Scott Brison

[Taxation, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, payroll taxes are a barrier to jobs. They raise the cost of labour and create a disincentive for firms to create jobs. These are the past words of the finance minister who knew that due to the law of supply and demand high payroll taxes killed jobs.

Despite this the minister is now prepared to change the EI law to maintain artificially high payroll taxes. Will the minister also be repealing the law of supply and demand or will the Canadian jobless have to wait?

[Government Of Canada, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the superintendent was jealous of Bernard Dussault and his objectivity. I would like to know as well who is going to be paying the legal fees for the superintendent?

Another abuse of power we learn of today is that the Prime Minister was directly involved in the lawsuit, the witch hunt against former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. The Prime Minister quashed an offer made to Mulroney to settle out of court. When the former justice minister wanted to apologize to the former prime minister, the Prime Minister said no.

Will the Prime Minister apologize for his petty partisan and pathetically political attack on former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney or was this simply another abuse of power?

[Government Of Canada, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general exposed the deceitful accounting of the millennium scholarship fund and he was reprimanded. Bernard Dussault tried to tell Canadians the truth about their pensions and he was fired. George Baker tried to tell Canadians the truth about their fishery and he was fired.

Are George Baker and Bernard Dussault the latest victims of a government addicted to abuse of power? Was the objectivity and integrity of these individuals incompatible with the oppressive style of this government?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Bernard Dussault has been very clear in terms of his response to this issue. The fact is that it was the minister's department, along with the finance department, that put a case review committee in place to muzzle Bernard Dussault. The Department of Finance was robbing Bernard Dussault of his objective ability to complete his job and make independent assessments of the CPP.

Dussault objected and he was fired. What was this government trying to cover up about the Canada pension plan and why was John Palmer so concerned about CPP projections that he wanted to change the information so as not to embarrass the minister?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we know the facts about the firing of Bernard Dussault. Mr. Dussault complained of being muzzled by the finance minister's information police. He was asked twice by John Palmer to change numbers in the CPP report because they would embarrass the minister. He complained of being stripped of his Dynacan computer program which was necessary to make accurate projections about the CPP.

I ask the Prime Minister: Was Bernard Dussault fired simply because he would not manipulate information for the political purposes of the finance minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, how many hours do I have for this response?

I thank the hon. member for his question.

I have a problem with a number of the Pavlovian tax policies of this government; the whole idea that government, by picking winners and losers, and by encouraging one type of activity and discouraging others, will in fact make decisions which cause or channel energies and economic focuses in one direction or another.

I think, frankly, that individuals participating in a free market can make those decisions best and that government intervention in making some activities more profitable, or some activities less profitable through a tax code, is in fact evidence of government trying to effectively control populations and individuals. I do not have an awful lot of faith in politicians when it comes to economic policies.

I would suggest that we make personal taxes in Canada more neutral in terms of their treatment of activities, that we treat the tax code as a means to raise revenue, not as a means to control Canadians, and that we also look seriously at reducing the disincentives that exist currently with the tax brackets which actually punish success.

While we should be trying to encourage success, we actually have punitive measures built into our tax code to punish success. That is perverse in a country where we are competing globally. We should be encouraging our Canadian citizens not only to compete, but to succeed globally.

We have a tax code in this country that causes people to be less competitive, less focused on success and, frankly, more frightened of their own government.

In terms of tax complexity, doing your taxes is the only do-it-yourself project that exists where if you do it properly you could still end up in jail. There is an inherent unfairness, not just on the enforcement side of it, but in terms of the whole nature of the tax code. I call it the Pavlovian nature of the tax code.

It is very important to let businesses and individuals make their own decisions. I think that would be a step in the right direction. I also believe that consumption taxes are less destructive.

I just criticized the Pavlovian tax policy, but there are some public policy initiatives whereby we can ensure that the cost of some behaviours are accounted for at the time, in terms of internalizing the externalities of people's behaviour. We can use a tax code to do that.

There are a number of areas that need to be discussed, but the Mintz tax report actually does a lot of it. The recommendations are fairly sound on a business level. If we were to apply some of those principles to the personal side, I think we would go a long way to effecting change and to introducing a greater level of fairness, equity and incentive for success for Canadians in the Canadian tax code.

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

I hear a member opposite speaking of a gallbladder attack. I am not certain whether it has that level of medical effect but it evokes the same level of emotion that a letter of a death of a close relative would. That is the level of impact.

When one receives a letter from Revenue Canada there is the whole idea that as an individual citizen or as the owner of a small business they will be taking on this huge omnipotent force which ultimately has all the levers. It is extremely frightening to Canadians.

There is a fear that this agency will become Godzilla the tax collector and that it will have greater force and less political accountability, which is quite frightening.

As a small business person I received one of those letters a few years ago. I spent about a year and a half defending myself against my own government. Ultimately the government said I was right and it was wrong. However, during that period I spent thousands of dollars on a tax accountant to defend myself. When I consider that, the type of situation which exists with small businesses and individuals across Canada, I fear that this agency could make it worse because we do not have the political accountability of members of this House and the minister who can effectively act as a watchdog over that type of activity and behaviour.

I would argue that while we are dealing with the agency of delivery of tax collection in Canada, we should be dealing in a more holistic way with the whole nature of taxes in Canada. I applaud the Mintz report on corporate taxation which came out two months ago and which I think has some very beneficial and constructive public policy positions that can if implemented help simplify, ultimately flatten and reduce the bureaucratic nightmare that Canadian businesses are subject to in dealing with their own government.

In terms of personal taxes we also need to similarly simplify and flatten to a certain extent tax policy in Canada because currently our tax code is too complicated. There is something fundamentally wrong with the whole concept that Canadians need to hire a tax accountant or in some cases a tax lawyer to simply deal with their own government.

I do not see this agency going a long way to achieving any of these ends. I see it as a symbolic or band-aid approach that arguably will not accomplish a whole lot. It is based on the premise that public servants cannot necessarily provide the same level of competency that a private agency might.

If we create incentives within all our public agencies or departments, incentives that recognize and reward excellence as opposed to encouraging mediocrity, i.e. if we introduce market incentives within the existing agencies, we can achieve economies without necessarily creating new agencies.

This new agency may be an indication of the government's trying to pander to this whole public sentiment that the public service does not do a good job or the public service cannot do a good job. I think that is very unfortunate.

One of the tragedies or one of the losses that we have seen in recent years is that politicians have made gratuitous attacks on public servants without really considering the ramifications of those attacks. One of the damages sustained by those types of attacks has been the low level of morale we have within our public service now. Our public service I suggest is at an all time low in terms of morale. We simply cannot accept that there are not people who want to work within government departments and to succeed, to excel, to be proud of what they do and to provide the levels of service to their country that are important and which in the past have been encouraged. We can make many of the changes necessary within the existing department without creating this new agency.

The provinces are not really interested in having a new agency.

Ontario is looking at increased powers for collecting its own taxes.

The board of management will be just another bureaucratic layer which will add additional costs. We see too much power concentrated in one agency which will have less accountability to parliament and to the minister. The power of authority or information on individual Canadians is going to be extremely concentrated. Again, this agency will be less accountable to parliament than a department and the minister will not be involved in any day to day functioning of the department.

We see current employees who will lose existing rights, including job security and the right to bargain on staffing matters. Keep in mind that there will only be a two year job guarantee and we are effectively dealing with, I understand, about 25% of the public service.

We have to take a look at whether or not this agency would in fact not be more flexible than Revenue Canada, but less flexible in working with other government departments, including the finance department, and the provinces. Because of the need that we have in this country for holistic tax reform, perhaps this is simply not the time we should be creating a separate agency. In fact we need more federal-provincial co-operation, not just on tax enforcement, but on overall tax policy. We need more co-operation between the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada and the provinces.

To take away the political element of that I think would be a huge mistake at a time when we have an unprecedented need for forward thinking tax reform.

Again, I think the government is focusing on reforming tax enforcement. Yes, there are reforms that are necessary. Those reforms need to provide greater accountability, not less accountability. In our opinion, this legislation and this new agency would provide less accountability. Therefore it may be arguably a step in the wrong direction.

Secondly, it may actually increase the barriers to co-operation between the provinces and the federal government and the Department of Finance to effect change and develop a holistic approach to tax policy which will result in a fairer, flatter tax policy which will be more conducive to economic growth and the success of Canadians in the global market.

It was with great pleasure that I heard my hon. colleague from the Reform Party today speaking of a declaration of taxpayer rights or a taxpayer bill of rights. I thought for a moment it was Trent Lott speaking or Newt Gingrich with darker hair. I believe that the hon. member is happy with that comparison.

But the hon. member does strike a chord in terms of the importance of our tax policy in Canada and our tax enforcement practices being less intrusive and more respectful of Canadians.

I was one of those Canadians who did receive one of those tax audit letters one day. My only crime at the age of 22 was operating a small business that employed young Canadians. Ultimately the government agreed with me, but it took me almost two years and thousands of dollars to a tax accountant to defend myself against my own government.

I agree with my hon. colleague from the Reform Party. I would bring to his attention the declaration of taxpayer rights which was part of the work done by a former member of this House and former cabinet minister, Perrin Beatty, who is a forward thinking member of the Progressive Conservative Party. He also saw the need and in fact had some results in improving the level of accountability.

We are talking about issues of privacy and confidentiality, impartiality, courtesy and consideration, the presumption of innocence, and impartial hearings before payment; all of those types of issues.

We have made progress in the past and we have to continue working to make progress in the future on these types of issues.

I do not see Bill C-43 and this new agency as necessarily being conducive to this process. We need to ensure that we do not separate the political will that is necessary to effect change in this very important matter from a logistical body that enforces tax policy in Canada. There is a very dangerous separation that may result in less ability for elected members of the House or the minister to effect change, to control and to have the ability to govern things like abuse of power by Revenue Canada agents and that sort of thing.

It is great to hear the support of members opposite for consumption taxes. We wish they had been more vocal in their support of consumption taxes in 1993 when the Conservative government replaced the counter-productive manufacturers sales tax with the GST, which ultimately was the right tax at that time. It has demonstrated to be a fairer tax than many of the income taxes and other taxes that this government seems comfortable with.

I should not criticize the government for having adopted sound Conservative polices. The only thing worse than it having shamelessly taken those policies from the previous government would have been if it had implemented its own. The consequences of those would have been far more egregious and detrimental to Canadians. I am making a muted criticism of the government for taking our policies, but I want to commend it on its judgment for having done so. It took this government longer to learn and absorb the benefits of sound economic policy. Perhaps it did not catch on at the time of the 1993 election. However, it has since accepted those measures, including free trade and the GST.

I ask the minister to work very hard to implement many of the recommendations of the Mintz report on business taxation. On the personal tax side we need similar reforms that simplify and flatten our tax code. I hope we devote our energies to that type of approach and to those types of very important public policy initiatives and less time on bureaucratic window dressing changes that ultimately will result in King John Inc., but will not necessarily make any difference in the way tax policies are enforced or implemented, which may result in even larger problems in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to comment on the new entente that seems to exist on that side of the House. Now that Reformers and New Democrats are seated together, they seem to be developing a certain comfort and a certain respect for the principles of each of their parties. Perhaps in the future we might see a unite the light movement in this House in the efforts of co-operative opposition.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill C-43. While the minister speaks of the provinces having greater opportunities to affect control and to have control over the levers of this very important agency than they have now with Revenue Canada, I would posit that the provinces' opposition or at least their lack of approval and their concern with this new agency is an indication that they do not believe that greater power and greater authority will be had by the provinces of the levers of this new agency, this new, if you will, King John Inc. the government is proposing today.

The government offloads responsibilities to the provinces by making draconian cuts to health care, for instance, $7 billion in the last term. The minister said there is only one taxpayer. The provinces and the municipalities have been faced with an ever increasing tax burden as a result of the government's failure to lead and the government's failure to take responsibility for national matters, including issues like health care funding.

If the minister is going to be true to his phrase that there is only one taxpayer, he should recognize the near toxic levels of hypocrisy of his government in effectively reducing spending and offloading responsibility to the provinces. You can offload a lot of things but you cannot really offload leadership. That is what this government has tried to do.

The government proposal to transform Revenue Canada from a government department into an agency raises some very serious questions. Revenue Canada is the largest government department.

At various times of the year it has between 40,000 and 46,000 employees. Revenue Canada has many responsibilities including, of course, primarily the collecting of federal taxes and various fees, harmonized sales tax in three provinces, personal income tax on behalf of nine provinces and corporate taxes on behalf of seven provinces.

The new agency is to assume all these responsibilities and the new agency is supposed to be as efficient as the department was without any increased cost to the taxpayer.

I suggest that unless the provinces buy in, unless the provinces support this direction and this new agency, any claims by the government that this agency will lead to greater efficiencies and save the taxpayer money are specious at best.

The government is saying that we could save between $97 million and $162 million per year if all the provinces participate. That is a very big if at this juncture. Currently the provinces have not demonstrated a significant interest in having Ottawa collect and have more authority in effect over taxes beyond what Revenue Canada does currently.

Ontario is looking to attain greater authority over its tax levers. It cannot simply be said to the provinces that someone is going to have more authority over their spending without providing them with more direct authority over tax policies. Some of the provinces feel this agency may ultimately lead to less. If the provinces are not interested, obviously the agency will not save money or lead to greater efficiencies. The board of management may be yet another bureaucratic layer that will simply lead to increased costs.

Another issue is privacy. Too much information on individuals will be concentrated with one agency which will, as a private agency, be looking to contract out services for auditing and collection and ultimately the tax system may become less confidential than it is now.

We believe very strongly in the ability for private agencies and/or privatization to provide efficiencies but that has to be balanced against the very important delivery of service, particularly the confidentiality of this, the most important area of government in terms of its direct contact with people and the level of authority that an agency, currently Revenue Canada, has on people.

I suggest there is also a significant risk in terms of its use of power for this agency. Currently we have a very direct ministerial responsibility with Revenue Canada. That is a good check and balance. This House is a good check and balance on this government department of Revenue Canada.

There have been studies done on the impact to somebody of receiving a letter from a tax agency saying they are being audited. A tax audit letter evokes about the same level of emotion and fear as—

[Canada Pension Plan, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Bernard Dussault expressed himself very clearly as well on August 24 when he wrote a letter to senior government officials expressing his deep concern over the loss of Dynacan. By taking this important tool from him, the government compromised Dussault's ability to provide independent assessment of the future of the CPP. A day later, August 25, Bernard Dussault was fired.

Was this government afraid that the chief actuary would reveal too much about the flawed future of Canada's social programs? Was the chief actuary with his competence, his independence, his objectivity, just too dangerous to keep around?

[Canada Pension Plan, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, before he was fired, Bernard Dussault, the former chief actuary for the CPP, developed a state of the art computer program called Dynacan to independently evaluate security programs, including the CPP or the seniors benefit.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that in July Department of Finance officials directed that the Dynacan program be moved from the office of the actuary over to the Department of Human Resources Development so that the government could manipulate the information created by the Dynacan program for its own political advantage?