Lorne Nystrom

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

They say it is rubbish but look what has happened. There has been privatization of the CNR, privatization of a lot of companies, the gutting of employment insurance, the health plan, all of these things. Going back to EI, there are many people who cannot even qualify because of the changes to employment insurance which were done not by Brian Mulroney and the Tories, but by the Liberal government across the way.

This bill is another example of that drift to the right. That party over there when in opposition tried to be very progressive in the way it talked. Now that it is in government it is extremely conservative. That is the historical position of the Liberal Party of Canada. I am concerned about that as well.

I also wanted to mention some of the concerns about business itself. This is supposed to make it more cost efficient and easier for business to comply with and so on. As has already been referred to, a study was commissioned by Revenue Canada itself from the Public Policy Forum. What were the results of that study? It said 68% of the people who were questioned thought that there would either be an increase in the costs of compliance or there would be no impact whatsoever in terms of the costs of compliance.

Two-thirds of the business community said it would not matter one way or the other in terms of costs or else their costs would go up. What is the government's reply to that? This is to be done to keep down costs, to make things more efficient. The business community does not seem to agree and the study seems to verify that so why go ahead with it?

That is my third concern. The first one is the provincial opposition, the second one the whole idea of privatization that diminishes the role of the public sector in Canada. The third one is that the business community itself, small businesses and large businesses, are concerned that their costs will either remain the same or increase with this new agency.

The fourth thing I am concerned about is the whole question to which I already referred, that of accountability. Right now we have a government department and a minister who is accountable for Revenue Canada. That has been the practice in this country.

Once we establish a new agency that is at arm's length, that will have a management board, that will draw up a business plan and then report that business plan through a CEO to the Minister of National Revenue, I think there will be less accountability in terms of the Government of Canada to the people of this country. We will have more and more people from the private sector sitting on that board, recommended and nominated by the provinces and so on. It will be more of a private sector orientation.

I also wonder about this new layer of bureaucracy that will be established in terms of the management board. What about the salaries of the CEO and senior executives? Will they reflect the salaries in private corporations instead of the salaries of senior government officials? Senior officials have always received an increase in salaries but their salaries are nowhere near what the CEOs and senior executives in the private sector receive.

This agency would employ 40,000 people and would be one of the largest corporations in the country, a bit smaller than Canada Post at 50,000, but would still be very, very large, and the senior management team received compensation comparable to what we see in the private sector. This will be an additional cost.

I wonder about all these things in terms of accountability. We are getting less and less accountability in our so-called democratic parliamentary system as more and more decision making is taken away. In fact we have had in many ways the privatization of decision making as more decisions are made outside parliament.

Accountability has gone away from this place. We have government backbenchers and MPs all around who have very little say over the public policy direction of the country. This is now another example of some power that is being taken away from the Parliament of Canada.

I am concerned about the size of the agency itself. What we have here is a vision of a super tax collection agency if it evolves. It is being given the power to evolve so we should look at what might happen in 10 or 15 years. It will collect not just federal taxes but will also collect provincial taxes, the gas tax, the liquor tax. It may also collect municipal taxes, property taxes, school taxes and so on. It would be like a mega tax man, like a Frankenstein.

People are concerned about that. They are concerned about evolving into the kind of agency that we see in the United States with the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service, in terms of how that agency is out of control and is arm's length from the Government of the United States.

The IRS, by the way, is still a government department in the United States. The IRS is not an agency in the United States. It operates in a very independent and aggressive fashion. I do not know if we want the kind of tax agency they have in the United States in this country, with the Canadian background and tradition we have of trying to work things out between the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government. The vision of the agency is that of a huge taxation agency which collects all taxes.

I have another concern. One of the purposes—and the minister does not talk about it any more—of establishing the agency was to try to blend the GST with the provincial sales tax, the BST or the HST, the harmonized sales tax.

I remember very well the campaign in 1993. I remember the promise made by the prime minister that if the Liberal Party were elected it would get rid of the GST. Do members remember that one? There is a member on the backbench hanging his head in shame; he is crying. At least the member from Hamilton had the honesty and the integrity to say “yes, that is a promise we made”; to resign her seat; and to face her people in a byelection campaign. However the GST is still there. Why has the GST not disappeared? It is a promise the Liberals made and it is still there.

One purpose of the agency was to get around that campaign promise by abolishing the GST, rolling it into the provincial sales taxes across the country and calling it a harmonized sales tax. They floated the idea with the provinces and the only provinces that agreed were the three Liberal provinces in Atlantic Canada: Mr. Tobin in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia—

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to say a few words on the bill that is before the House today.

It is a bill to establish a taxation agency. In other words, it takes the function that Revenue Canada now has away from Revenue Canada and establishes a taxation agency which would have sweeping powers to administer not just income tax at the federal level and to collect that tax, but to collect income tax at the provincial level, to collect the federal GST, to collect provincial sales taxes, to collect liquor taxes, gasoline taxes and eventually down the road to collect taxes from municipalities. That is the purpose of the bill before the House today.

It is a very important and fundamental change in the administration of taxes in this country. It is a bill that deserves a lot of attention by members of this House in terms of whether or not we want to go in this direction as a country.

The minister spoke this morning. He told us that there are a couple of important reasons for proposing this legislation. I want to review those very briefly. He said it is important that we have a federal-provincial tax agency that the provinces and federal government subscribe to in terms of collecting taxes. He said that this agency would be more efficient, would save money and so on. I raise a few concerns about this because of what I see happening in the country.

On the question of provincial-federal co-operation, if that were the case it would be an excellent theory. As I read the country around me, I find there is very adamant opposition to this by the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Right there, two provinces representing around two-thirds of the population of the country are opposing this bill. Saskatchewan and British Columbia are certainly not convinced that this is good legislation.

My understanding is that there is not a single province to date, unless I am out of touch here, that has officially signed on to this agency or has even signed a letter of intent. Maybe the minister will get up and correct that.

That seems to me to be a very bad start when the provinces are in opposition to a bill that is supposed to be there to collect taxes for the provinces and the federal government. The provinces see this as an intrusion into their field of jurisdiction. I think that is a serious matter in terms of federal-provincial relations. It is a serious matter of the lack of co-operative federalism in a country where we need more co-operative federalism and governments working together in concert with each other. I know the minister agrees with that but it has not happened so far.

The minister tells us to be patient. We can be patient but in the long run we are all dead. How long does he want us to be patient? He tells us to trust him. Well a lot of people in politics have said “Trust me and things will work out”. The minister is a pretty honest and straightforward guy but he cannot by himself get the Ontario or Quebec governments or any other province to come onside.

There is also the issue of Quebec. I worry about some of the national unity consequences of this in terms of the timing. The Quebec government certainly sees this as an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. Quebec is not talking about ceding more power to a federal agency. In fact most Quebecers, including the provincial Liberal Party, talk about a greater devolution of power to the province of Quebec. Whether it is a greater devolution to all the provinces or asymmetrical federalism, they would like a greater devolution.

This bill is now coming within months of the writs being dropped for a provincial election in Quebec. It is a very crucial election in terms of that province and the future of our country, which may or may not result in another referendum about the future of Canada.

Again I worry about the timing of this bill in terms of the federal-provincial consequences and the consequences in the province of Quebec. I question the wisdom of this. If we want to make this country work, we need co-operative federalism.

A long time ago we had leaders in this House of Commons who talked a lot about co-operative federalism: Lester Pearson when he was prime minister of the country; Bob Stanfield, the leader of the Conservative Party; Tommy Douglas, the leader of the New Democratic Party. This country was making great progress in terms of national unity, in bringing this country together, in the sharing of powers and in co-operation.

Now it seems that we have a bill here that is going in the opposite direction. If there were a federal-provincial agreement on this and agreement from the provinces, it would be a different case, but that is not the case in the bill before us today. That is a major concern I wanted to raise in the House.

I also want to raise the concern about the diminishing power of government itself. This is really the most major privatization this government has carried out. It is quasi-privatization. It is taking away 40,000 public servants from the Department of National Revenue, which is about 20% of the public servants. It is slicing away about $2 billion from the estimates of this country to establish an agency that will be run according to the business practices that will be arm's length from the Parliament of Canada and from the minister himself.

The minister assures us that the powers are still there and that he is still responsible because that is the way the legislation is written. Even the auditor general was concerned about this in his report in December 1997. He was concerned about the public interest and about the arm's length of this agency in terms of accountability. As was mentioned by a member of the Reform Party, there is a growing lack of accountability of government agencies and government bodies.

I am also concerned about the diminishing role of government and of the public sector which has certainly been expedited since the Liberal Party took office. The Liberal Party used to complain when the Brian Mulroney government privatized something or diminished the role of government, yet that has been expedited since the 1993 election.

There has been a lot of talk about uniting the right. I think the right is pretty much united. It sits across the way. It is the Liberal Government of Canada.

[The Late Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add some personal observations of Mr. Lamoureux who passed away last summer.

People have given his biography in the House, that he was elected several times and was Speaker of the House for six years.

I was first elected in 1968 and when I came here Lucien Lamoureux was really revered as the model parliamentarian and the model Speaker that we could all emulate as parliamentarians in this country. He was extremely respected by all members of the House.

He was elected in 1962 and 1965, and I am told when he was made Speaker in 1965 he left the Liberal caucus to sit as an independent member to show the independence of the speakership, which was extremely important in those days. It was really a break in many ways from the tradition in this country.

Another observation that I had of him was the tremendous respect that people had for this man. We have had many good Speakers. We have an excellent Speaker in the House today. But I think Speaker Lamoureux is probably one of the greatest Speakers of all time. In fact former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said he was the greatest speaker since Confederation. I certainly have tremendous confidence in him and would certainly echo the remarks of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

Speaker Lamoureux also had a tremendous ability. It was the ability to calm this place, an ability to referee or adjudicate this place like none I had ever seen.

I remember the minority parliament in 1972-74. There was a two seat difference between the governing Liberals and the opposition Tories with the NDP holding the balance of power. We also had the Social Credit Party led by Mr. Caouette. Those were days of great tensions and great debates in the House. Mr. Lamoureux had tremendous respect. He was able to keep this place running very efficiently.

It was also a time of tremendous parliamentary giants: Pierre Trudeau, John Diefenbaker who sat right here, Tommy Douglas, David Lewis, Réal Caouette, many parliamentary giants, Stanley Knowles and Allan MacEachen to mention but a few. Mr. Lamoureux was able to rise to the occasion at all times and be a tremendous Speaker.

I had tremendous respect for him. On behalf of our party, I want to extend our sympathy and condolences to his family and to his friends. He has been an inspiration to all of us and has set a tone for all of us to follow, particularly the Speakers of this House.

[The Late Paul Tardif, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I also want to pay tribute to Paul Tardif, a former member of this House.

Mr. Tardif was not a member of Parliament in 1978, when I was elected, because he did not run in that election, but I clearly remember his good reputation as a member who represented his riding well and he was well respected by everyone here.

He was first elected in a 1959 byelection and re-elected in 1962, 1963 and 1965, while John Diefenbaker was in power. If I am not mistaken, he was deputy speaker of this House for a time.

On behalf of my party, I wish to extend my condolences to his family and to his many friends.

[The Late Gilles Rocheleau, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I would like to pay tribute to Gilles Rocheleau, who was the member for the riding of Hull—Aylmer in the House of Commons.

I knew him well, because we were both members at the same time. I recall that he was a two career man. He was a business man for many years and then he was in politics for 25 years.

If I am not mistaken, he was a provincial MLA in Quebec City and mayor of the fine city of Hull. He then became a member of the House of Commons for two parties: the Liberal Party and then the Bloc Quebecois, of which he was a founding member, along with Lucien Bouchard and others.

He was a good MP, and I think the Outaouais has lost a great defender. He was widely known. For a number of years, when I came to Ottawa, I lived in Aylmer. He was very popular, widely known and a strong defender of Quebec.

On behalf of my party, I offer my condolences to his family and friends.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would never give you the finger, I would give you a thumbs-up for a job well done.

This may surprise you, but I have a great deal of admiration for the grassroots instinct of my friend from Wild Rose, Alberta. Because of that I want to ask him this question.

We decided in our party to have a free vote on this issue, which will reflect the diversity of public opinion. Will the Reform Party be having a free vote on this issue later on this afternoon?

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to my friend from Yorkton—Melville, the first chance I have had an opportunity to do that in this parliament.

I suggest this is a kind of issue where there should be a free vote in the House of Commons, where we could have the reflection of the great diversity of this country.

I think we need in general parliamentary reform, electoral reform to make this a more democratic institution that represents the general will of the Canadian people. After all, that is what parliament is supposed to be for.

The Reform Party has talked for a long time about more free votes in the House of Commons, reflecting the diversity of its constituents. Can he assure us at this time that there will be a free vote on this issue in the Reform Party so that we can see that reflection and diversity in the Reform caucus? It has talked about that for years. It was a promise in 1993. It was a promise in 1997. I remember those promises very well. I have not seen that promise reflected in the House of Commons since its members were elected to this place. I wonder whether on this issue, which is not really an ideological issue per se, this might be an example of a free vote in the Reform Party of Canada.

[Banks, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the minister up on his offer.

It is indeed one of the most fundamental changes we have seen in Canadian financial history. In light of that I believe the decision should be made by parliament on behalf of the people of this country and not by the Minister of Finance.

Is the minister prepared to do something really radical, really dramatic and really democratic and allow this House to make the decision on behalf of the people of Canada?

[Banks, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

There are indications that the minister is increasingly uneasy about the proposed mega bank mergers that are coming up, particularly in the consequence of a failure of a mega bank in light of what has happened in Japan and elsewhere around the world and he is now looking to the Competition Bureau to say no.

If that is the case, why does the minister not save us time, save us money, end the uncertainty and say no now to the proposed mergers?

[Banks, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister can monitor the merger of the Reform and the Bloc Quebecois, that is okay, but what I want is a decision on the other mergers.

I have been travelling the country extensively in the last couple of months. An increasing number of Canadians are in opposition to the mergers.

There is growing opposition in his Liberal government backbench committee against the mergers as well. I wonder whether the minister might consider over the summer the idea of having a vote in parliament in the fall at the appropriate time, better yet a free vote, so we can express the will of our constituents on the wisdom or lack thereof of these proposed mergers.