Mac Harb

[Petitions, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by Canadians from Saskatchewan and Manitoba asking parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include a provision as proposed in Bill C-340 regarding the right of spouses' grandparents to access or to have custody of the child or children.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that the two provincial NDP governments from Saskatchewan and British Columbia have entered the meetings unprepared and without consulting their people. One would assume that the premiers, the NDP government and the other representatives of the other political parties would at least have some understanding of what their people want.

As for us at the federal level, this is an ongoing discussion and debate. Many of my colleagues and I on a regular daily basis hear from our constituents that they want a framework which responds to the needs of the people, a framework which is flexible and maintains the integrity of social programs from one end of the country to the next.

I remind the member it was not too long ago that one of our ministers responsible for the transfer payments to social programs threatened not to give one of the provinces the transfer payment for social services. That was the province of British Columbia. The province decided on its own to tinker with the social program the federal government had set up and it threatened not to give the money for it.

We will continue to maintain a social program that is flexible, that is national in scope, and that responds to the needs of the people.

I want my colleague to remember that many of the provinces at the table are New Democratic. I presume they have consulted with their people.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have just a few comments on the motion before the House. I will make a few remarks on the federal government and its initiative.

We have clearly shown Canadians that we are not interested in turf wars. The Government of Canada wants first and foremost to offer equal opportunities to each and every one of its citizens. We are absolutely convinced that all Canadians have an irrevocable right of access to comparable social programs and services, regardless of the region in which they live.

Our government has implemented a variety of initiatives aimed at redefining the roles and responsibilities of the federal government and the provinces, and has contributed to renewed federalism. On the leading edge of these initiatives is the federal-provincial-territorial council on social policy reform, a forum which enables the government to strike productive partnerships for joint solutions to the most common social problems facing Canadians.

The council on social policy reform has met four times since its establishment in June 1996. Over that short time, our country has witnessed unprecedented co-operation.

The innovative initiatives that have ensued are clear evidence that the elements uniting us outnumber those dividing us. More specifically, they demonstrate that governments are at their most effective when they pool their efforts.

The national child benefit is a perfect example of this new collaborative approach. In the summer of 1996, the premiers made child poverty one of their priorities and agreed to co-operate with the Government of Canada to provide an integrated child benefit system.

As soon as the government negotiators focused on the real goal, which is to provide children with a good start in life to help them become healthy, educated and productive adults, partisan politics were set aside.

Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I forgot to tell you that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.

Negotiators of both levels of government realized that it was important to ensure that poor children have a chance to make it. They realized that the fight against child poverty requires a national effort based on a constructive partnership between the federal government and the provinces and territories.

In January, we started to put $800 million back in the pockets of middle income working families with children. An additional amount of $850 million will be given to them in the year 2000, for a total of $1.7 billion handed out every year to the middle income working families. And that is in addition to the $5.1 billion we now allocate to families with children.

I remind my hon. colleagues, and in particular the sponsor of the motion before the House today, that, thanks to the increased Canadian child tax benefit, the province of Quebec now has access to an additional $150 million a year to provide programs and services that can meet the particular needs of Quebeckers.

Following the agreement reached on the national child benefit, a working group made up of federal, provincial and territorial representatives started to develop a national action plan for children to promote the well-being of Canadian children through new policies and procedures in terms of social services, health, justice and education.

Canadians are fed up with federal-provincial bickering. They know we live in a democracy and differences of opinion are unavoidable, but coexistence is possible. As a matter of fact, they want us to work in co-operation to establish efficient and sustainable social programs for the 21st century.

If anybody has doubts about the determination of the Government of Canada to take this approach, he should consider the agreements on labour market development we have signed with the provinces and territories in the last two years.

The hon. member for Témiscamingue will certainly agree with me that our unprecedented offer to transfer to provinces and territories the jurisdiction over labour market development has allowed Quebec to design and implement training programs suited to its particular needs.

These agreements fulfil the Canadian government's commitment to get out of labour training, and they show that the Canadian federation changes to meet the needs of Canadians.

For example, we are going to transfer $2.7 billion to the Quebec government under the terms of the Canada-Quebec agreement on labour market development for active programs to help the unemployed re-enter the labour force.

These agreements give new opportunities by reducing duplication and overlap. Even more important, they yield concrete results. They allow governments to improve employment opportunities for Canadians by providing them with good services at the right place and time, and at the lowest cost possible.

This new distribution of powers shows that, with a few mutual concessions, governments can effectively consolidate the social union. Thus, we can co-operate to achieve common social goals and, in doing so, create governmental programs that are better targeted, improve the delivery of services and make considerable savings.

As we all know, the most recent talks on the social union were held in Edmonton last Friday. I learned with great pleasure that this meeting was very productive, the province of Quebec being represented for the very first time at the negotiating table.

The media echoed comments by the Quebec minister of Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Joseph Facal, who said that he was confident about the outcome, which hints at the possibility of new developments in the next few days.

The negotiations on the social union are tangible evidence that it is possible to live together in harmony, thanks to the respect and trust that we have for each other. It is possible to share the same values of generosity and social justice, without giving up traditions and approaches exclusive to each region in the area of social development.

I take this opportunity to congratulate all my colleagues from both sides of the House who took part in this very important debate.

[Petitions, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce a petition signed by many constituents of the National Capital Region and elsewhere which deals with the rights of grandparents to see their grandchildren.

The petitioners are supporting Bill C-340 which will make it easier for grandparents to see their grandchildren.

[Environmental Illness, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the first day of national environmental illness awareness month.

Over 4.5 million Canadians suffer from some degree of illness caused by the environment in which they work or live. Multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibramyalgia are the three most common ailments and have the capacity to cause disabilities. People suffering from these diseases often experience debilitating pain and are unable to work or participate fully in society.

Environmental illness is a real problem. This national campaign seeks to develop greater public awareness in order to improve the health, social and medical well-being of those who suffer.

I commend Judith Spence of the Environmental Illness Society of Canada as well as representatives of the National ME/FM Action Network, ME Canada and MESH-Ottawa for their hard work. On behalf of my colleagues, I say to them good luck.

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

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the public service is an easy target. These people are like all of us, with one exception. They are always on the other end of the telephone and they hear complaints day after day, day in and day out. They go the extra mile to provide the most efficient and most timely information to those who call.

My experience, as well as that of my staff and of many colleagues on both sides of the House, with public servants has been very positive. I pay tribute to each one of them, particularly those behind the telephone. They are the ones who are taking the public calls and hearing the complaints from time to time.

These people handle millions of tax forms throughout the year, not only around tax time. They handle them in an efficient and positive manner. They deal with millions of forms. They are bound to make mistakes. No one is perfect, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, and all my colleagues on both sides of the House. I ask anybody who thinks he is perfect to stand and say so. Nobody is standing.

My colleague on the other side, the revenue critic, does not like to pay taxes but he better get used to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have never in my life seen so much lack of understanding in terms of how Revenue Canada works. The member is complaining about a specific case. I cannot comment on a specific case.

If the member needs a situation addressed, there are at least four steps I know of that he can go through in Revenue Canada before coming to parliament. Revenue Canada has a fairness committee. If you disagree with your tax assessment you can go there. And you can go higher and higher within the administration to the point where if you are not happy, you can go to the minister or you can go to court in order to find a way to resolve the problem.

I hope this gentleman is not suggesting to Canadians that they should not give their revenue information to Revenue Canada, that they should not tell Revenue Canada about some of their income. We live in a society where the only mechanism we have to support our social programs like health care is through our revenues. It is not an easy job collecting taxes. How would anyone like it? Tax and debt, everybody wants to run away from them.

It is a fact of life and the gentleman had better get used to it. We have to pay taxes for as long as we have social programs to support, for as long as we have to operate the government, for as long as we need roads to drive on and for as long as we have to move from one end of the country to the other. We have to have taxes. I do not like it but that is the way it is and we have to live with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, frankly it is true. I am the member of all members because the House of Commons happens to be in my constituency of Ottawa Centre. Most of my colleagues live in my riding, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, and I am honoured. It is a heavy responsibility for me to be the MP of all MPs, including the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Prime Minister. It is a challenge for me.

I want the House to know that not everything I hear in this House pleases me. I look at the statement made by my colleague on the other side in trying to attack Statistics Canada. I am not the one who said it. I have repeated what others have said, that Statistics Canada is one of the finest agencies in the world. I do not know the name of the organization, but Statistics Canada over and over again has been identified as a lead agency when it comes to the efficiency of operation, when it comes to passing on information to the government, to members of parliament including my colleague on the other side, as well as to others. I would say that Statistics Canada has done nothing intrusive.

In response to the member's question, consultations are ongoing. He wanted my opinion. It is imperative to proceed with what we have now. Provinces will be onboard. Those who are not onboard will be onboard sooner or later.

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

My colleagues, are clapping on the other side and they are endorsing the proposal. That is what I hear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to all the men and women who work at Revenue Canada. Unlike my colleagues, I had the opportunity of serving on both sides of the House, on the opposition benches as well as on the government side. Throughout the many years I have been here my office had nothing but very pleasant experiences in dealing with the staff and the people who work at Revenue Canada whenever we had an issue dealing with a constituent's concern. They were prompt and efficient and they got to the bottom of the matter. They dealt with it in a fair and equitable manner.

This issue of trying to create a new agency will deal with many of the concerns that some of my colleagues have raised today, but it also goes beyond that.

The Canada customs and revenue agency is the result of extensive consultations with the provinces and territories as well as with our interest groups and employees.

Our government announced its intention to establish a new tax, customs and trade agency in its February 1996 Speech from the Throne and March 1996 budget.

We have consulted our interest groups and employees on an ongoing basis. We consulted not just once but three times with the provinces, with tax, customs and trade experts and with business associations on what the appropriate framework and organizational structure should be for the new agency.

We also consulted our employees and are continuing to welcome their input and that of their representatives. In April 1997, following initial consultations, we released our first progress report. Then, we conducted a second round of consultations that led to the establishment of a special advisory committee to seek comments and views on the new agency's operational framework.

This committee brings together consultants and professionals as well as officials from large Canadian corporate interests that have dealings with Revenue Canada.

In January, 1998, we released a second interim report, which provided for other changes and improvements based, once again, on consultations. These changes are real changes. They are also significant. They have enabled us to make an even better proposal to Canadians for a new agency, which has had considerable support.

Here are some of the things we have heard from our interest groups since the release of the second report.

First, l'Association de planification fiscale et financière wrote the minister following the release of the second interim report. In its letter, it pointed out that, in the context of the initial proposal and for discussion purposes, the agency would not necessarily have reported to the minister. It noted that it had opposed this idea and that it was grateful to the minister for taking its recommendation into account.

The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants also wrote the minister following the release of the government's second interim report. In its letter, it said that the proposals incorporated its suggestion that each province present a list of designated individuals rather than a single candidate for the agency's board of management. The institute believes that will give the government considerable help in setting up a balanced board of management.

Many groups continue to support the proposed creation of the agency in the various consultations and have reiterated the key benefits they see for their members.

By way of example, the Canadian Payroll Association, which represents over 5,300 member associations and individuals, mentioned certain benefits, including, first, a reduction in the number of resource persons employers need to contact for information; second, the existence of a single auditor in contact with a business for all revenue audits; third, simplified administration and less confusion, for example, by using common definitions; and, finally, the grouping of debt recovery measures for businesses in financial difficulty.

Paul Cherecwich Jr., international president of the Tax Executives Institute, which has a lot of Canadian members, also wrote the minister. In his letter, he points out that certain new information has come to his attention that demonstrates the government's deep commitment not just to the concept of the agency, but also to the consultation process, which was instrumental in moving the concept from the idea stage to an achievable plan.

The letter says that the agency has been strengthened because the obligation of reporting to the minister has been retained, because administration has been simplified, and because the links and co-ordination that now exist between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue will be maintained and improved when the agency is formed.

A study commissioned by the Public Policy Forum served as an indirect form of consultation. The purpose of this study was to look at the enforcement and administration savings that a single body would produce.

The study targeted a group of small business accountants, a sampling of over 1,500 small and medium-sized businesses, and a group of non-profit agencies. Their positions and their estimates can be found in the report, which was published in December 1997.

The government is listening. The opinions of its employees and of interest groups throughout the country are very important to it. Revenue Canada employees were another group that deserved intensive special consultations.

During the summer of 1997, over 7,000 Revenue Canada employees were asked for their opinions about a new human resources management framework. In December 1997, the union and management signed a memorandum of understanding setting out how the new human resources management framework would be developed.

Eight design teams were created. They include union and management representatives, as well as employees from various sectors of the department.

Five teams produced final reports on important human resource-related issues, such as staffing, classification, appeal mechanisms, training and upgrading, and employment equity.

Others are looking at re-engineering, National Joint Council directives, and senior level staff. These teams are working on proposals on these aspects, which are part of the agency's human resources management framework, and have submitted their proposals to 3,000 other employees for review.

Essentially, consultation consists in listening, learning, and then acting. We met with thousands of Canadians, singly or in groups. We learned what was most important to them, and what their perceptions of the future of Canadian tax, customs and trade administration were.

It is now time to act, and to implement the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. I therefore strongly urge this House, particularly my colleagues in the opposition parties, to support this bill, because it is a well-balanced one which responds to the needs of Canadians, as well as a forward-looking proposal, one which really gives this agency the opportunity to do better in serving the people of Canada.

Let me be unequivocally clear that this agency, if anything, will improve on the services that we are offering to the public.

I heard my colleagues in the opposition parties raise some concerns which may I suggest are not within the virtue of the law as it is proposed before parliament. My colleagues should be commending the government on this initiative. They should be supporting the government on this initiative because it is going to provide the agency with the necessary tools to better serve the taxpayers of Canada. It will provide the agency with the flexibility to better carry out its mandate.

Nothing will change when it comes to the responsibility of the agency vis-à-vis the population and the House of Commons. The Minister of Revenue will continue to be responsible for the agency. In fact this has been mentioned many times.

There would be absolutely no difference between the operation of this agency and many other agencies which are operating very effectively in our society.

Look at Statistics Canada for example. It is the envy of the world. It has an extremely efficient operation. It has the necessary flexibility. It can move ahead. It can provide advice not only to us as parliamentarians, to taxpayers, to the provinces, but to anyone throughout the world. It has been identified as one of the best agencies in the world.

Revenue Canada as an agency on its own can also provide that kind of service, not only to taxpayers, not only at the provincial level, not only to territorial governments, but I would say it can also provide services elsewhere.

The Public Service of Canada and those who work for Revenue Canada are among the finest public servants anywhere in the world.

We are giving this agency the flexibility to carry out its duties. It will have control over its own destiny to a large extent while at the same time balancing our needs as a parliament, balancing the needs of our constituents, that is, the taxpayers of Canada, and serving the interests of the agency itself when it comes to hiring, when it comes to classification, when it comes to flexibility in its operation.

All those are extremely important elements. They are important reasons why we should be endorsing this proposal by passing all of those small little nitty-gritty things that really are not within the purview of the act and can be dealt with outside of the act and outside of the proposal before us today.

We should give a rousing endorsement to what is before us today. This is a historic moment in the way in which the government is carrying out its mandate. We are allowing agencies and organizations to flourish and to provide services that Canadians want us to offer them efficiently, in a timely manner, in a good way as we have been doing and will continue to do for years to come.

This bill makes it a happy day for us today. My colleagues should stand up and congratulate the Minister of National Revenue who has done a marvellous job, his staff, the administration as well as the employees of department who continue to provide excellent service to Canadians.

I want to conclude by saying—