agricultural critic.

Elwin has since won the leadership of the official opposition in Regina, the Saskatchewan Party. This new party is made up of members from all parties who believe in fiscal responsibility and democratic accountability.

These political pioneers have the desire and the political will to see Saskatchewan fulfill its potential and take its rightful place in Confederation as a have province and no longer a poor country cousin.

On behalf of my colleagues in Ottawa, I sincerely wish all the best to Elwin and his team. I wish them future success in their political endeavours.