Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow the previous speaker. The prepared text that I had has disappeared because of the many issues raised in her speech and throughout the day and I think it is necessary to debunk some of these myths.
Where is the piece in the proposed legislation which takes away the privacy conditions of the Income Tax Act? It is just not there. The sections of the Income Tax Act will be the same. They prevent people from getting personal taxpayer information.
Canada has the best revenue collection in the world. We have over 97% voluntary compliance. People sitting in the gallery and watching on TV know that every year they sit down, gather their information, calculate, self-assess, send in the information to the government and, in large part, do it correctly. They get a refund or they submit their taxes. Nobody comes pounding on the door. People in this country are responsible. It is the responsible citizens of this country who will be best served by this piece of legislation.
Under this legislation we are not in a transition to some private company. Private companies do not have cabinet ministers answerable to parliament. The citizens demand accountability and citizens across this country, no matter whether they are in one province or another province across the land, are taxpayers. They pay taxes to different levels of government.
Unfortunately, these citizens have not had the best service because they have had to answer to different auditors at different levels of government, and not only individuals but businesses as well. The small businesses that drive the engine of our economy could have a provincial tax auditor come in one day, a federal auditor the next and an income tax auditor the next.
What we are talking about is the potential for better service to Canadians and the potential for new partnerships with Canadians, new partnerships between levels of government.
I would like to know if any government, any finance minister, any province has definitively slammed the door and said “We do not even want to listen to what you are talking about”.
The finance ministers, as the minister just told us, got together and came up with guidelines on what is potentially available. There would be a range of services and options available both at the provincial and federal levels. For instance, the Atlantic region was promised a range at the time of harmonization. It is another step, another potential choice.
There has to be accountability. In the speech we talked about representation and accountability if you have representation in your population. What better method of accountability to the different levels of jurisdiction, that is, provincial, federal and territorial, than allowing those levels of government—in fact, we do work with many of them right now—to have input and to give to the federal government nominees to fill the positions on the board that will form a new body of management?
They will be approved at the federal level. That is in the bill.
It will be a new approach to public service management. Are we unique? Are we the only people in the world who have dreamed up this scheme? No.
I have had the privilege over the last couple of years of serving as the parliamentary secretary and I have worked with the men and women in this department. I am very pleased that we have a new parliamentary secretary in the department of revenue, but I still believe firmly that the employees and the public are well served.
We have looked at some of the models that are out there in the world, models such as those in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand which have similar mechanisms.
It is important to understand that some of the things we have heard today are things that would concern Canadians. They would concern me as a taxpayer if they were true.
We are debating this legislation at second reading. It will go to a committee. There will be hearings and it will come back to the House for another debate. It will go through the normal process of the House. It will go through the scrutiny and there will be further input. To pretend that there has been no process or consultation is erroneous. There has been a process.
I will spend a bit of time debunking some of the myths I have heard today and try to place before the House and the Canadian public some of what I believe are the facts.
I have heard and seen material that says the agency is being developed behind a closed door and that there have not been any public consultations. That is just not true. Revenue Canada, the Minister of National Revenue and the officials from the department have consulted on this proposal. In fact the proposal has changed over time. There have been two progress reports, one in April of 1997 and one in January of 1998, on the development of the proposal. These reports were published and distributed. Views were sought by the minister from all the people who were concerned and interested, from a wide spectrum of the public, including the provincial and territorial governments, private sector stakeholders and various members of parliament who let us know their feelings and those of their constituents.
I attended some of the meetings. I was there last summer when the minister went across the country and met with certain finance ministers, when he went to editorial boardrooms, when he appeared on TV and radio talk shows to answer questions. I was there when he spoke to different members of our own employee groups.
Maybe we have to look for further advice. There is the private sector advisory committee. It has and will continue to give advice, and we will listen.
It is also important to talk about what has gone on with our own employees and the unions involved with Revenue Canada. There have been good attempts at broad consultation with both unions and employees. The unions have been provided with all the information that has been used for the consultation purposes. They have received private briefings on the details of the proposal on an ongoing basis from the very beginning.
In the summer of 1997 the department created working groups to include employees, managers and unions to obtain suggestions, ideas and considerations in the development of a new human resources framework for the agency. More than 7,000 of our employees were heard during that particular consultation process.
In December of 1997 the deputy minister of Revenue Canada committed to a process of working with the unions and employees to develop the requirements for a new human resources regime. The union for taxation employees, the customs and excise union, Douanes et Accises, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and the Association of Public Service Financial Administrators signed a document of intent to participate in a design team process using the working group report as the starting point.
Two of these unions have subsequently withdrawn from the design team process, but the door always remains open for their participation in further development work. I think that is an important point, especially for our employees.
Five of the design teams have completed their work now and their recommendations are under review.
One of the fears I have heard, especially within the employee group, which is a very large group, is that the agency creation means job losses for Revenue Canada employees. There is the feeling that there is some hidden agenda that maybe management does not want to talk about.
Let us be clear once and for all. The agency is not about downsizing. There is no hidden agenda. It is about service. Every member of the department will be transferred to the agency.
I fail to comprehend how one organizational structure, which will become a super organizational structure, will be unequal in size. That is part of the myth.
In fact, all the work that has come to the department over the last couple of years, on a cost-recovery basis, from some of the provinces which have given us non-traditional tasks to do has actually increased the workforce because there has been more work.
The agency is clearly about improving service to clients: Canadians, businesses, the provinces. It is not about laying off employees. We want to build a new human resources framework with the full participation of employees and their unions.
It represents a new start. It is a change. People resist change. It is natural. But Revenue Canada needs change because the world is changing. That is a fact.
Imagine yourself in a global economy trying to do business with us. We have a number of provinces spread out over a large geographical area and they each have their own tax rules. They each have their own auditors. They are not the same from one province to another. It is not like dealing with one Canada, it is like dealing with different levels, different people, different systems.
There is the potential to simplify it. Are we forcing it? Absolutely not. Is this another way to get at harmonization through the back door? Absolutely not. However, it will allow us to collect non-harmonized taxes, something we could not do before for the provinces.
That option will not be forced on anybody and not on any level of government. It will be a choice. Are there user fees? Not in any section of the legislation I have read, and I have read every section.
Is cost recovery available if a province uses some of our systems? Certainly. Cost recovery is not a user fee. They are two different things.
Let us think about some of the other myths I have heard today.
This will benefit management at the expense of the employees. I do not think so. In fact I know that is not true.
This is enabling legislation and it represents a significant improvement over the current framework for both employees and management at Revenue Canada. Management I hope will benefit by having a system that is much easier to manage.
For instance, the staffing, the classification and the administrative systems being developed will be more responsive. They will concentrate less on process and more on results.
The system will also benefit employees in a number of ways. There will be direct negotiations between agency management and the unions which will lead to in-house solutions, inside the revenue agency, designed by persons who understand the agency's business and are committed to the agency's success.
What is wrong with that? A simplified classification system, a group structure for the agency would respond and in fact give a focus to the employees' suggestions for broader jobs and career opportunities for employees.
It is very difficult time-wise to get a person sitting in the department doing one job that really does not need doing any more over to this job that desperately needs doing because of the maze that we have to go through.
We have qualified people who want more opportunity and it takes us far too long to put them in the positions to do the jobs they want to do and which we need doing. A more streamlined classification and staffing system would result in employees being placed in jobs faster. We believe this.
A new approach to recourse would focus on alternate dispute resolution mechanisms such as fact finding and mediation, yet incorporate access to independent third party review. The possibility of additional provincial workloads would mean increased stability of employment.
With the agency, the big winner is always the person most important to the government, the Canadian public. Canadians will benefit when any process is more efficient, responsive and accountable, whether it is customs administration or revenue administration. That is the goal.
There are some that have argued today in this House that the agency will reduce accountability to the public we serve in this parliament where we sit today. In fact, the full ministerial accountability for program legislation and overall government control of the agency has to be maintained and will be maintained. The federal government will remain firmly in control.
Furthermore, there will be no change in the ability of the members who sit in this House, the federal members of parliament who are accountable to their constituents when they come to them with problems. There will be access in exactly the same manner that we have today. With the consent of the individual constituent, the member can deal with the problem for the people the member represents. That is far different than open. Consent forms are needed. Nobody in Revenue Canada is going to give the member one iota of information unless the member has the full and informed consent of the constituent.
The Minister of National Revenue will retain all current authorities he has under the act. There are multiple references to different authorities under the various acts that he administers, whether it is the Customs Act, the Income Tax Act, or many others.
The broader interest of the cabinet will continue to be fully protected. The bill provides that Treasury Board must approve the agency's corporate business plan, including its strategies regarding human resources. The minister will also have the authority to direct the agency on matters that are within the management authority of the board and that affect public policy or could materially affect public finances.
So where is this idea of privatization? It certainly does not go hand in hand with what I have just stated. It cannot.
The minister will have the ability to investigate any matter brought to his or her attention. Furthermore, the minister will continue to be responsible for providing answers to those MPs who make queries on behalf of their constituents.
Where is the personal privacy issue being jeopardized? Personal privacy will not, should not, and will never be privatized knowingly. Accidents are possible, but accidents are rare and they are not intentional. The law of Canada has the fundamental principle that the taxpayer information of Canadians is sacrosanct. It is private. It is not communicated. The barriers are there.
We have rules governing confidentiality of information. We have rules governing access of private information. We have rules governing fairness. We have the declaration of taxpayers' rights and that will apply the day after the legislation is passed, as it does today.
The enforcement powers will not change through the creation of the agency. These powers are limited by the authority given in the tax and customs legislation. The opposition likes to use the new label of super agency, but that does not give it new super powers. The powers that are there and the definite checks and balances in the system will remain.
The system is in its evolution. We have a framework on which we can build. We have a system that may in time create a less complex environment. We have a system that we believe will be better for our own employees and will give them the challenges and rewards they deserve.
It is not easy to be an employee in this department. Nobody ever comes to an employee of Revenue Canada because they have a good news story to tell. It is because people need help and we try to help.
