Debates of Dec. 8th, 1998

Business Of The House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal other acts as a consequence, be read the third time and passed.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act

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

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

I will begin my remarks by saying that the government's insistence on creating the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency against everyone's advice, starting with the vast majority of provincial governments, including the Government of Quebec, gives the impression that certain Liberal ministers are suffering from what I would call “acute neroitis”.

This disease is named after the infamous Roman emperor Nero who, as members will remember, played music while watching Rome being devastated by raging fires that were set at his own command.

At times, I even wonder if this Liberal government does not have among its members firebugs of such talent that even the former Roman emperor would be red with envy. One has to be a real hot head to insist so doggedly on setting up an agency that will result in a 20% reduction of the Canadian public service as soon as it comes into being.

Under the guise of modernizing the state, our Liberal Neros are establishing a new structure which will translate overnight into a 20% cut of our public service.

For the sake of what interests is the government taking steps it knows full well are meant to take apart the government apparatus? Where is the public interest when, in this era of electronic communications, the government is getting ready to transfer to a private agency an incredible amount of personal and financial information on our fellow citizens in Quebec and Canada?

I must admit this government worries me. It worries me a lot. Its policies worry me because sometimes they seem to come from nowhere, as is the case with this Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. Or rather, and this is even less reassuring, it would appear the government is taking orders from some interests unknown to you and I, that would rather remain behind the scenes and are in any case contrary to the best interests of the Canadian population as a whole.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is such a priority for the government at this point in time when there are more urgent issues we should be dealing with. If only this government's ministers would leave their ivory tower to go and see what goes on in the real world they would realize that, as we speak, a real social crisis is ripping the country apart, leaving behind an increasing number of unemployed workers, something which unfortunately does not seem to matter for this government.

Government members should feel ashamed to expand so much energy today on debating the creation of a new structure nobody wants when so many of our fellow citizens do not even know where their next meal, and their children's, is coming from or whether they will have a place to sleep tonight.

I will be blunt: this government should be ashamed of talking about creating a new private agency that 40,000 Revenue Canada employees will have to rely on for their jobs. These are fathers and mothers who, in two years, could very well see their salary reduced, their working conditions changed for the worse or their job simply disappear without being able to do anything about it. It is as though the government were set on imposing economic uncertainty on the largest possible number of our fellow citizens.

It is the same government that cut transfers to the provinces, transfers aimed at helping students, social welfare recipients and the sick.

It is not surprising that Jean Chrétien's Canada is a country where injustice and inequity are commonplace, a country where the worst thing that can happen to someone is to lose one's job or to be poor and unemployed, because this country is run by a government that does not care about its weakest and most vulnerable citizens.

The worst threat facing the people of this country does not come from the nasty separatists who were elected in Quebec and who create political and economic uncertainty. No. The threat does not come from this side.

For thousands and thousands of Canadians, the enemy is not in Quebec City but rather in the federal capital, in Ottawa. The enemy is this Liberal government, whose employment insurance reform has reduced the rate of contributors eligible for benefits from 80% to a mere 42%. Thousands of our fellow citizens who had paid EI premiums lost the right to receive benefits when they needed it and were forced onto the welfare rolls and into poverty by this government.

As if that were not enough, after denying access to EI benefits to thousands of our fellow citizens, thereby generating a surplus of billions of dollars in the EI fund, this government is now contemplating the robbery of the century and is trying to get its hands on this surplus and use it for its own ends.

Despite what some ministers across the way might say, thousands of our fellow citizens are convinced that the worst threat to our country does not come from the PQ government in Quebec, but rather from the federal Liberal government.

Just last Saturday evening, I attended a function where I met around 150 senior citizens from my riding. These people unanimously told me that they are outraged and deeply offended to see that, while poverty is rampant in this country, the only concern of the government is not to save the poor. That would be too much to ask of them. Its only concern is, believe it or not, to save the millionaires in Canadian professional sport.

As far as I know, none of these sports millionaires are wondering how they will manage to put food on the table for their families. I can assure the House that the privileged few who feed off the system do not have these kinds of worries. Still, the government has decided to help them out, to save them. But to save them from what? Is it not normal for people who earn millions of dollars to pay taxes accordingly?

The Liberal government does not seem to think so, because it is about to reduce by hundreds of millions of dollars the taxes paid by these poor sports millionaires. The government wants to fund these measures at the expense of the real poor from the middle class, in part by drawing billions of dollars from the EI surplus that belongs to them.

Would someone please explain to the leader of this government and to his ministers that millionaires are not poor? There is a limit to being out of touch with the reality of those who elected them and whom they wooed by promising to represent them well and defend their interests, only to forget everything the day after the election. I think it is high time the Prime Minister start listening again to what ordinary people have to say.

I urge him to visit seniors in my riding of Jonquière and listen to what they think of his plans to help professional sports tycoons, while at the same time dropping 40,000 loyal government employees, including 1,000 or so in the Jonquière tax centre, employees with whose services the government is about to dispense by shifting them to a private agency that will not be obligated to them in any way two years from now.

Before rushing to the rescue of professional sports tycoons, this government must scrap Bill C-43 and reassure the 40,000 affected employees that they no longer have to fear for their future. If it fails to do so, it will mean that the government has a hidden agenda, which is completely different from the one it sold Quebeckers and Canadians in the last election campaign.

In the 1997 election campaign, the government never told Revenue Canada employees that, as a reward, 40,000 of them would fall into the clutches of a bureaucratic structure. The government never said that, and therefore had no mandate to do so.

This government never told Quebeckers and Canadians that, if they voted for it in 1997, it would set about dismantling Canada a little at a time, and yet this is what it is doing by privatizing 20% of the federal public service. This government never said so openly and therefore was never mandated to do this.

I repeat, this government has no mandate to do this. If the Liberal government still understands the meaning of the word democracy, it has only one option open, that of abandoning the establishment of the Canada customs and revenue agency. I realize it is not an easy decision.

It is not easy, because I suspect that the Liberals have probably already promised some of their friends in the private sector, no doubt themselves poor millionaires too, that the new structure would benefit them. Today, however, they have to turn to their friends and say they cannot keep their word.

They cannot keep their word because they had already given their word to the people of Quebec and Canada that they would act in their interest. The Canada customs and revenue agency is not in their interest. They cannot keep their word because they had already given their word during the election campaign to the officials of the department of revenue, including those in my riding, that they need not worry about their jobs under a Liberal government.

If the government of Jean Chrétien has any honour left, it must keep the promise it gave to the people of Quebec and Canada and kill its proposed Canada customs and revenue agency.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke North.

I listened to the member who just spoke on behalf of the Bloc. I was not sure that the speech had anything to do with the revenue bill, but I cannot stand in this place and allow certain comments that were made not to be challenged.

It does not seem to matter to members opposite from time to time if statements are based on fact or on someone's personal interpretation of a particular committee report. The member went on at some length about the report of the subcommittee on sports in Canada. The member should read that report as I have done. Nowhere in that report will a reference to tax breaks for millionaire athletes be found. I am absolutely confident that members of the government would be opposed to such a thing.

I wonder what the member might say to the people of Quebec City who lost their hockey team due to its inability to compete in the marketplace known as the National Hockey League in North America.

I wonder what the member of the Bloc might say to the fans in Montreal and right across Canada if the Montreal Canadiens were to find themselves in jeopardy or facing bankruptcy or the possibility of moving to the United States. It is unimaginable that a veteran franchise such as the Montreal Canadiens could simply lose its position in the Canadian sports scene.

All that committee has done is highlight the difficulties faced in an industry. Sports in Canada is an industry. The Montreal Canadiens alone pay more in property tax than all franchises in the United States combined. It is a stunning figure and a frightening situation.

I refer other members of the House, not the member of the Bloc, to the minority reports that were appended to the committee because there was a lot of support for amateur sports in the country. I just wanted to correct the record in that regard.

I have heard members say in this place that somehow the revenue bill was being rushed through the House. I did a bit of research. In the throne speech of February 1996 an announcement was made by the government of its intention to introduce this bill. On June 4 the bill was introduced for first reading and on October 2 it received second reading. It was then sent to committee where witnesses from across Canada were interviewed about the impact that they thought the bill might have. Here we are at December 8 and we are talking about third reading of the bill.

To suggest that the bill has been given short shrift or in some way rammed through parliament is to simply mislead the Canadian public. The bill has had debate. It has had input.

I also heard from members opposite, particularly those in the New Democratic Party, who said that none of the provinces had bought into the bill and that none of the provinces were prepared to accept the new agency.

Let me deal first with the province of Quebec. It is interesting that in committee the other day members opposite put forth 188 amendments, every one of them calling for a particular clause to be rejected. How many clauses might hon. members think are in the bill? There happened to be 188. In their creative way of thinking, from a province that does not even have its taxes collected by the federal government but has its own tax collection regime, they would take exception to the agency for some unknown reason, simply because it is a government bill and to oppose is to oppose is to oppose.

Let us talk about quotes from some of the folks whom we have talked to. The minister of finance for the province of Nova Scotia, Mr. Don Downe said:

This contract builds on the current strong, co-operative relationship between Nova Scotia and Revenue Canada and provides the means for our relationship to evolve under the new agency.

Another five provinces are actively working with Revenue Canada to determine if this agency could improve the administration of their programs because they understand that at the end of the day there is only one taxpayer.

Even Ernie Eves, the Ontario Minister of Finance, in a letter of September 22 makes the following point:

The CCRA could benefit Ontario taxpayers if it is able to administer Ontario taxes (both non-harmonized and harmonized)—

That is a very interesting point, because the Conservatives in Ontario have been very staunchly opposed to any kind of harmonization, to any kind of attempt to bring collection agencies together and perhaps establish one base tax that could be collected for all.

Why should we fight over who collects it? It gets transferred down to the provinces. Possibly it could be collected in a harmonized negotiated atmosphere and transferred up. Up to this point Mr. Eves and his government have refused to even discuss it. He goes on in his letter:

—more cheaply and efficiently than the Ontario government... taxpayers could benefit if the CCRA were able to improve services available to taxpayers.

Many think that there is some kind of coalition between the Ontario Conservative Party, the Reform Party and the drive to unite the right. I want to take members a little farther west on that point, if I might, to a proud Albertan, the provincial treasurer of Alberta, Mr. Stockwell Day. We have seen Mr. Day in negotiations with the Leader of the Opposition and with others on the unite the right drive. We have seen Tony Clement, the minister of transportation for Ontario, joining that somewhat crowded king size bed. Maybe it is queen size, I am not sure. It is not that big, but they are attempting to expand it. I am sure members get my point.

The reason they are all doing this, they try to purport, is to somehow offer a magical solution to the Liberals. Are you signalling victory or two minutes remaining, Mr. Speaker? Poll after poll indicates that Canadians believe in the government, believe in the things we are doing. We have incredible support for our Prime Minister and for the policies of the government. Let me share the comments of Stockwell Day:

It's good to see Revenue Canada becoming more open to provincial input in its approach to collecting provincial taxes, as it moves toward its new status as a federal crown agency. We're always willing to explore possibilities that would benefit our taxpayers as well as safeguard the public purse.

It appears that as we speak, unfolding before us at this very moment, the wheels on the unite the right wagon are falling off.

It appears that Mr. Day sees the benefits of an agency that could streamline administration, that could be more open and accessible to Canadians, that could benefit every taxpayer at the provincial and the federal level.

Frankly I congratulate him for not confusing the politics of extremism on the right with—I hate to use word common sense because Mr. Harris seems to think he owns it—the common sense of putting in place an agency that will be accountable to parliament, where there will be a mandatory five year review of the agency and an opportunity at the public accounts committee to review it even more often. It will be an agency that will be accountable to the minister, accountable to parliamentarians, accountable to provincial treasurers and ministries across the land. It is an agency whose time has come.

As we hear people talk about rationalization and downsizing, we have an opportunity to do something that will save taxpayers' money and benefit all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member for Mississauga West that, if this is not trying to ram a bill through, I do not know what it is. We were gagged, quite simply, when the witnesses came before the committee.

He says there was great participation. Yes, 18 organizations plus some 50 individuals, who came to tell us that there was no unanimity on Bill C-43.

I ask the hon. member for Mississauga West what his basis is for making such false statements.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I understood the question, but I will try to answer what I perceive might be the question, that is on what I base my remarks.

I base my remarks on quotes that are available from people who have presented their concerns and their support for the bill. Mr. Peter O'Brien of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:

I'm convinced three of the four provinces in Atlantic Canada will be on side.

Robert Spindler of Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants said:

My understanding, and I think the way a lot of businesses operate, is if you have an attractive idea, an attractive structure and attractive concept that makes good sense, over time there can be buy-in.

I would not deny there are people who are opposed, most of them fueled by members of the opposition who simply find it their duty to oppose anything regardless of the efficacy or the quality of the idea because they see that as simply their role. My opinions are based on facts from independent Canadians representing people right across Canada who think this is a darn good idea.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. windbag opposite is a johnny-come-lately to this issue. He should know, as I have followed the issue—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is not beyond the scope of members present to use colourful adjectives other than the one used in this instance.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have corresponded with all 10 provincial finance ministers. I have spoken with several of them on this subject. The vast majority of provinces have made no indication that they will participate in this program. They could contract with Revenue Canada now to do the kind of things that are proposed under the agency. There is really no difference.

The hon. member said that the opposition always opposes for the sake of opposing. Perhaps he could tell me why he rose in his place last night with his colleagues and voted against an opposition amendment to ensure that the act would be in force to include the principles of impartiality and fairness for taxpayers.

Is he against impartiality and fairness? Why did he vote against the amendment? Why does he not rise in his place and support the entrenchment of a taxpayers bill of rights which would ensure no diminishment of accountability under the bill but that taxpayers rights to due process and to being treated innocent until proven guilty are protected in the legislative framework of parliament.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you I have been called worse by better so I do not take it seriously at all.

The bill provides an opportunity for impartiality. More important, the member opposite should recognize that it provides for an opportunity for parliament to have control over the agency, both through the public accounts committee and through the required five year reporting system that will come into effect. We know it is extremely important, representing Canadians from right across Canada, that opportunity exists.

It is a fundamentally sound bill. I doubt if it would come as a great surprise in my heart or my mind not to find an offer of support for the motion put by the opposition member, but I think he should support the bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Québec, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, APEC Summit.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that earlier sign was a victory sign because I heard a lot of winning arguments by the member for Mississauga West.

We are looking at the demands of Canadians for better, more responsive and streamlined tax, customs and trade administration services. It is one of the most important reasons for Revenue Canada's move to a departmental agency status. It is a sign of the times, the times of economic expansion, the times of increased demand for tax, customs and trade services, and the times of a marked increase in new jobs since 1993 which has resulted in a marked increase in tax filers. Canada's exports are at an all time high.

In 1997 alone, actual total exports increased 8.6%. The upturn in the domestic economy stimulates imports. This will not be a fleeting trend; the volume of activities will continue to increase.

The commitment to improve client service will not change. Over the years resources at Revenue Canada have remained relatively stable during this period of economic expansion and sharp increases in business volumes.

Revenue Canada has done its very best to accommodate the new demand. As a government department Revenue Canada has to submit to across the board federal government rules and guidelines which apply to some 80 other government departments and agencies, many entirely dissimilar from the work done by Revenue Canada. These government-wide rules often fail to meet the specific needs of the unique functions the department undertakes.

Revenue Canada has exhausted its internal operating efficiencies. There are few gains that can be made through this approach. That work has been done. There is new work to be undertaken. We must forge ahead and create a new structure, a new framework that will provide opportunities and generate new efficiencies.

It is time for the proposed new Canada customs and revenue agency. It is time for this unique, Canadian model that combines the strengths of both the public and private sectors, while remaining fully accountable to parliament and the Canadian public—while remaining, proudly, in the federal public service.

In developing the Canada customs and revenue agency, Revenue Canada has been sensitive to the fact that tax, customs, and trade administration affects the lives and livelihoods of Canadians.

Revenue Canada's clients insist on better services while at the same time they must be dealt with fairly with their rights fully protected. The design of the new agency makes certain the essential checks and balances which govern its activities are in place and ensures that the accountability as presently stipulated under Revenue Canada has been maintained.

The enforcement powers of the new agency will be the same as those currently provided to Revenue Canada through such legislation as the Income Tax Act, the Customs Act and the Excise Act.

The minister will still be fully accountable to parliament and the public for the administration and enforcement of specific legislation. Revenue administration is not being devolved to anyone.

The minister will still have the authority to answer questions in this House. The minister will ensure that the agency is providing appropriate services to Canadians.

I can assure members that a taxpayer's personal information will remain confidential. It will continue to be protected under the agency just as it is currently with Revenue Canada. The authorities governing its confidentiality are clearly set out in program legislation such as the Income Tax Act and they will not, I repeat, not be changed by this bill.

Bill C-43 will permit the agency to offer new and better services to the provinces and territories. Some have said that this bill is all about harmonization. To the contrary, Mr. Speaker. Revenue Canada can already administer harmonized taxes.

What is new is that the proposed Canada customs and revenue agency will also be able to collect non-harmonized taxes for the provinces, something Revenue Canada is unable to do now.

The new agency will be able to expand the potential for single window tax collection with considerable savings for businesses and individual Canadians. Is that not what alternative service delivery is all about?

It is about greater co-ordination between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. A simplified tax administration for Canadians will reduce costly overlap and duplication between governments.

The move to agency status will also permit the adoption of a more client oriented approach. This will increase operational flexibility in the management of internal resources.

As Mr. Blair Nixon pointed out when he appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on November 24 on behalf of both the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Tax Foundation:

The move to the agency should provide more flexibility to deal with personnel issues, a fundamental aspect, we think, of the organization. That flexibility should provide a better position to the agency to hire, train and retain good personnel. The agency needs to bolster its ranks with good people in order to provide better service to taxpayers, which we understand is one of the fundamental thrusts of the agency.

The bill before the House today will allow the proposed agency to tailor its human resources and administrative functions to meet the needs of its clients—as well as those of its employees. This will mean better service—to provinces and territories, to businesses, and to Canadian taxpayers.

Doing something better is not an expansion of power but an extension of service, service to Canadians, service to businesses, and service to the provinces and territories. Better service means savings in time and money, savings in compliance costs for businesses and savings in administrative costs for governments.

The intent of Bill C-43 is to establish a framework with all the checks and balances for a superior agency, a winning proposal for government and Canadians alike.

I encourage all members in this House to support this important piece of legislation.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I just returned from the House leaders' meeting and I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following two motions:

That the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Australia and New Zealand from February 18 to March 3, 1999 to meet with parliamentarians and government officials in Canberra and Wellington, and to attend the Fifth Biennial Conference of the Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees to be held in Perth, Western Australia, from February 21 to February 23, 1999.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We will take this in two parts. Does the House give its unanimous consent to present the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do assure you and other members that all House leaders were in attendance at the meeting I just returned from. I will try with the second motion.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the necessary staff be authorized to travel to St. John's, Newfoundland, Halifax, Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Vancouver and Whitehorse from February 21, 1999 to February 26, 1999 in order to gather information on its study of a Canadian cultural policy.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Once again, we will take this in two steps to have the unanimous consent to present the motion and then to accept the motion.

Does the House give its unanimous consent to present the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal other Acts as a consequence, be read the third time and passed.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this independent customs and revenue agency will help the revenue minister to shirk doing his duty to protect taxpayers from any abuse of authority.

We know that the government is in the habit of hiding behind independent agencies to say that no, the government is not to blame for this or for that, the agencies are.

Is the establishment of an agency to carry out, for the government, basic duties like enforcing the Income Tax Act supposed to reassure taxpayers?

Does the hon. member not believe that privatizing the revenue department is just another way to appoint friends of the government to all the positions available on the agency's board of management?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the Bloc Quebecois for her comments.

This initiative does not mean we are privatizing Revenue Canada. On the contrary, there will be more accountability with this new bill. At the present time, there are five accountability measures at Revenue Canada. This bill will add three more.

Revenue Canada has legislation on taxpayers' rights, and it will be maintained with this bill. It deals with all Canadians who have tax related problems. Therefore, this bill improves the situation for Canadians.