House of Commons Hansard #168 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agency.

Topics

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I understood well. The member said the minister will still be accountable for tax legislation to his peers in the House, that he will still be required to answer any questions parliamentarians will want to ask.

If the minister is still responsible and has to answer the questions, what is the use of changing the law?

Is it to harmonize federal and provincial tax laws? There is no need to estaablish a superagency to do that. It can be done with the provinces, as shown by the harmonization of the GST and the PST in Quebec.

I do not know if that is what they want to do. But what is behind all this—and I would like the member to confirm this if he can—is that the minister will no longer be the employer of the tax collectors who now work for Revenue Canada and collection agencies. The bill says that the agency will be their employer. Will the minister end up with his chauffeur as his sole employee? Is that what it means? Do we still need to have a minister in that case?

Is the government looking to save money at the expense of public servants? It seems to me that this is an anti-union bill. The government is cutting the federal public service by 20%.

Is that the purpose of this bill? If the member has not understood, he can tell us and then again ask the minister the question.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

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

I think the member opposite has missed the intent of the new agency. If I might say, it is the typical paranoia from the Bloc Quebecois. It is always a plot to look at harmonizing Quebec taxes.

As my colleague from Mississauga West pointed out earlier, the Quebec government already has its own unique or separate income tax system.

What this new agency will do is it will provide more flexibility. It will eliminate redundancy, overlap and duplication. It will be one-stop shopping for businesses. It will provide efficiencies for government. The bill is about achieving certain economies and efficiencies for the benefit of all Canadians.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

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 Australian from February 21 to 23, 1999.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Does the deputy government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

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

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:40 p.m.

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 ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Angela Vautour NDP Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting to listen to the members who spoke on Bill C-43, especially the government members. It is quite clear they are avoiding telling the truth.

I am a former member of the Public Service Alliance. I worked for Parks Canada, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Human Resources Development. I am well aware of the gimmicks the government uses to get rid of a large number of public servants.

It was announced 45,000 to 55,000 jobs were going to be cut across the country. Services will go with the jobs. The government has found a way to eliminate 40,000 jobs. It has decided to establish a new agency. By so doing it will also break the unions. I suggest it is going to have a very difficult time getting rid of these 40,000 employees because Revenue Canada unionized workers are very well organized.

And they are not pleased. I met with their union representatives. They do not want this agency. They are tired of the insecurity. The purpose of the agency is once again to create insecurity among workers, who do not know whether or not they will have a job two to three years down the road.

The member opposite talked earlier about ASD, alternate service delivery, and he painted a very rosy picture. But what ASD is all about is clearly cutting salaries, benefits, and eventually laying off people. This is not complicated. We already saw this with Parks Canada, which is going to become an agency; workers are worried because they do not know where they will be two years from now, whether or not they will have a job, and what kind of salary they will get.

Park visitors can see they are worried because the new policy is to make a profit at any cost. The same will happen with the Canada customs and revenue agency. They say they will be collecting provincial and municipal taxes, and that it will be more efficient that way. But the hon. member did not tell us how many jobs will be cut.

Back home, in Bouctouche, the employment centre has been closed. In the Department of Human Resources Development alone, 5,000 jobs have been cut. Because of that, some employment centres and their services have disappeared. People have to travel to Richibucto, Shediac, or Moncton. Many do not go there, because a large number of them cannot afford it. So they have to do without those services.

That is what happens with those agencies and the decisions the Liberal government makes. They never stop slashing and cutting. And then they brag about their job creation record. However, they should not forget to tell us new jobs are part time jobs, low wage jobs without benefits, that make families even poorer.

Recently, the UN stated the same thing we have been saying for years. The Liberal government tells us these findings are based on the statistics for 1995. In that case, we would not like to see the statistics for 1998, because they are even worse. Canadians will not buy the argument that the statistics the UN analysed are for 1995.

How many people qualify for EI benefits today, compared to 1995? How many more children live in poverty, compared to 1995? I would be ashamed to say these are the figures for 1995. They would be better off say they are the figures for 1998. One wonders sometimes who is advising those members.

I am here today to say that we know the truth. We know that people are living in poverty. We organised a nice dinner for children who will not have any Christmas, as was already mentioned in the House. Why? Because these children are poor. We have to help them, we have to share our wealth. It is too bad that there are not more members on the government side who feel like sharing their wealth. But they only feel for banks and millionaires.

When the government talks about cutting taxes, it does not mean that poor people will pay less. No, no. Millionaires will benefit and the gap between rich and poor will grow even larger.

And then the Minister of Finance gets up and brags about doing this and that. Yet, this same government refuses to come to New Brunswick and look at the situation it created with its cuts and its new rules, regulations and legislation. The Minister of Human Resources Development fears New Brunswick more than the devil fears holy water, as we say in our neck of the woods. He does not even come close to New Brunswick, because he does not want to face what he has created. The Prime Minister who, at one time, was elected in my riding no longer has the courage to come and visit us.

The day will come when they have to face the music, because, as members know, chickens always come home to roost. If the government will not answer questions here, it will have to answer them some day.

Let us talk about the 40,000 employees who feel insecure today. Let us talk about the centralization of authority. Let us talk about the jobs we are going to lose. We do not hear anything on that score. Those who do lose their jobs, what will they find? Part time jobs, insecure jobs, jobs that will leave them even poorer than they were? This is the mandate of the Liberal governement.

We talk about taxes, we even hear members of the Progressive Conservative Party say that we ought to lower taxes. But who introduced the GST? Earlier, a Liberal member said that the opposition was there to criticize. Yet, I remember the Liberal Party promised to abolish the GST.

What happened in New Brunswick? We got a 15% tax on everything. We got a tax increase on electricity, heating and children's clothing. We do not need an agency to collect these taxes because it is already being done in New Brunswick. If they use this as an excuse, it will not wash, because taxes are already being collected. We already pay a 15% tax. It is true that we got rid of the GST, but what we got in return is even worse. Frank McKenna was very happy to have done it. I think he got a little bonus at the time.

When an agency is set up, we have to look at the facts. This is just another way to reduce job security. It is just another way to cut jobs and again, it is always the same people who are caught in the middle, those who work all year around, the middle income earners, who end up getting poorer and poorer. Some things never change.

It is no different when we talk about lowering taxes. The EI premiums were reduced by 15 cents for every $100. I found that so ridiculous. Opposition parties felt the premiums should have been reduced even further. Today, the Reform Party told the House that employees could have saved about $300 a year. Yes, but how much money was taken from our communities because people no longer get their employment insurance cheque? Is this so hard to understand?

I am not an economist or a mathematician, but the government took $20 billion from the New Brunswick economy because it made the system too complicated for people to receive employment insurance benefits. Is this not cutting into the economy? Is this not causing problems? Is this not causing problems for our small and medium size businesses?

There is no longer any money in circulation. Thousands of people received employment insurance cheques and put all that money into their community. The money of the unemployed was not going into RRSPs; they need it to live on.

Some members of parliament are saying that premiums have not been reduced enough. So now, there will be other reasons to cut benefits once again. The government will say that its surplus is not sufficient and will make cuts once again on the back of the little slave who needs his meagre cheque.

Who benefited from the 15 cent reduction on each $100 of insurable income? It is the large companies that have thousands of employees. It is not the small company that has four or five employees, or only one, or the self-employed who does not pay any premiums at all. This does not help the small employer.

Sometimes I wonder how people can go to bed at night and sleep, when we think about the billions of dollars that were taken from the economy. Almost one billion dollars was taken from the New Brunswick economy alone. The finance minister always harps on the $1.7 billion he has given back to poor families.

The government has made nearly one billion dollars worth of cuts in New Brunswick alone, and it brags about giving back $1,7 billion for the whole country. I know my maths. Believe me, it has taken away a lot more than it has given back. There is no doubt about that.

Members should look at what is going on in the hospitals. They should come and see the waiting lists in New Brunswick. I am beginning to think that the situation is not the same in all the provinces. When I go to the doctor here, in Ottawa, I am out of the clinic within 45 minutes. And I want the people who are listening to know that these are not special clinics for MPs. In and out in 45 minutes.

Try to get the same kind of service in New Brunswick. It is just impossible. We do not have the same level of service. We cannot see a doctor in less than 45 minutes in New Brunswick. I am beginning to wonder if we really do have the same level of service. Maybe there are more complaints coming from Atlantic Canada, but the fact is we have been neglected. And it is still going on. The more Liberal governments we have in Atlantic Canada, the worse it is for these provinces.

There is also the issue of pay equity. The Department of National Revenue has 40,000 employees. How many of them have been denied pay equity?

The United Nations said it. A woman from the Philippines said she would never see the day when she would criticize Canada.

We are supposed to be a model country. We were, but we no longer are, with the number of calls we receive in our offices from people who are in utterly hopeless situations. There is Albert County; the Minister of Human Resources Development refuses to recognize that some people have to drive one hour to the employment centre in Moncton to try to find a job, in vain. To qualify for employment insurance, they need the same number of hours as someone living in Moncton.

This is unacceptable. The minister is denying these people the right to qualify for employment insurance; he is denying them months of EI benefits. Why? Because he has the authority and can do what he wants. The fact that people are destitute is of no concern to him.

And now we have our infamous toll highway. Some people will have to pay $14 to go to their doctor or the hospital. How many people are going to go without care because they cannot afford the $14? The government will say they can travel on the other road, the unsafe one. It is indeed because the alternate route is not safe that this highway had to be built. However, if you are poor, if you cannot afford it, take a chance. Take the other road. This is unconscionable in a country that is supposed to be the best in the world. If I recall, we came in 10th not long ago.

The same applies to post-secondary education.

It is exactly the same thing with Bill C-43. The government says it is a good thing. We have heard that one before. Everything is good. It is good for a very small group of millionaires. Everything is good for them.

When the finance minister goes out for dinner, he does not go to the food bank. He goes out with his banker pals. They pat him on the shoulder, telling him “Keep up the good work. We are doing fine”.

Food drives are being organized because Christmas is around the corner and people have nothing to eat. Children will have no Christmas presents. Members have the nerve to criticize while I am talking. They should repeat what they are saying to the people who line up at the food banks every day to eat. This is the fastest growing industry in Canada.

They are critical because they refuse to see there is a problem in this country. That way, they can go to bed and sleep at night. They are denying reality, but reality will catch up with them one day. It is breathing down their necks.

I will conclude by saying that Bill C-43 is another attempt to destroy security, break unions and get rid of good salaries. Canadians have to realize that service are also on the way out. Once the employees are gone, so is the service.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Reform

Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to rise and ask the member a question.

The question is: What does she think of the process of time allocation being invoked on a bill like this? This is one of those anti-democratic actions to which I believe the NDP is opposed. Would the member make a comment on what she thinks of the process in relation to this bill?

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Angela Vautour NDP Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill and I think we should have all the time that is needed to make sure, or maybe I should say more time to try to convince the government that this is a lot of crap, I guess.

Being a new member, I have seen government members being able to cut things short when something is not suitable to them. Certainly this is a very important bill and I think we should have decent time to debate it.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Before we take any more questions and comments, I cannot let that one slide by either. We are going to find new adjectives that are more presentable in the House. It is just not appropriate.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC

Mr. Speaker, I shall try to leave a little time for my Reform Party colleague, for questions and comments. Since the debate is to end by 5.15 p.m., I have less than 15 minutes left.

I would like to recap the situation with Bill C-43, giving the Bloc Quebecois view of it in four points.

First, we feel that this bill is a form of abdication of political power. Even if the other side of the floor is telling us that the minister will still be accountable, that is not the impression we get from reading the bill.

The second point in the powerlessness of the Minister of National Revenue. I have always thought of him as a nice guy, but I cannot understand how a minister with 20% of the public service under him would want to find himself, the day after this bill passes, with possibly only his chauffeur still working for him. I wonder how appropriate it is to still have a minister responsible for this.

What I see as equally serious, given the size of the public service, and this is the third point the Bloc Quebecois wishes to bring to the attention of this House, is that establishment of this new agency appears to be anti-union. They are trying to do away with 20% of the Canadian public service. That is not peanuts.

The fourth point is that this bill smacks of centralization. Not only does the government have trouble keeping its hands in its own business, it would like, with the agency, to look after everything to do with taxes. It would like to offer its services to the provinces. It would even like to offer its services to municipalities. If this is not centralization, I would ask the other side of the House to give me another term for it, one that is acceptable, of course.

With the four points I have just raised, if it is true that this is an abdication of political power or if it is not true, in other words if the government will in fact continue to be responsible under the Income Tax Act, and accountable to the House for responding to questions on the Act, what is the point of establishing this agency?

We will always question the fact that with the federal government, primarily when government seats are occupied by Liberal Party members, the word “modernize” often rhymes with “privatize”. Where is the government going with this?

Since the Liberals' election in 1993, they have privatized the railways, tried to privatize the ports and there are even privatization agreements for the airports. Canada Post Corporation, which is no longer a government department as such, was established earlier.

Is the government sending the message that Canada is being put up for sale piece by piece, that there will just be a group of subcontractors from whom Canadian taxpayers will have to get public services and pay for them? The user pay principle is being hammered home with the imposition of new rates by the coast guard.

If the government insists on a user pay system, it should allow all Canadian taxpayers to pool their collective interests and to start calling for bids themselves. They could draft the bids and manage their own affairs. Is this where Canada is headed?

The other thing that concerns us with this way of doing things is that the agency will privatize its operations and will let go 20% of the public servants who are currently working for Revenue Canada. Clauses 15, 22 and 25 of the bill, which deal with the appointment of the directors of that future agency, are of particular concern to me.

It is provided that 15 directors will be appointed, including a chairperson and a commissioner. These people will be appointed by the government, which will have a great opportunity to reward friends that did not get elected, or that have been waiting to be compensated for past services. This is worrisome.

What is also worrisome is that these appointees will have the authority to determine their own salary. Some members opposite may object that this is not true, that I should just read the clauses carefully. I will do just that. Clause 30(1) provides, and I quote:

30.(1) The Agency has authority over all matters relating to

(a) general administrative policy in the Agency;

(b) the organization of the Agency;

(c) Agency real property as defined in Section 73; and

(d) personnel management, including the determination of the terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the Agency.

Are savings going to be made at the expense of frontline workers, for the benefit of senior managers, who will be appointed by government people? This is very worrisome.

When it says they have the authority to determine their conditions of employment, will the future chair or future senior officers want to compare themselves, in terms of salary or funds for which they are responsible, to bank presidents? Without naming any names, this is several times what members here make.

I have no objection to people in a capitalist system making money, and the structure is such that they are accountable to their shareholders. In this case, however, I fail to see how they can be accountable to these shareholders, the people of Canada.

Usually, it is elected officials who are responsible for how they manage things. But here we have a superminister sharing his management authority with a team of 15 friends of the party. That will be fun. Who will be answerable to Canadians as shareholders?

Even more amusing are clauses 47 and 49, which provide that the agency's business plans must be submitted to the Treasury Board for approval and that the minister must table a summary of the plan in each House of Parliament in the first fifteen days after it is approved.

There will be only 15 days in which to do a post-mortem of the megaprojects and megastructures to which the members across the way have accustomed us. They are very good at cover-ups. As we have seen in recent budgets, they are also very good at making cuts that only kick in somewhere down the line. Is that what we can expect? I have some serious questions about transparency and accountability for actions further down the road.

I will digress, if I may. I come from a seaside riding. While the government wants to part with 20% of its employees—and is willing to give up all related powers—I find it somewhat shocking to see the Minister of Canadian Heritage come to the rescue of rich sports people these past few weeks. She sponsored a bill on the establishment of marine conservation areas. On the one hand, the government wants to take apart a department or get rid of civil servants. On the other hand, through the establishment of marine conservation areas, a field the minister does not know the first thing about, it wants to infringe on an area of provincial jurisdiction. To compound the problem, these marine conservation areas will have to have on-shore facilities. But who lives by the sea? Fishers and plant workers.

Last June, the government opposite sneaked in a final proposal washing its hands of the crisis in the fisheries. The whole mess is no longer its problem. Now I wonder who is going to stand up for fishers and plant workers.

On the one hand, it tries to get rid of 20% of its public servants. On the other, it got rid of 40,000 fishers and plant workers and wants to establish marine conservation areas. I cannot for the life of me understand the government's management style nor its policy thrusts. It blows all over the place. It twists and turns. Nobody will be able to understand it any more. Worse yet, no one across the way will be able to answer our questions.

I wonder about the appropriateness of this bill at a time when, as my colleague from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac said earlier, OECD statistics show that, far from diminishing, the number of poor children is on the rise. The government would have us believe that the elimination of 20% of jobs in the public service will somehow result in fewer poor in this country.

I am quite willing to believe—

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Hamilton West, on a point of order.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

December 8th, 1998 / 5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the remarks of the hon. member my colleague in the House, but we hope to take care of a little business before you call us to a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That, when the House begins proceedings under Private Members' Business later this day, and for the duration of the debates on C-316 and M-300 today, no quorum calls nor dilatory motions shall be entertained by the Speaker.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Hamilton West has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion. Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Does the House give its unanimous consent to accept the motion presented by the hon. member for Hamilton West?

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

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 ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, December 3, 1998, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.