Lost his last election, in 2006, with 32% of the vote.
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act December 3rd, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 65
That Bill C-43, in Clause 54, be amended
(a) by replacing line 10 on page 17 with the following:
“54. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the Agency must develop a program”
(b) by adding after line 12 on page 17 the following:
“(1.1) An employee of the Agency has the same rights of recourse with respect to non-disciplinary demotion or termination of employment as if the employee were occupying a position in the Department of National Revenue.”
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act December 3rd, 1998
Madam Speaker, I have a motion on the floor of the House right now. It is one that I think is perfectly reasonable and that members across would like to support. It is the one that says the agency should not come into force until at least half the provinces agree to participate.
That is very reasonable. We are a federation. We tend to work together as a federation. It will be a new program in which the federal government expects the provinces to participate. Before the agency takes effect we should have an amendment accepted by the House that at least half the provinces sign on to beforehand.
One of the problems I have with the agency is that nobody has actually said we are going to do this, we are going to sign on. We know, Madam Speaker, that your province will not sign on. Quebec will collect its own taxes. We know hear the province of Ontario is not very enthused. The member who just spoke is from Ontario. She is very close to her premier. Her premier will probably not sign on to it, at least not at this stage. Maybe they will in four, five or six months.
Until that happens the bill should not take effect. In the provinces of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta there is a great deal of skepticism about the bill. It is a brand new agency.
This is a new agency in this country. Income tax is now collected by the Department of National Revenue, but with this bill a new agency will be established, with approximately 40,000 employees, or 20% of the federal public service. A good number of people are very unhappy with this bill: Revenue Canada employees, provinces and many taxpayers from coast to coast.
I moved an amendment to this bill, to get half of the provinces to agree with it before it was passed.
I see in the House the member from Abitibi. He would certainly agree with my motion. He is a great federalist. I think he would also want to see the majority of the provinces agree before the bill proceeds. It is a very reasonable motion.
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act December 3rd, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 206
That Bill C-43, in Clause 188, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 77 the following:
“(2) The Governor in Council may not make an order under subsection (1) without the approval of at least one-half of the provinces.”
Highways December 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, then why in the next six years is the Department of Transport going to spend $988 million on highways but only 1.34% of that goes to the west?
I want the minister to explain why the west, with 30% of the population and a large geography, is only getting 1.34%. Why are we getting this highway robbery in western Canada?
Highways December 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, to switch topics, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The auditor general said that in 1993 to 1997 the federal government spent some $1.06 billion on highways. Three Liberal provinces received some 66% of that money while my province of Saskatchewan got only 3% and the west some 11.2%.
Why this shortcoming for my province and western Canada? Is it because we do not elect Liberals in the west?
Canada-United States Days Of Peace And Friendship December 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words about this private member's motion and to indicate my support for the motion which is to declare July 2 and 3 as Canada-United States days of peace and friendship.
As the mover has said, this matter was presented to the House about 11 years ago, in 1987 by the former deputy prime minister, I believe it was Don Mazankowski from Alberta. It was seconded by the now deputy prime minister who was then the House leader for the official opposition, and myself.
I want to indicate my support for this motion which will promote greater peace, understanding and friendship between the two greatest trading partners in North America.
We have forever shared a very large and long boundary with the United States. Obviously it is our most important trading partner. I think it is very important to foster a better understanding with the Americans.
From time to time we obviously have many trade irritants, differences and disputes. We are currently having one in my province with some American farmers in North Dakota when we try to ship grain and some farm products to the United States. There is the possibility of another protest developing there today and tomorrow from what I understand from the newscasts.
The fact that we do have disputes is just another argument why we need to set aside a day or two as a time to celebrate and recognize the understanding and friendship between our two countries.
I need not go on any longer than that. The mover has given us a very good outline as to why this is a very good idea, a good private member's motion and the reasons we should be supporting it. I certainly concur with what he has said and offer him my support and hopefully the support of most people in our party.
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act December 2nd, 1998
It met a few of them. It had a few hours of hearings, but very few.
The committee did not travel to Vancouver or other parts of British Columbia. It did not go down to the east coast or to the Windsor and St. Catharines border crossings to speak directly to the workers. The government is afraid of what it would hear.
I am sure the member from Prince Edward Island must be hanging his head in shame when he hears some of these reports, coming not only from this side of the House but from members of his own party who, because of our parliamentary system, do not have the courage to stand and speak publicly in the House.
The auditor general released his most report the other day. Yesterday it was before the public accounts committee, under the able chairmanship of my friend from St. Albert. In this very voluminous report there is a section that deals with Revenue Canada. It says many things about Revenue Canada and about its many problems. It makes a comment about the agency. It states that “the establishment of a new agency will not in itself resolve the problems outlined in this chapter with Revenue Canada”. The auditor general is saying that the problems that exist today in Revenue Canada will not be solved by the creation of this new tax agency.
It goes on and on. There is problem after problem. There is considerable opposition around the country. There is opposition from the provinces, in view of the fact that they have not signed on to this particular agency. There is opposition from the people who work for Revenue Canada and the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Yet the government wants to proceed.
We need some serious parliamentary change so that government backbenchers can speak their mind, tell us what they think, tell us what their constituents think and tell us what the workers in this country think. We need that kind of parliamentary change so the minister is not just jerking them around by the neck and telling them what to do. That is the kind of change we need in this country.
This is a very good example of a bill that should not pass, a bill which should be delayed for at least six months until the proper amendments are made, but the government backbenchers cannot speak their mind. That is why we need parliamentary reform.
If that were the case, the member from Prince Edward Island would not be afraid to stand in this House. But he knows that if he does that he may not be a parliamentary secretary any longer, he may not be a cabinet minister, he may not be a chair of a committee and he may be able to take a certain trip. That is the kind of power the government whip has today.
I appeal to some of these members to show courage and to tell us whether they are concerned about the lack of accountability, whether they are concerned that the provinces have not signed on and whether they are concerned about the establishment of an IRS type tax agency in this country like they have in the United States. I am sure they are and I invite them to speak in this debate.
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act December 2nd, 1998
I have been around here a long time. I heard the member across the way. However, whenever I see a piece of legislation that affects both the provinces and the federal government there is a lot of discussion and agreement ahead of time about how it should be done.
The Canada Health Act is a very good example. All kinds of negotiations take place between the provinces and the federal government when they agree on an agency and then the agency comes forth. However, the government is putting the cart before the horse in this regard. Not a single province has agreed but the government expects us to agree before agreement has been reached with the provinces.
I have an amendment which I hope members across the way would support. It states that we should not proceed until at least half the provinces sign on. That seems to be fair. I am not saying half the provinces with two-thirds of the population or something like that; I am just saying half the provinces.
The member from Prince Edward Island is champing at the bit wanting to participate in the debate. I will not take very long so that he can rise and say his piece on why he has not persuaded his premier and his province to sign on to this agency.
There are all kinds of other concerns. One is the shrinking of the size of government. We hear talk about the united alternative. The Reform and Conservative Parties want to form a very conservative alternative. We have a very conservative government across the way. We have now the smallest federal government we have had on a percentage basis since before the second world war. The bill will once again shrink the size of the federal government.
We see a Liberal Party that is more conservative than the Conservatives who were there a few years ago. Yet the member from Prince Edward Island sits there, clenches his teeth in frustration and does not dare speak out. It seems very strange that some of these members who are reasonably progressive sit back and take this kind of quasi-privatization on this particular issue.
The other thing is the question of accountability. Once again the government is going to establish an agency that will be arm's length from the government, arm's length from the Parliament of Canada. The new agency will have a CEO and a board of directors. The CEO will report to the government through a minister. That will be arm's length from this place.
I worry about the whole question of accountability. In setting up this corporation that is going to collect taxes, what about accountability for the people of this country?
Those are some of the issues we are hearing about when we talk about this bill across the country.
There is also tremendous opposition from the workers themselves at National Revenue, as articulated by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, PSAC.
I look across at the member from Prince Edward Island, a former national union leader in this country and the former president of the National Farmers Union. His brothers and sisters in PSAC are saying “Don't go ahead with this bill. It is a bad bill for workers. It is a bad bill for the people who have to collect taxes”. Yet this former union leader rests silent in his seat. He is afraid to get up and speak his mind. That is very strange for a former national union leader.
We should be listening to the workers. Those who will work in this agency and collect taxes know best whether it is going to be efficient and good for the people of the country, but they are being ignored.
To top it off, the committee did not even travel to any of the border communities like Sarnia or Windsor to speak to the people who are on the front lines in terms of customs. It did not travel to those communities.
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act December 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about Bill C-43 before the House today at report stage and invite some of my friends and colleagues in the Liberal Party to express their points of view.
Many members in the House have independent spirits. I see my friend from Prince Edward Island across the way. I am sure he would not mind making a speech about the bill and how complicated it will make the process. I am sure he would explain to us why his province of Prince Edward Island, for example, has not signed on to it. He is a good friend of his premier. Why has he not been able to persuade the premier to sign on to the bill?
It is a very important issue. What is being established here is a brand new taxation agency. It will take 40,000 people out of Revenue Canada, which is 20% of the people who work for the Government of Canada, and establish a brand new agency to collect taxes.
Perhaps the idea came from the member for Prince Edward Island, I am not sure, but it came from the thought that the government wanted to get rid of the GST. It wanted to solve the problem of a promise by harmonizing the GST with the PST. However, only three provinces agreed: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. The thought was to have a new tax agency collecting the new harmonized sales tax, federal income taxes, provincial income taxes, maybe even the school taxes, the municipal taxes, liquor taxes and all other taxes. In other words it was to be a super agency.
My party and I are concerned about that for a number of reasons. It is supposed to collect federal, provincial and municipal taxes. Not a single province at this time has expressed any interest in this regard except New Brunswick in terms of collecting one of the small taxes in that province.
I wonder why the member from Prince Edward Island has not been able to persuade his favourite premier to decide on this agency. Perhaps he or his seatmate from Ontario could tell us about their premiers. Why has the Ontario premier, Mike Harris, not signed on to this agency? It is because Mike Harris is against the agency as is the Government of Ontario.
What about Quebec? Quebec, by its very definition, will not participate in this agency to collect taxes. We know that.
Pension Ombudsman Act December 2nd, 1998
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-460, an act to establish the office of Pension Ombudsman to investigate administrative difficulties encountered by persons in their dealings with government in respect of benefits under the Canada Pension Plan or the Old Age Security Act or tax liability on such benefits and to review the policies and practices applied in the administration and adjudication of such benefits and liabilities.
Mr. Speaker, I think you have summed it up very well. It is a bill that I am sure all of us in the House can support. It opens up the office of a superintendent of pensions for the Canada pension plan and old age pensions. It will deal with complaints. It will assist Canadians from coast to coast with those complaints and will help facilitate them for ordinary people in the country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)