It does not seem so; it is a fact.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 54% of the vote.
Division No. 298 December 3rd, 1998
It does not seem so; it is a fact.
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act December 2nd, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 27.
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 33.
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 35.
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 37.
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 38.
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 39.
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 40.
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 41.
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 42.
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 43.
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 45.
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 47.
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 48.
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 49.
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 51.
Motion No. 62
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 52.
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 53.
Motion No. 66
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 55.
Motion No. 67
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 56.
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 57.
Motion No. 69
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 58.
Motion No. 70
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 59.
Motion No. 73
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 61.
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 62.
Motion No. 75
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 63.
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 64.
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 65.
Motion No. 78
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 66.
Motion No. 79
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 67.
Motion No. 80
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 68.
Motion No. 81
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 69.
Motion No. 82
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 70.
Motion No. 83
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 71.
Motion No. 84
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 72.
Motion No. 85
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 73.
Motion No. 86
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 74.
Motion No. 87
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 75.
Motion No. 88
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 76.
Motion No. 89
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 77.
Motion No. 90
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 78.
Motion No. 91
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 79.
Motion No. 92
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 80.
Motion No. 93
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 81.
Motion No. 94
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 82.
Motion No. 95
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 83.
Motion No. 96
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 84.
Motion No. 97
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 85.
Motion No. 98
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 86.
Motion No. 99
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 87.
Motion No. 104
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 89.1.
Motion No. 105
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 90.
Motion No. 108
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 92.
Motion No. 109
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 93.
Motion No. 110
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 94.
Motion No. 111
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 95.
Motion No. 112
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 96.
Motion No. 113
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 97.
Motion No. 114
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 98.
Motion No. 115
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 99.
Motion No. 116
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 100.
Motion No. 117
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 101.
Motion No. 118
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 102.
Motion No. 119
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 103.
Motion No. 120
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 104.
Motion No. 121
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 105.
Motion No. 122
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 106.
Motion No. 123
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 107.
Motion No. 124
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 108.
Motion No. 125
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 109.
Motion No. 126
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 110.
Motion No. 127
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 111.
Motion No. 128
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 112.
Motion No. 129
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 113.
Motion No. 130
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 114.
Motion No. 131
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 115.
Motion No. 132
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 116.
Motion No. 133
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 117.
Motion No. 134
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 118.
Motion No. 135
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 119.
Motion No. 136
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 120.
Motion No. 137
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 121.
Motion No. 138
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 122.
Motion No. 139
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 123.
Motion No. 140
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 124.
Motion No. 141
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 125.
Motion No. 142
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 126.
Motion No. 143
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 127.
Motion No. 144
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 128.
Motion No. 145
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 129.
Motion No. 146
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 130.
Motion No. 147
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 131.
Motion No. 148
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 132.
Motion No. 149
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 133.
Motion No. 150
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 134.
Motion No. 151
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 135.
Motion No. 152
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 136.
Motion No. 153
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 137.
Motion No. 154
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 138.
Motion No. 155
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 139.
Motion No. 156
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 140.
Motion No. 157
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 141.
Motion No. 158
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 142.
Motion No. 159
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 143.
Motion No. 160
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 144.
Motion No. 161
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 145.
Motion No. 162
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 146.
Motion No. 163
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 147.
Motion No. 164
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 148.
Motion No. 165
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 149.
Motion No. 166
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 150.
Motion No. 167
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 151.
Motion No. 168
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 152.
Motion No. 169
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 153.
Motion No. 170
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 154.
Motion No. 171
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 155.
Motion No. 172
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 156.
Motion No. 173
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 157.
Motion No. 174
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 158.
Motion No. 175
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 159.
Motion No. 176
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 160.
Motion No. 177
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 161.
Motion No. 178
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 162.
Motion No. 179
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 163.
Motion No. 180
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 164.
Motion No. 181
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 165.
Motion No. 182
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 166.
Motion No. 183
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 167.
Motion No. 184
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 168.
Motion No. 185
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 169.
Motion No. 186
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 170.
Motion No. 187
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 171.
Motion No. 188
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 172.
Motion No. 189
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 173.
Motion No. 190
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 174.
Motion No. 191
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 175.
Motion No. 192
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 176.
Motion No. 193
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 177.
Motion No. 194
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 178.
Motion No. 195
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 179.
Motion No. 196
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 180.
Motion No. 197
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 181.
Motion No. 198
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 182.
Motion No. 199
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 183.
Motion No. 200
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 184.
Motion No. 201
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 185.
Motion No. 202
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 185.1.
Motion No. 203
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 186.
Motion No. 204
That Bill C-43 be amended by deleting Clause 187.
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members are opposed to this bill which is, in our opinion, simply an aberration. It ought not to exist.
What has led the government across the way to want to create one agency after another? Since when have politicians been afraid to act and preferred to have outside agencies make the decisions? Judging by a number of past experiences, these agencies have not been a great success.
Here are a few examples. The food and drug inspection agency, which I do not think is very efficient, and the wheat board as well. Nav Canada, which controls airports instead of the Department of Transport, makes dictatorial decisions, closes control towers without consulting those concerned, putting the flying public at risk. Despite its promises to keep jobs, this agency has quite simply got rid of more than 30% of its employees in the past 18 months alone.
Let us take another example of a government-created agency, Aéroports de Montréal. The purpose of ADM was to promote the Dorval and Mirabel airports, what did it do instead? Quite simply, it destroyed Mirabel by transferring all international flights to Dorval, by fiddling with reports by experts who stated that such a transfer was not the best thing, the status quo was. I am not the one who said reports had been fiddled with. This was the view expressed by Mr. Justice Viau in a decision slamming ADM for its handling of reports.
The Minister of Revenue seems to be more interested in promoting Vancouver and Whistler for the 2010 Olympics than in doing his job, which is to consult people affected by the creation of this agency. The minister is trying to convince us that he has consulted just about everyone and seems to be saying that everyone shares his view. However, no provinces have signed any memorandums of understanding or wanted to have anything to do with the agency. As things now stand, the minister is all alone.
The minister dares to say that the government has created a new tax collection vehicle. Instead of paying experts, engineers, to design this new vehicle, which is really nothing more than a Liberal monster, the minister should have put all this money into promoting and restructuring his own Department of Revenue. The majority of Canadians are beginning to have more confidence in the existing Department of Revenue.
The minister wants to create an additional structure that will cost millions of dollars and that will have friends of the government as its commissioners and members. All this does is increase the number of officials in the system.
However, Department of Revenue employee representatives claim that this new agency will means thousands of lay-offs, close to 40,000 across Canada.
Instead of spending money on this agency, the minister should hire some decent professionals and he should hire enough of them so that taxes can be collected properly. A program on the CBC in the spring revealed that, in Toronto, there is a shortage of between 500 and 1,500 tax collectors at the department of revenue. This shortage of professionals cost between $500 million and $1 billion annually. This is not acceptable.
Creating a customs and revenue agency is totally unacceptable. At the moment we are receiving a lot of complaints and letters in our ridings from customs agents fearing for their jobs and threatened with the loss of their job because of this new agency. Everyone is on edge; everyone is afraid of this new monster.
The minister of revenue, instead of wasting his time promoting Vancouver and Whistler for the 2010 Olympic Games, should come back, do his job, really look at the problems and improve the revenue system.
We have no objection to a single window for collecting taxes, but it should be under the control of the individual provincial departments of revenue. Quebec can handle collecting provincial, federal, municipal and school taxes.
How can my colleagues accept this national agency collecting city tickets? It makes no sense. Can we imagine this agency collecting municipal and school taxes? It is simply ridiculous. But it is empowered to do so. It is just crazy.
I really hope that the minister will withdraw Bill C-43, which is untenable and ridiculous. We hope the minister understands common sense and that all the members of this House understand it as well and ask the minister to redo his basic homework, really consult all Canadians in depth and not just simply say “I met a few people. They agree”.
Most people we heard in committee expressed their disagreement with this bill.
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1998 November 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will be as voluble as my Reform Party colleague. I did appreciate his speech.
I am pleased to speak today on Bill S-16, which was passed by the Senate on June 2. This bill will implement agreements between Canada and the two following countries: the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
The Bloc Quebecois does not oppose treaties between Canada and other countries insofar as they ensure fair and equitable tax treatment for persons and encourage trade and investment between countries. I would mention that the term “person” includes physical persons, corporations, trusts and all other groups of persons.
Since the tax rate in the countries concerned in this bill is similar to Canada's, I will not oppose the bill. However, I do want to take the time accorded me to speak in this context of tax conventions in effect between Canada and certain other countries.
While the tax conventions do avoid double taxation of corporations and individuals, they are in many cases the source of problems, and they encourage tax evasion.
Great care must therefore be taken to ensure that these treaties do not open the door to excessive tax evasion. They must therefore be restricted to countries with tax rates comparable to Canada's. While the tax conventions do avoid double taxation of individuals, as defined earlier, they are in some cases the source of problems, and they encourage tax evasion.
Although the most recent treaties, which take their inspiration from OECD models, are relatively standard, Canada does have some older tax conventions with countries known as tax havens because they have low or no taxes on the incomes of individuals and corporations.
Under the tax treaty between Canada and these so-called tax havens, the Canadian taxation system closes its eyes to these amounts, treating them as if they had already been taxed at a comparable rate elsewhere, and not taxing them when they are brought back into Canada. Let us bear in mind that the auditor general has raised this matter on a number of occasions since 1992. I could also point out many cases to the government, but that would be like talking to a brick wall.
There is another danger to certain tax treaties, the ability to change Canadian tax rules to suit the friends of those in power, or those in power themselves. I am referring here to Bill C-28. The Minister of Finance is in a clear conflict of interest in this case because, if the bill is passed, it will mean millions of dollars for Canada Steamship Lines, a scandalous trick discovered by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
We would remind you that all opposition parties supported the Bloc in this CSL business. The minister ought to defend the interests of the Canadian taxpayer as staunchly as he defends his own. Tax treaties and manipulation of the law cost our taxpayers billions of dollars. Those billions are lost to us, and the public suffers as a result.
What should be done instead is for a serious and responsible government to devote considerable resources to assessing, adjusting and renegotiating problematical tax treaties, particularly those with countries that represent the greatest risk to Canada as far as loss of taxation income is concerned.
What we have here is a government turning a blind eye to the potential exodus of hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid taxes. What we also have is a government that probably spends more money on a one-week visit by the Queen of England than it spends in a whole year on enforcing and improving tax conventions.
This is a serious issue because it undermines the overall integrity of our tax system. It also makes Canada look like a country where wealth means bigger loopholes. It is very troublesome. And given the billions of dollars the Minister of Finance has cut in transfers to the provinces for hospitals, schools and social assistance, honest citizens who pay their taxes to Canada want their government to at least ensure that everyone pays his fair share. It is not such a lot to ask, but it seems to be too much for this government.
In conclusion, I recognize that tax conventions have the advantage of preventing double taxation of the operating revenue of companies in two countries with branches or dependent companies in one country or the other.
Another advantage is that, in some cases, tax conventions apply to travel by Quebec and Canadian artists who perform abroad, or even to travel by those involved in sports, such as hockey players and other athletes. On the other hand, we know that tax agreements are nothing new. They have always existed and will always exist, and will even increase in numbers with globalization.
Tax agreements establish what we call reciprocal taxation, insofar as Canada's corporate tax rates and those of the countries with which Canada signed these agreements are equivalent or comparable.
In closing, I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of tax agreements signed between Canada and other countries when these treaties are aimed at ensuring fair and equitable taxation of residents and non-residents, and encouraging trade and investments between countries. But make no mistake, these treaties should not open the door to excessive tax evasion.
Employment Insurance November 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in the past two years, we already knew by this time what the employment insurance contribution rate would be for the coming year.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. When is the minister going to announce the contribution decrease for 1999?
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act October 1st, 1998
This afternoon, we heard all the members opposite including the minister of revenue, who finally joined us. They said they consulted people across Canada and that everyone supported the new agency.
However, this same minister, who is sitting in front of me, called for a report by the Public Policy Forum. This report revealed that Canadian business has serious reservations about the creation of the agency.
In the same report, 68% of businesses felt that a single agency would increase their compliance costs and would have no impact.
I would like the last government spokesperson to comment on the report on this agency.
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act October 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Reform Party colleague.
Does he think that this agency would create another level of bureaucracy that the federal government would naturally be unable to control?
And, as a supplementary, would creating a board of management as described in the bill not create positions for friends of the party? I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on this.
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act October 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague opposite said she had spoken to representatives of all provincial governments. If that is true, why can no memorandum of agreement between governments or anything of the sort be produced in the House? Our understanding is that the Government of Manitoba is the only one to think it might be worth looking into.
I would like the hon. member to comment on this and to substantiate the claim that the federal government has entered into agreements with Ontario, the maritimes, Quebec, and so on.
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act October 1st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to address Bill C-43. At the end of my speech, we will introduce an amendment to this legislation.
The Bloc Quebecois and myself are totally opposed to this bill. As you may remember, the government first announced the creation of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in the Speech from the Throne delivered in 1996.
At the time, the government had defined a number of objectives for the agency. First, to provide programs and services in a more efficient and cost-effective manner, through greater autonomy and flexibility. Second, to improve services and reduce administration and enforcement costs by working with the provinces to eliminate duplication and overlap. Third, to strengthen the effectiveness of the Canadian federation and to contribute to national unity by making the agency responsible for providing federal, provincial and even municipal services to Canadians.
Before explaining why we are totally opposed to this bill, let us take a look at each of these objectives.
Let me begin with the third one. That objective mysteriously disappeared when the second progress report was tabled, and it is obvious that the agency as proposed will not contribute to the effectiveness of the Canadian federation and to Canadian unity.
The second objective is doomed from the start, since none of the provinces has agreed to enter into any agreement with the federal government so far. The provinces are very unenthusiastic about the establishment of such an agency. Quebec, for one, is formally opposed. While not being totally against the idea of the single level of taxation referred to by my hon. colleague, the minister, Quebec feels that tax administration should be a provincial responsibility.
Ontario's opposition is even stronger than that of Quebec. In fact, the Minister of Revenue of Ontario recently stated he was considering the possibility of taking over personal income tax services. As we know, in Ontario, personal income taxes are currently collected by the federal government. The minister now wants to look after it at the provincial level.
The maritimes are very unenthusiastic because the program to harmonize the sales tax is not producing the expected results, in spite of the fact that this new approach to tax collection has cost Canadian taxpayers over $2 billion.
Also opposed are all western provinces, except Manitoba, whose premier suggested it might be worth looking into. The premier of Manitoba may be looking for a job opportunity after he leaves politics. After all, the position of agency commissioner is an attractive one with an attractive salary. The commissioner would be appointed for a term of five years, which is renewable, so that he could hold office for several years, making very good money.
In the face of this opposition, Revenue Canada's spokesperson, Michel Cléroux, explained that the provinces had not said no. That is not a very good explanation.
Returning to the first objective, which was to provide more efficient programs and services at a lesser cost. First, I do not believe the agency will produce the promised savings. Right from the start, those promoting it accepted that the greatest savings would come from harmonizing taxation. I would remind you, however, that, as we all know, extension of the harmonized sales tax flew like a lead balloon.
Another thing, the proposed agency will not require the provinces to pay for collection and processing of their taxes if the provincial programme is fully harmonized with a federal taxation program. This so-called free service represents an increase in agency costs, not a decrease.
The agency's status will also enable its executives to pay themselves salaries comparable to those of business leaders in the private sector. Will the agency commissioner, who will have responsibility for hundreds of thousands of people, and billions of dollars, demand to earn the same amount as the President of the Royal Bank? Will his annual salary be up in the millions? Those are questions that need to be asked.
Regardless of the position one adopts on this, one cannot avoid acknowledging that this is a new expenditure coming at a time when the morale of public servants who are not in executive positions is suffering seriously after a six-year freeze. It must not be lost sight of that, since April 1, the present government has awarded its executives raises of up to 19%.
The agency has already cost the taxpayer a fair bit. Thousands of departmental employees have been involved in design teams and other internal exercises aimed at turning the dream of senior management into reality. A good part of the focus of Revenue Canada has been turned away from more important and more pressing matters which the minister ought to have been looking at.
I will give you an example. You will recall a CBC program, which reported that, according to Department of National Revenue documents, over 500 of the 1,500 auditor positions in the Toronto region were vacant. This situation would mean a shortfall for the federal treasury in this region of over $500 million in 1997.
If we apply this to the rest of Canada, we estimate the loss would be over $2 billion, due to the lack of Revenue Canada auditors.
There is another point I wish to make: the agency would be less effective as a solution than the status quo. The myth surrounding the agency is that it could provide tax services more cheaply and more effectively. However, the structure proposed for the new agency adds another level of bureaucracy in the form of an appointed board of management, which would have nothing more than a supervisory role. Nevertheless, time, money and staff must be provided for the board and its staff. This would mean another level of bureaucracy.
At the same time, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency would report to Treasury Board on administrative matters, such as its activity and human resources plans.
Another point I wish to address is that this agency would seriously weaken the Department of National Revenue. By removing the agency from the direct supervision of the minister's office, the bill would seriously weaken the Department of National Revenue's bureaucracy. The minister would receive a corporate business plan from the agency in which he would have a very small hand, or none at all, making it practically a fait accompli. The minister would be told what to do.
Fourth, the agency would upset the balance between tax policy and tax collection. There is, at the present time, a healthy balance between the structure and tax policy, which should be left up to the department and the Minister of Finance, and enforcement of this policy, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue and his department, the Department of National Revenue.
The agency's status would upset this balance. The agency's bureaucrats would inevitably launch into a turf war with their Department of Finance counterparts. This would be a costly and unproductive exercise that would serve the interests of no one but the mandarins.
Fifth, the agency would open the door to bureaucratic patronage and the abuse of power. In practice, the agency would have carte blanche with respect to contracts, and with respect to the management of property, materiel and information, as well as technology. With limited outside oversight, the risk of favouritism and abuse of power by bureaucrats is very, very high.
Sixth, the agency would pose a threat to taxpayers' privacy. My colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, mentioned this yesterday in a question having to do with the report tabled by the auditor general. If the agency were actually to achieve its objectives, personal information would be concentrated in a large organization not overseen directly by Parliament.
Moreover, internal departmental documents indicate that creation of a “big brother” raises reservations among some of those involved with privacy issues. We share those concerns.
What do the experts and the business sector think of this agency? Nothing good. In his report of December 1997, the auditor general voiced concerns about the responsibility of the proposed agency by asking “What assurance will the people of Canada and parliamentarians have that the public interest is protected?”. I share Mr. Desautels' concerns.
As well, a Public Policy Forum, or PPF, study commissioned by Revenue Canada reported that Canadian business had serious reservations about the creation of this agency.
The PPF report referred to the agency's objective of rationalizing and simplifying tax collection. However, 40% of the businesses the foundation surveyed saw no advantage to a new national collection agency and over 68% felt that such an agency would add to their compliance costs, or have no effect whatsoever.
As we have seen, then, the promise of a single tax collection agency did nothing to bring about the harmonization of taxes in all provinces. If this harmonization did take place in the three Atlantic provinces, that is because they were paid $2 billion while Revenue Canada was a department, and not an agency.
A serious question arises: how many billions will the provinces have to be paid to gain their participation in this project?
Continuing with outside commentaries, I quote a Canadian Press article by Bruce Cheadle, which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on February 9, 1998, stating that some observers see the agency as a pretext for getting rid of employees or increasing executives' salaries, or both.
Professor Vern Krishna, head of the CGA Tax Research Centre at the University of Ottawa, is quoted as having said: “—what are the advantages? Mainly, a little less direct control by government, and in particular a little more leeway with employee salaries—This is not as fabulous a concept as they would have the public believe”.
An associate with the Montreal firm of Raymond, Chabot, Martin, Paré & Associates—or RCMP, as it is known in Quebec—said that the “creation of the customs and revenue agency would, in every respect, amount to an abdication of political power”. That comment was made in the March 1998 issue of CA Magazine. It was not made three years ago, but in March of this year.
One has to wonder. Why has the government developed this bad and even compulsive habit of creating agencies? This is, as the spokesperson for RCMP pointed out, an abdication of political power. We have a number of examples of that pattern. The new Canadian wheat agency just started its operations and people are already bickering. Nothing works.
And let us not forget Nav Canada, which cost millions of dollars. Remember what happened. Nav Canada said that all its employees would keep their jobs for at least two years. Now, 30% of the employees who were guaranteed a job for two years will actually lose their job after just 18 months. Will these job cuts jeopardize the safety of airline personnel? That is one concern we have regarding Nav Canada. Is this yet another meaningless commitment made by the government?
Another example that really fires me up is ADM, the Agence des aéroports de Montréal. Remember the mess in which the agency found itself in February 1997, when it decided to transfer international flights from Mirabel to Dorval. That decision was made unilaterally by dictators, without any regard for what people thought. A year and a half later, it is still a mess and nothing works.
Bloc Quebecois members put questions to the Minister of Transport regarding ADM, but he told us he could not do anything, that the agency had total control.
Since when do these agencies have the authority to spend taxpayers' money without having to answer to anyone? It is highly improper.
In conclusion, I think that the government finds the present human resources system to be in need of improvement. Rather than make changes to Revenue Canada's present system, it prefers to create a completely new external body.
In the face of this admission, we can also conclude that the government feels that federal employees are being paid at rates well below those of the private sector. Rather than raising the pay scale for all present positions, the government prefers to create a structure within which it will be easy to pay salaries that will attract and keep excellent employees.
The following question then arises: Can two people performing the same duties, or doing the same type of job, one employed by the agency and the other employed by a department, be paid at different rates? That is what I am asking.
In closing, I would like to move an amendment to the motion for seconding reading of the bill.
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ”That” and substituting the following:
”Bill C-43, An Act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal other Acts as a consequence be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.”
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1998 September 24th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill S-16, passed by the Senate on June 2, 1998.
The purpose of Bill S-16 is to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and Croatia, and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
As my Bloc Quebecois colleague mentioned, our party will not oppose the tax conventions signed between Canada and the three countries I have just named, in so far as the purpose of these agreements is to ensure fair and equitable tax treatment of persons, and to encourage trade and investments between the countries. I would point out that the term “person” includes private individuals, corporations, trusts and any other group of individuals.
Since the countries concerned in this bill have a rate of taxation that is almost the same as Canada's, I will not speak against the bill. But, while we are on the topic, I would like to use the time I have to speak about tax conventions in force between Canada and certain countries.
Although tax conventions avoid double taxation, they are in many cases a source of problems and tax evasion. Care must therefor be taken that these treaties do not open the door to tax evasion. To that end, tax conventions must be limited to countries with a tax rate comparable to Canada's.
If the tax conventions avoid double taxation on people's incomes, in certain cases they are a source of problems and encourage serious tax evasion. Although the most recent treaties, which are based the OECD model, are relatively standard, Canada does have some older ones with countries considered tax havens because their individual and corporate tax rates are low, or non-existent.
In this connection, let us keep in mind that the Auditor General of Canada has raised this matter on more than one occasion. I would like to quote to you what he wrote in his 1992 report.
A Netherlands Antilles subsidiary of a Canadian company had assets of $865 million and income of $92 million not subject to the FAPI rules.
Although the income of the foreign subsidiary has not been taxed at a rate that approximates Canadian rates, it can be transferred to the Canadian parent as tax-free dividends.
The auditor continues:
The offshore income is not taxed on entering Canada, but it carries with it federal and provincial tax credits on dividends paid out to Canadian shareholders.
And he concluded:
The Canadian parent incurred the financing costs for its investment in the subsidiary and reported a tax loss in Canada of $29 million.
This is shameful. I could talk about many other similar instances, in the case of the government, but it would fall on deaf ears.
There is another danger in certain tax treaties, namely that of being able to change tax rules in favour of friends of the government or in favour of people in the government. I am referring here to Bill C-28. Members will recall that the Minister of Finance is both judge and jury in this bill and that, should this bill become law, it will bring millions of dollars to his company, Canada Steamship Lines.
That outrageous stunt was discovered by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Members will also recall that all opposition parties supported the Bloc in this matter.
The Minister of Finance should protect the interests of Canadian taxpayers the same way he protects his own interests.
Tax treaties and the manipulation of legislation cost billions of dollars to taxpayers. These are billions of dollars in tax revenues that are lost to the detriment of Canadians.
Any serious and responsible government, however, would spend a lot of resources to assess, adjust and renegotiate the tax treaties that cause problems, especially those most likely to cost Canada a lot of tax money.
But guess how many public servants in the finance department are working on these tax treaties: 100, 25, 12? No, in fact, the finance department has only one employee working on tax treaties, but fortunately, he works full time.
We do not question the competence and seriousness of this public servant. Our only regret is that, in Canada, we only have one public servant to oversee some 60 tax treaties and work on 30 more to come, when there are hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, at stake.
What we have here is a government turning a blind eye to the potential exodus of hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid taxes.
This is a very serious issue because it undermines the overall integrity of our tax system. With all these holes in our system, Canada's reputation is also tarnished. It is very troublesome.
Given the billions of dollars the Minister of Finance has cut in transfers to the provinces for hospitals, schools and social assistance, the honest citizens of our country, who pay their taxes to Ottawa, want their government to at least ensure that everyone pays his fair share.
One good thing is that, in some cases, tax conventions apply to our performers and all Canadian and Quebec artists who perform abroad, even our athletes, like our hockey players and all the others who are earning a living abroad.
On the other hand, we know that tax agreements are nothing new. They have always existed and will always exist, and will even increase in numbers with globalization.
Tax agreements establish what we call reciprocal taxation, insofar as Canada's corporate tax rates and those of the countries with which Canada signed these agreements are equivalent or comparable.
In closing, I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of tax agreements signed between Canada and other countries when these treaties are aimed at ensuring fair and equitable taxation of residents and non-residents, thus encouraging trade and investments between countries.
But make no mistake: these treaties should not open the door to excessive tax evasion.
Income Tax Act June 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today to the bill of the Reform member for Lakeland, Alberta, which is aimed at allowing mechanics to deduct the cost of tools they have to buy for their work from their taxable income.
I am pleased to speak to this bill, which affects one of the most important industrial sectors of our economy, the automotive industry. As we all know, the automotive industry is constantly evolving, in order to meet new challenges and to keep its dominant position in our economy, which is of considerable advantage to all Canadians and all Quebeckers.
In this sector, independent business alone employs more than 150,000 automotive maintenance and repair professionals. There has been much debate about some major issues in the automotive industry, and now it is time to address the matter of the automotive maintenance and repair professionals, who are required as a condition of employment to purchase their tools and to maintain them in perfect condition, not to mention that they need to insure them as well.
This is a heavy financial burden because, on top of the normal wear and tear, technological progress also forces these technicians to continually update their equipment.
An apprentice automotive technician who is starting out must spend between $2,000 and $5,000 to purchase the tools he needs for his trade. That same technician, who could not start work without a set of up to date and well maintained tools, will have to spend over $15,000 on tools in his first 5 to 10 years. If he specializes this could be as huge a sum as $30,000 to $40,000. This is far from peanuts, and justifies a tax deduction.
At that level of work related expenses, there is no risk of creating a precedent, since this tax treatment is already applied to farm producers, forestry workers, artists and musicians.
Needless to say that the high cost of this kind of equipment accounts for the current shortfall in automotive service technicians, which is a major impediment to young people entering that field. That is not right.
The Minister of Finance is aware of the problem, since he recently wrote to me, saying “While some workers do incur extraordinary expenses in their jobs, finding a solution remains difficult”.
Since he recognizes that these are extraordinary expenses, the logical next step is to apply extraordinary deductions. That is the only solution.
Moreover, there is food for thought for our finance and revenue ministers here. Here is an field of work which must not be overlooked for our young people, especially knowing how high youth unemployment is.
The government must look at this problem very seriously. It must not argue that granting this deduction to mechanics would lead other trades to demand similar deductions. As I said, mechanics incur enormous costs buying tools.
Work tools are works tools, be they the virtuoso's violin, the lumberman's chainsaw or the mechanic's numerous tools.
Let me reiterate at this time the purpose of Bill C-366. First of all, the bill seeks to ensure that mechanics benefit from the same fair tax treatment as farm producers, one in line with the treatment of chainsaw operators, artists and musicians.
Second, it seeks to relieve mechanics of the financial burden that is imposed upon them since they are required to buy their own tools under their terms of employment.
Third, the bill seeks to alleviate the serious shortage of labour in automotive trades: enrolments in apprenticeship programs will be on the rise and an increasing number of mechanics will be able to continue working in this field.
Fourth, it seeks to create jobs for young unemployed Canadians and Quebeckers, since talented young people will become aware of the fact that a career in automotive trades is affordable.
Fifth, it is intended to allow mechanics to continue to provide the usual level and quality of vehicle maintenance and repair services, which will benefit all car owners.
For all these reasons, I think this bill is good for the economy and for the creation of jobs. The Bloc Quebecois and myself support the measures proposed in this bill.