Serge Cardin

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today, but I must say that I am also rather disappointed and even outraged to see that we are being gagged once again to put an end prematurely to the debate on Bill C-43.

Why establish a customs and revenue agency? The Minister of National Revenue told us that changes in his department were needed to achieve certain objectives, namely to ensure quality services at a lower cost, fair administration, modern and effective management and, of course, parliamentary accountability.

It is true that the minister must redefine methods and procedures within his department in order to achieve his objectives. However, changing the container does not necessarily means changing the contents. The minister naively believes that establishing this agency will make all the problems within his department disappear as if by magic.

Speaking of serious problems within the Department of National Revenue, instead of putting all his energy into solving these problems, the minister is creating a monster that nobody wants.

Obviously there is a lot of work that needs to be done in the Department of National Revenue, because there are many problems.

Among other things, the auditor general, in chapter 15 of his September 1998 report entitled “Promoting Integrity in Revenue Canada”, talked about several incidents of misconduct within that department. We know that the nature of Revenue Canada's activities calls for a high level of integrity. The integrity of the organization is, therefore, an asset in that it impacts on the behaviour of those with whom Revenue Canada has business dealings.

According to the auditor general, the establishment of the Canada customs and revenue agency will not solve the problems. In addition, the auditor general tabled his December 1998 report on Tuesday, and this included chapter 24 “Revenue Canada—International Tax Directorate: Human Resource Management”.

We know that the International Tax Directorate is the focal point for all questions relating to international tax rules. We also know that international operations are liable to weaken the tax base. We know that international tax is a rapidly developing area with strong possibilities as far as tax receipts are concerned, but that there are serious problems in the human resources area.

Key positions have been staffed by secondment, reassignment or acting positions. Only 52% of current headquarters staff are permanent in their positions. The auditor general feels that frequent staff movements are a cause for concern in that they prevent the directorate from maintaining the levels of experience and qualifications required for the work to be done.

He also states as follows:

The establishment of the new agency will not in itself resolve the problems outlined in this chapter.

In the first case, in the interests of fair administration, the minister should take all steps possible to ensure the integrity of all employees in his department before thinking about establishing such an agency.

In the second case, that of international taxes, it is much more obvious that the establishment of the agency will resolve none of what is going on because it is to the advantage of large companies operating internationally. They make in the neighbourhood of $250 billion, which is an enormous tax base.

International tax experts in big business are, for the most part, specialists from Revenue Canada or experts who have been sent there on special training assignments. At some point, we come up against a lack of competence at Revenue Canada, but considerable expertise in big business. Big business takes advantage of the system, with the result that the international tax base dwindles, to the detriment of taxpayers who must shoulder an increasingly heavy tax burden.

What the government actually wants is to abdicate its political authority because it is incapable of assuming its responsibilities and making the necessary changes in its department and because it wants to hang on to the existing international tax system in order to benefit big business with its international transactions.

What the government wants is to create a bank of handouts for its friends and supporters of the party, both with respect to administrators and with respect to big business and its international transactions.

Nobody wants this agency, not the provinces, not Quebec, not the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and not Revenue Canada employees. The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the establishment of the Canada customs and revenue agency.

[Professional Services Contracts, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is worse than that. Because of the carelessness of the Minister of Public Works, a contract that started out at $25,000 went as high as $300,000, still without being tendered.

How does the government explain such carelessness, when it is bursting its buttons telling us how well it manages taxpayers' money?

[Professional Services Contracts, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, each year the federal government forks out over $3.7 billion in professional services contracts over $25,000. Over half of these contracts are awarded without competitive bidding. This was what the auditor general had to tell us this morning.

Apart from patronage, what explanation can the Minister of Public Works give for the fact that so many contracts do not go through the competitive bidding process?

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in the 15 seconds I have left, I would like to say that health is not simply the absence of disease.

Health is the possibility given to individuals to develop fully, physically as well as mentally. Investments in social programs, education and health help keep people healthy and therefore productive in their communities.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the minister may be incompetent. Based on what I referred to earlier, one would think so. What is more serious though is that the minister is rather sneaky. Why does he insist so much on minimizing existing surpluses? Is he again hiding something from us? How many initiatives such as the millennium scholarship foundation will he come up with? It is anybody's guess.

So, there is a combination of incompetence and obvious lack of transparency.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, before I start, with all I have heard in this House from the members opposite, I am more and more convinced of the advisability and relevance of our motion. There is an urgent need to invest in health care.

This motion is based on democratic, humanitarian and sound management principles. It is based first on a consensus reached by all the provinces in Saskatoon, on August 7, asking the federal government to give back transfer payments.

Another consensus was reached during pre-budget consultations held by the Bloc Quebecois throughout Quebec, where all the people asked the government to give back the money from transfer payments for health, education and social programs.

In asking that these amounts be reinvested in front-line health care services, we are also looking to the future. Health care is important. It is the basis of our society and our development.

This is also a matter of prudence, because we are prudent and we know how to effectively manage public funds. We are asking the government to do so in several instalments, without risking another deficit, because we in the Bloc Quebecois asked the government to pass anti-deficit legislation.

In 1994, the President of the Treasury Board told us he was able to reduce government spending by $18 billion. Today, we know that he could have saved twice as much. Imagine if he had done his job properly. We would have $9 billion more to reinvest in the Canada health and social transfer.

We see this government has no sense of priorities and responsibilities. It would rather cut the essential than the superfluous. In its effort to put its fiscal house in order, the Liberal government sacrificed the health of Quebeckers and Canadians.

But everyone knows that physical and mental health is essential for individuals to develop personally and collectively so they can contribute to the social and economic health of their communities.

The Minister of Finance has a duty to Quebec and Canada. He has cut transfer payments by $6.3 billion. Now that the minister has a surplus, he is duty bound to restore health care funding. Instead, the minister is trying to dodge the issue by having us believe that there will be no surplus over the next three fiscal years, from 1999 to 2001.

I cannot understand why he will not restore transfer payments. He is so adamant that, in a moment of transparency, he clearly showed his lack of credibility, which has already been denounced by the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties as well as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. For the fourth time, the auditor general questioned the government's financial statements.

In fiscal year 1997-98, we were to have a budget surplus of $5.9 billion. Yet, the Minister of Finance, intent on showing the lowest surplus possible, for fear of having to reinvest in transfer payments and give money back to the provinces, has intentionally changed the regular format of financial statements as of March 31, 1998.

The auditor general questioned the accounting methods of the federal government, as used in the last federal budget. He objected in particular to the way the millennium scholarship fund was accounted for. As we know, the $2.5 billion earmarked for the millennium scholarships have been included in the financial statements of March 31, 1998, which is contrary to normal accounting procedure and auditing standards.

The auditor general objected to that, but the minister of finance goes even further. He claims that this is simply an opinion, that there are other ways of looking at it.

The auditor general is independent, he is supposed to give an opinion based on accounting standards, auditing standards, and his judgment should never be challenged. Yet, this is exactly what the Minister of Finance is doing and he even backs up his position, that it is one opinion among many, by quoting an audit firm. No, this is the auditor general's opinion, and the only one he could express in the circumstances.

The Minister of Finance is, to a certain extent, showing what I would call his incompetence, because he does not know the difference between financial statements and a budget. He says it is normal to put these estimates in his budget, but these are financial statements.

When we see something like that occurring, when the auditor points out that some funds, $2.5 billion in this case, have been allocated in the financial statements to an institution that does not yet exist, in other words, to mere intentions, and that notes had to included to indicate that events will follow, we realize that the finance minister went overboard, but what is worse is that he is challenging the opinion of the auditor general.

The finance minister is sticking to his guns. He maintains that the surplus should not exceed $3.5 billion. However, the Conference Board thinks the surplus will be closer to $10 billion, the Mouvement Desjardins estimates it will be close to $15 billion, and we, in the Bloc, believe that it is heading for $15 billion. Even the public servants now estimate that it will reach $10.4 billion.

Of course, the government is now back pedalling and trying to convince us that there is some economic uncertainty, which is precisely why we want the payments to be made over a period of a few years. If there is uncertainty, it comes from elsewhere, not from Quebec nor from the other provinces. The uncertainty is created by the federal government, which can cut provincial transfers at any time.

A billion dollars is a lot of money for the regions. In Estrie, one billion dollars in health means $41 million that the people do not have, and the potential closure of such important centres as the university's geriatric institute, the Centre de réadaptation de l'Estrie, and the Centre Notre-Dame-de-l'Enfant, because of $41 million in cuts in a region that has already been pretty hard hit by federal government cuts.

We are asking the federal government to reinject its duly identified budget surpluses into health, education and social transfers.

In order to proceed more cautiously, and to spare us insecurity and uncertainty, it would be preferable if the $2 billion were paid back in tax points rather than in transfer payments.

This is a suggestion that ought to be looked into, because one never knows. If it is just in transfer payments, we know that at any hour, or on any day in the year, the federal government can turn up and cut it out from under us. It is the Liberal government, then, that is creating the uncertainty.

[Sherbrooke Municipal Council, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on November 1, municipal elections were held in many Quebec municipalities, including Sherbrooke, which I have the honour of representing in this House.

In the 12 electoral districts, voters elected women to 50% of the positions on the municipal council. Sherbrooke, which is a leader in many areas, is once again making history by having the first municipal council with as many women as men. This is to the credit and benefit of the voters, since these women have a lot to offer to society.

I congratulate all those who were elected in Sherbrooke, and particularly my wife, Mariette Fugère, who was elected in the electoral district which I represented for 12 years.

I am confident that on November 30, voters in my riding will elect as many women as men to the National Assembly, that is Marie Malavoy in the riding of Sherbrooke, and Frédéric Dubé in the riding of Saint-François, this in the best interests of the people of Sherbrooke.

[Hepatitis C, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member of Abitibi has had his picture taken with hepatitis C victims and is telling anyone in his riding who wants to listen that the government is preparing to announce its generous compensation to them.

My question is for the Minister of Health. Are we to understand that the federal government has finally decided to respond positively to the request of B.C., Ontario and Quebec and compensate victims without regard to date?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today. Since this is my first speech here, I would like to thank the residents of Sherbrooke for the confidence they put in me on September 14, when they elected me to represent their riding.

I wish to reiterate my firm resolve to represent all the citizens of the riding of Sherbrooke in my daily work, whether in Sherbrooke or in Ottawa. I intend to work hard, along with my staff, to improve the situation regarding employment, community life, the employment insurance program, older workers and pay equity.

I read Bill C-43 carefully, and also the speech made by the Minister of Revenue on October 1, 1998.

I was struck by this urgency to take action, so as to achieve certain objectives, namely to ensure quality services at a lower cost, fair administration, confidential service, modern and effective management and, above all, parliamentary accountability.

I was also struck by how easily the minister is prepared to abdicate his political responsibility and let an independent agency assume all the responsibilities that a government has. I realize the minister must redefine methods and procedures in order to achieve the objectives that I just mentioned.

The minister reminds me of someone who is having mechanical problems with his car and thinks that changing driver or doing some bodywork on the car will make it run better. Well, it will not. What the car needs is a good tune-up.

Quebeckers and Canadians have the right to expect the minister to put his head under the hood, to replace defective parts and to make the necessary adjustments so he can get back on the road safely and reach the efficiency goals that the public expects in terms of service delivery.

On September 29, the auditor general tabled his report. As a member of the public accounts committee, I had the opportunity to read Chapter 15, which deals with integrity at Revenue Canada and where it is revealed that 285 incidents of theft, fraud, abuse of power and conflict of interest were reported over a period of 18 months. The auditor general said, and I quote:

Bearing in mind that Revenue Canada has approximately 40,000 employees, 285 incidents in 18 months may not seem like a particularly high number. At the same time, academic studies of other segments of society strongly suggest that the number of incidents of misconduct that are reported is much lower than the number of incidents that actually occur. The nature of Revenue Canada's operations makes it more vulnerable than many other departments.

Because Revenue Canada is vulnerable, as proven by the incidents that occurred in 1997, the department must remain vigilant. One of the minister's five principles is that people want the government to be accountable to them. In that regard, he said, and I quote:

Questions are often asked in the House of the minister. The power of the minister to inquire into these matters and respond to the House will be maintained under the new agency.

Members will recall that, on September 30, I did ask a question of the minister in this House. This was the question:

The auditor general reports that the government is already having a hard time assuring security and integrity within the department of revenue, with all the bribes, leaks, abuses of power and everything else.

What should we think about a government that is now contemplating giving tax collection over to an independent agency, which would have even less accountability than Revenue Canada?

Hon. members will remember the answer I was given; it was sheer nonsense. The minister told me that if I really wanted to look at problems in revenue, I should look at Revenue Quebec, where the real problems were.

In order to hide from the public his inability to get his house in order and hide the real reasons why he wanted to set up this independent agency, he referred to the mote in his Quebec neighbour's eye, but did not say a word about the beam in his own.

The minister thinks that setting up an independent agency will make it easier for him to reach the goals I have already mentioned. I do not believe it, and several people agree with me. But there is more.

For more than two years now, the minister has been working on this agency. Instead, he should have worked on the restructuring and the re-engineering of his own department. We would already have better services, a fairer administration, modern and efficient management practices, but mostly a structure more accountable to parliament and taxpayers through a modern and efficient department of revenue.

However, that has nothing to do with the real reasons why this independent agency is being established. The real reason is because the minister does not want to be held accountable. It will act as a bulwark against having to account for tax collection.

Through its centralizing vision, the government wants to stretch its influence and control to provincial, municipal and local governments. It wants to have 15 extra positions to which friends and defeated candidates can be appointed. It also wants to exclude more than 20% of its officials from the application of the Public Service Employment Act.

In this whole enactment, there is one important objective I support, and that is to avoid duplication, and I agree with the need to improve and simplify the administration of tax legislation.

Quebec collects all provincial income and sales taxes. It would be no problem to consolidate all provincial and federal tax collection activities in Quebec. In fact, Quebec is prepared to do it.

To conclude, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the establishment of the Canada customs and revenue agency and urges the members of this House to support the motion moved on October 1 and seconded by me.

Another perhaps less obvious reason to oppose the establishment of the agency is what I consider to be some kind of plan B. It is well known that the government is trying to stretch its tentacles to the municipal and local level. Luckily for municipalities, they fall under provincial jurisdiction, and I do not think the federal government will be able to get them to do business with the agency, even with the lure of substantial savings.

There would be a problem. The same way that a private business partitions services within its operations and contracts out, there are cities in Quebec considering partitioning, and a tax relationship could be established between municipalities and the federal government through the agency. I view this whole tax agency business as part of a plan B.

The Bloc Quebecois and I are against the agency.

[Auditor General's Report, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if 285 cases of improper conduct constitute a solid foundation, I do not know that the total number would represent.

The auditor general reports that the government is already having a hard time assuring security and integrity within the department of revenue, with all the bribes, leaks, abuses of power and everything else.

What should we think about a government that is now contemplating giving tax collection over to an independent agency, which would have even less accountability than Revenue Canada?