The House met at 10 a.m.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Christmas Day 1941 started a despicable
period of time when 2,000 Canadian soldiers who defended Hong
Kong were interned by the Japanese and put into forced labour in
Japanese industries.
Since that period of incarceration, Japan made a settlement of
$1 a day in the early 1950s which was not a settlement in kind.
The Canadian government went on in 1955 to conspire against
further compensation to these same war veterans.
This bill is to set right a gross wrong that occurred many years
ago. It is long overdue. It is fair, right and has all-party
support. I must be done.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that human
rights violations continue in many countries around the world,
including Indonesia.
The petitioners also acknowledge that Canada is internationally
respected for its defence of universal human rights and in this,
the 50th anniversary of the UN declaration of universal human
rights, the petitioners call on the government to continue its
efforts to speak out against countries which tolerate violations
of human rights and to do whatever is possible to bring to
justice those responsible for such abuses.
The first has to do with the CRTC. Some 100 petitioners ask
that parliament review the mandate of the CRTC which would not
only permit but encourage the licensing of religious
broadcasters.
The petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation such as
Bill C-225 so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be
entered into between a single male and a single female.
It concerns the family. The role of parents is being diminished
and the petitioners ask respectfully that parliament retain
section 43 of the Criminal Code which permits parents to use
reasonable force in training their children.
The petitioners say Canadians deserve an accountable Senate and
the Prime Minister should accept the results of a Senate
election.
I gave you notice of this matter of privilege, and each party
House leader, with respect to a news release yesterday by the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services. I have sent
Mr. Speaker a copy of this but it is short enough that I would
like to read it. It is dated December 2:
These texts are also available in French.
I have been disturbed for some time by the cabinet's attitude
toward parliament. Ministers seem to take great pride in
avoiding interaction with this House. A dangerous culture grew
in the last parliament in which cabinet ignored this House and
its members. I can count on one hand the number of ministerial
statements that have been made since this parliament reconvened.
Those statements have been most often and appropriately prompted
by expressions of public sympathy for disasters, yet they have
not been announcements by government on policy or matters that
should be brought to the attention of this House in the first
instance. The House of Commons is the place where the government
is most answerable to the people who elected the members of this
Chamber.
A culture of spin doctoring and media manipulation appears to
have grown. To date this House has been prepared to ignore it
and to remain silent, while our right to be informed of
government action and policy decisions has been superseded by
default by government to the news releases. It appears there is
no one in this place, nor in government who asks whether this is
an announcement that should be made by the minister to
parliament. It is time for the House to draw a line in this
regard. I think that everyone in this place would agree.
Mr. Speaker, two days ago, in response to pleas from the
opposition House leader, you admonished the fact that there were
alleged leaks. You quite properly appealed to members at that
time to respect this House. You said: “The best place for
announcements is here in this House, where we are. This is where
they should be made”.
This situation is very much akin to the situation you were
dealing with at that time. It is very similar. This is a
ministerial announcement. The place for this to have been made
is here in this Chamber. I would suggest there is not a member
here who would disagree with that. The minister of public works
is dealing with a very important situation at this time.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended two meetings at which you and
other House officers were present. We met at the Board of
Internal Economy. We met with respect to a situation that had
arisen in the Chamber coming out of question period. I would
wager that you as Speaker were not aware that this ministerial
statement was taking place.
As members of this place we are entitled in the first instance
to hear in this Chamber of such important matters. Are we not
members of this place? Do we not deserve that respect? I am
certain that if other members had been aware of this announcement
there may have been reference to it. There may have been
reference to it at the informal meeting we held in your office,
yet there was none. Obviously the government was aware while
opposition members were not aware.
The simple fact is that the minister of public works has
attempted to avoid the House of Commons on this issue. There is
good reason for that. It is becoming plainly obvious to everyone
that there are serious problems with this project and the budget
that has been attached to it.
The minister may try to play tough guy with the public servants,
but we are watching him. This is an abrogation of ministerial
responsibility. The minister obviously does not want to listen
to the responses of the opposition parties and it is well known
that he brooks no opposition. Just ask the public servants who
were hung out to dry by the minister before the examination by
the auditor general.
As members of parliament we have an obligation to discharge and
the place to do that is here in the House. We cannot effectively
do so if the ministry is systematically avoiding coming into this
House to enter into parliamentary dialogue and exchange.
We have been patient with the government and we have tried to
make this place work, although there have been times when it has
stumbled.
The public works minister seems to think this place is a museum.
He calls this place a heritage asset. But we are here as an
asset ourselves to parliament. Although I am not one content to
sit on the shelf while the minister of public works runs
roughshod over the House of Commons, I suggest that this is an
insult and that he owes it to this place to consult and he owes
it to this House to make announcements in this place if it is to
truly be respected.
The particular museum piece is through with passive acceptance
of the norms of the last parliament. We are signalling that this
is unacceptable and we invite other members to participate in
this question of privilege and to join in this fight to assert
that the authority of this House is to be respected, not only by
the opposition but by government members as well. Ministers have
a duty to this place and to those who use this building.
Canada is not alone in suffering the attack of the spin doctors.
Your colleague in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom,
Speaker Betty Boothroyd, has repeatedly stated: “When there is
a major change of policy, a statement should first be made in the
House”.
Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of citation 352 of Beauchesne's and I
am not arguing that there has been a breach of privilege per se,
but I do argue that there is contempt of the House. I would ask
you to reserve your decision on this point in order that you may
consider the consequences of allowing this conduct to continue
and to continue unchallenged by the Chair and by the opposition.
Have we reached the day when this House is so weak willed that
we will allow this to occur? Surely that cannot be the case. The
time has come for parliamentary assertion of respect, not only
for the physical premises, not only for these buildings that the
minister of public works seeks to remedy and to fix, but respect
for the members and all of the rights and privileges that flow
from this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, there is a remedy that goes beyond a simple
admonition from the Chair and I ask you to find that there is a
prima facie circumstance to permit consideration by the House of
a motion instructing the minister of public works to make a
statement in the House, fully outlining the government's
intention with respect to the restoration of the parliamentary
precinct.
Mr. Speaker, this is a request that a statement be made in the
House and that perhaps the Speaker also consider issuing an
admonition and that the minister apologize. If you are prepared
to permit this motion, I would move that that take place and that
we refer the matter to a committee, if that is appropriate.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come and I believe, in respect to you,
that you took a step in that direction yesterday by bringing the
House leaders together and looking for solutions that will
improve the way this Chamber works. I am appealing to you on
this matter. This is not the first time this has happened. In
fact it has become the norm in parliament that ministerial
statements are made at the press gallery and not on the floor of
the House of Commons.
I am a new member of this Chamber, but in the short time that I
have been here I have seen this trend continue and I find it
absolutely insulting, not only to members of the House but to the
Canadian people. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate your
consideration of this point.
It is in the context of what he said that I wish to address the
House. In particular, it is the pattern that is being developed
that I find a little disturbing.
It seems to me that there has been more than one breach of the
privileges that ought to be observed for members of parliament.
We are here to represent the people and to represent the best
interests of the people, and also to be judicious in the way in
which public funds are spent.
What the minister announced was in direct agreement with what
the auditor general announced two days before. He asked that
such an advisory board be established. That advisory board was
suggested many years before. In 1992 a similar suggestion was
made by the auditor general and nothing was done. To the extent
that the minister is doing what the auditor general suggested
should be done, that is fine. I do not disagree with that. But
I do disagree with the fact that he took away the privilege of
letting members know what the government is doing in this regard.
We are not dealing with a $100 million expenditure. According
to the auditor general's figure, we are dealing with a number of
$1.4 billion. Reparations to the parliamentary precinct were
originally approved, if my memory is correct, at about $250
million.
To date, projects worth $423 million have been approved. Not
all of that money has been spent, but the projects have been
approved.
Recently the minister appeared before the committee and
suggested that there would be considerable additional
expenditures.
Now the auditor general has said, upon examining the issue, that
it is going to be $1.4 billion. That is no small amount. That
this group should now act as an advisory board I think is a good
thing. However, the minister should have made the announcement
here in this House. That is the issue.
A couple of days ago the House leader for the official
opposition said that there are leaks happening in the committees.
He does not like those leaks taking place and neither do I. I am
sure, Mr. Speaker, that you do not like what is happening. In
fact, you expressed yourself to that effect and I commend you for
doing that.
Before that we had the Minister for International Trade
announcing the creation of a Canada-China parliamentary
association before parliament had even created it.
The government appointed Mr. Landry to the millennium
scholarship foundation at a time when there was no legislation
before the House to set up the foundation.
There was a similar case with the Canadian Wheat Board. Once
again the government began implementing measures before the
measures were approved by parliament.
I raise these issues because there is a pattern developing.
When this parliament began, the government set up a CPP board
before the legislation authorizing this board was adopted by
parliament.
The Speaker said on November 6, 1997 that “the dismissive view
of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a
mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices”.
That is the issue that I wish to address.
The sole source contracts that were addressed by the auditor
general is another issue. There were $4.4 billion in sole
source contracts and 85% of them—
It is a major shift for the minister of public works to say that
the parliamentary precinct will now have, as a co-ordinating
body, a group of people from outside this parliament to advise
the minister. He should have said that in this House. That is
my point.
The only thing this is related to that has come up in recent
days is the matter of more business being done in the House where
it should properly done. In that sense it is related to things
that have come up in previous days.
I would certainly want to agree that this kind of announcement
should have been made in the House. I want to make that point in
the context of the larger argument that more ministerial policy
announcements should be made in the House. I would reinforce
that general point.
The nature of this announcement had to do with the parliamentary
precinct itself. It seems to me that it would have been a
perfect example of something that should have been announced here
in this House.
It was announced outside the House without any foreknowledge,
that I am aware of, either on the part of the Chair or others who
are concerned about this matter.
Without breaching any confidences, I am aware of meetings that
went on yesterday in which people were discussing this very
thing: the relationship between parliament and public works and
what was going on here on the hill, et cetera. Then, all of a
sudden, we read in the paper that the minister of public works
had made an announcement and did not even make it in the House
where there would have been an opportunity to respond.
I think this raises again, Mr. Speaker, whether or not you find
that there is a question of privilege with respect to the whole
question of the continuing inadequacy of the relationship between
parliament and public works and the general lack of direction,
lack of overall planning and lack of overall accountability for
what happens here in the parliamentary precinct.
I would call the House back to recommendations that were made in
1985 by the McGrath committee, the special committee on the
reform of the House of Commons in which we called at that time
for the establishment of a parliamentary intendant. That was the
phrase we used. It was somewhat along the lines of the
congressional architect, which is what they have in the United
States in Washington, D.C. It is someone who is over both
houses, over the congressional precinct and accountable to both
houses, someone who could be the focus of decision making and
planning for the parliamentary precinct including both houses,
the hill, offices, et cetera. We do not have that now.
We have a continuing problem with both the media and the public
trying to find out who is really responsible for the decisions
that are made about what is going to be renovated, how much it
will cost and what is the long term plan. They do not know
whether it is public works, the Senate or the House of Commons.
Frankly sometimes we do not seem to know ourselves. We as
members of parliament read about things in the papers, decisions
that have been taken somewhere else, and we have to answer for
them when it comes to public works and the minister.
This should be one more occasion for the House to get its act
together and try to clean up the confusion that exists with
respect to the various roles of the House and public works.
I also reinforce the point, as I have whenever I get the chance,
that more announcements should be made in the House. I feel that
this announcement should have been made in the House. There
should have been more consultation with the appropriate members
of parliament and the appropriate bodies within parliament before
such an announcement was made. We should not have had to find
out about this by reading the papers.
I bring this to the attention of the Chair. This has nothing to
do with a question of privilege, and I will get into that later.
Standing Order 33(1) states:
This standing order says that it is optional for the minister to
make it and in areas of government policy, presumably important
enough areas, to make the announcement on the floor of the House,
again remembering the issue “may make”.
This morning we heard accusations against the hon. Minister of
Public Works and Deputy Government Leader in the House, in his
absence. The minister is here every day, as we all know. As a
matter of fact he consults regularly with all of us. He is a
member of the Board of Internal Economy. He accepted to sit on
that board at my request so that he could be in greater contact
with all of us because of the important ongoing renovations on
the Hill.
He frequently attends, although not always as it is difficult
for ministers to be several places at once, the Board of Internal
Economy meetings and liaises very closely with House of Commons
staff.
In addition, we have before us today the following proposition
raised by a Reform MP. Should or should not the minister of
public works have adhered to a recommendation made by another
officer of parliament, namely the auditor general? That is
exactly what he did.
The auditor general, an officer of parliament, made a
recommendation in the House two days ago and the minister
responded to it yesterday. There are approximately 200 pages to
the auditor general's report.
Does that mean that every minister who responded yesterday to
the auditor general's report should have tabled or made a
statement in the House of Commons? That is an absurd
proposition. Even if it were true on a very major change of
government policy, should that have been the case for the
minister appointing an advisory council for himself?
This is an advisory council to the minister of public works to
assist him in his work.
Every time we appoint an advisory council for ourselves as
individual ministers, we will have to make statements in the
House according to what the House leader of the Conservative
Party has just said.
I hope that you wait, Mr. Speaker, until tomorrow to render a
decision. The Chair might find out later today that all this is
a prelude to a press conference which others want to make later
today in order to question the expenditures of the renovations of
the Hill and so on, and has nothing to do with a question of
privilege or a point of order.
If I were a betting man, I would bet right now there will be a
press conference later today. Maybe a senator by the name of
Marjory LeBreton is organizing the press conference that is to be
held later today. Maybe it has everything to do with that and
nothing to do with a point of order on the floor of the House,
much less a question of privilege. That is what I submit to Your
Honour. There are issues—
Someone undermining all of us in the House of Commons gave
access to a journalist to part of the precincts reserved for
members of parliament. It was on the front page of newspapers
today. It undermined everyone here and no one is raising
anything about that matter today. That is wrong.
There are a couple of points I would like to answer which the
government House leader brought to our attention. One is that
although we can indeed question the minister any time he is in
the House, the difficulty is that if someone feels there is a
question of privilege we must raise it at the earliest possible
moment. The government House leader knows that this is the
earliest possible moment. I think it is appropriate that it is
brought forward now and I await your decision on it, Mr. Speaker.
There is nothing inappropriate about bringing it forward now. If
we had waited—who knows when the minister might be here—two or
three days to bring it forward it would be out of order just
because of lateness. I think it is entirely in order to bring it
forward.
This is somewhat different from most ministerial announcements
because it potentially deals with the privileges of members. We
see in the newspaper articles today that it may affect the
location of members' offices, especially those of backbenchers.
It may affect access to which buildings are to be used by
committees and so on.
This raises the concern level of backbench MPs. Some members
might say that the last time they talked to their representatives
on the board they thought there was to be another way of handling
the issue of who looks after the precincts of the Hill, who will
be giving directions to the architects and who will be overseeing
the minister's works so that it is not just a public works
project or indeed renovations, work and costs riding herd on the
availability of computer services and all that sort of thing. Who
is looking after it on behalf of members of parliament? It is
certainly not the minister. It is the board. Perhaps there
should be an oversight committee of parliamentarians.
Just as a final point, I remind the Speaker that on other
occasions when things are announced in the press I believe the
Speaker has already ruled that it is a trend we must be concerned
with. It is not just one incident in and of itself. It is kind
of like language in question period. It is not just the one
incident. It is what happens over the course of time. Backbench
MPs may ask whether they are really relevant, whether they are
important or whether parliament is important.
I argue that this case is another one of a trend of ministers
making statements that affect members of parliament. Then we
read about it in the papers and we do not have input. It is a
concern because of a trend, not just the one isolated incident.
I find that this is not a question of privilege, but I find it
extremely regrettable that certain ministerial statements are
made outside the House. I, on a few occasions now, and my
predecessors have recommended that the government be more
respectful of the House. However, perhaps there is a change to
be made in the rules of the House because there is nothing in the
rules of the House that allow me to enforce such a ruling. As
regrettable as some members find these events to be, there is no
contempt until and unless the House as a body gives authority to
the Speaker to enforce something like this on their behalf.
A case was brought up by the hon. member before. What is
involved are the parliamentary precincts. This is a little
different from any other thing. Most of the interveners today
are members of the Board of Internal Economy. It is my view that
this matter should be brought up at the Board of Internal Economy
because it deals with the parliamentary precincts. I am sure the
hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough will have ample
opportunity to put his views to this particular board.
Once again, if there is a trend continuing like the one of my
sister speaker in the United Kingdom, unless and until there is a
specific order of the House this can be done, as you all know, by
introduction perhaps through the procedural committee. I make
that as a suggestion, but at the very least it should be brought
up because it falls within the purview of the authority of the
Board of Internal Economy.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, an act to
establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and
repeal other acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.
This legislation creates a national revenue collecting agency,
the Canada customs and revenue agency, to replace Revenue Canada.
The CCRA transforms Revenue Canada into a quasi-independent tax
agency to take over the collection of personal and corporate
income tax, provincial sales tax, the goods and services tax,
customs duties and excise taxes on gasoline and alcohol levies.
Some provincial finance ministers have shown interest in this
single tax collecting agency but they have not committed to
participating. Certain provinces are asking for greater
flexibility in this tax policy which is an issue not directly
related to the Canada customs and revenue agency. Sometimes
caution is one of the better ways to go with an agency of this
magnitude.
A possible condition for Reform support would be a strong
taxpayer bill of rights. Any taxpayer bill of rights would
include a very clear statement on the accountability of the
agency and a reinforcement of ministerial responsibility through
an independent ombudsman and an office for taxpayer protection.
Having an independent ombudsman would be the direction to go on
this issue.
The government claims the agency should save the taxpayer some
administration costs. The projected estimates of savings run
between $97 million and $162 million. That is quite a savings
provided that the projected efficiencies are built in.
The agency would facilitate integration of tax information and
reporting systems thereby improving the prospect of single window
reporting and reducing the paper burden on small and medium size
businesses. This is something businesses and farmers have been
asking for for years. They have been asking for a simpler tax
form and a simpler way of computing tax so they can better
understand the regulations and how taxes are computed.
The way the agency will be set up kind of throws up a red flag.
It will have a board comprised of 15 directors. The chair and
two directors will be selected by the federal government. This
is similar to the set up of the Canadian Wheat Board for the time
being.
The other 11 directors would also be appointed by governor in
council with input from the provinces which is a good idea. I
could support that as long as these positions did not become more
or less political plums. So often that is the case.
One very good example is the Manitoba Freshwater Fish Marketing
Board. We have seen the appointment of a chairman being so
political that in the end the friction which developed in the
board resulted in the chairman having to resign from his
position. This is something we want to prevent in these types of
government quasi-judicial at a distance organizations.
Revenue Canada clients are looking for more streamlined
services, improved response times and the reduction in the paper
burden associated with compliance for tax, trade and customs
transactions. They want faster service that is easier to access
and which is more responsive to their needs.
What taxpayers and people who deal with this organization want
most is accountability and a fair system which a lot of taxpayers
feel is not there. The conditions attached to the revenue
collected in payroll taxes and GST seem to indicate that people
are not treated equally and fairly.
An independent ombudsman is a must. We certainly do not want to
create an agency that appears to be similar in power to the IRS
in the United States. That has created a lot of problems by
false or improper taxation. It has also led to people serving
jail sentences that should never have been imposed.
Why am I worried about this organization being accountable and
responding to the taxpayer as well as to government? I have a
couple of examples of what I have run into during the last year
or two as a member of parliament.
A year ago I was informed that a businessmen in a neighbouring
town had a severe problem. A day or two before Christmas his and
his wife's accounts had been frozen due to what Revenue Canada
felt were irregularities. Imagine what kind of stress this put
on the businessman during a period of celebration when people are
happy and family come home to spend a joyful Christmas.
The businessman contacted me after Christmas to explain what had
happened. I was astounded that a person could be put into this
type of position. He had contracted to build a place of
business, a manufacturing plant. The people who signed the
contract with him had not fulfilled their commitment. They had
cancelled some of the building project. He was stuck with a
contract where he owed payroll taxes and GST, but he had never
completed the project.
He had submitted $14,000 to an account so that Revenue Canada
could re-evaluate the payroll taxes and other benefits it felt
were delinquent. When this became known, Revenue Canada quickly
backtracked on the type of service the taxpayer had received and
the account was settled under very reasonable conditions.
But the stress and fear in this businessman were unbelievable.
The personal tragedy of it was that he spent a Christmas worrying
about what would happen to his business, not what other business
people were encountering.
The other thing I point out is the Dave Sawatzky case where
revenue and customs laid charges against him and fined him. He
appealed and won that case. The government appealed it and lost
but revenue and customs are still prosecuting other farmers under
the same conditions.
This is not the democracy Canadians expect from the government.
This is the type of democracy we hear about in third world
countries where the government is the sole authority and does as
it pleases. This is why people in Canada are very hesitant to
give an agency the power that the Canada customs and revenue
agency will receive under this bill.
We as members of the House must be vigilant and look at it
seriously, amend it where possible to make safeguards available
to the taxpayers and put trust back into the customs and revenue
organization.
This procedure is termed a gag order because it limits our
ability to pursue debate and exchanges on a bill. When a gag is
imposed, it prevents us as parliamentarians from continuing the
exchange on matters of great importance.
When there is little opposition to a bill, when we reach
agreement promptly, when a bill is well put together and when
everything appears to be in order, we make interventions in
order to make some improvements, and then, relatively promptly,
the debate leads to its logical conclusion, which is unanimous
passage of the bill or, more often, its passage following a
division to settle the outstanding points.
When a bill is more sensitive and more complicated, and when the
positions of the various parties with something to say on the
bill are harder to reconcile, then we need more time.
For some reason, the government deems it preferable to prevent
us from continuing debate in an attempt to bring the various
positions closer together and to find acceptable compromises.
The government prefers to impose a gag order.
What will the outcome be? We will end up with a bill on which
there will be a division, while considerable dissent still
remains and consensus has not been reached, or in other words a
bill that will be passed, despite its being badly put together.
It is an affront to our democratic principles. It is an affront
to the quality of work that should come out of this House and,
finally, it is an affront to the public's right to the best
legislation possible in Quebec and Canada.
This is the situation we are facing. This bill was not
unanimously received, quite the contrary, and we oppose it for a
number of real and significant reasons. Rather than try to
compromise or to align positions, the government, it seems, is
insisting on its own position, will not budge, will not
compromise. That is why it is imposing closure.
We should now, because we have a limited time, simply reiterate
our positions in the knowledge—and note how frustrating it
is—that the government will not budge one iota on the bill
before the House.
It is frustrating to know that, despite our efforts, our
recommendations, our research and our concerns, the government
is turning a deaf ear, preferring to stop discussions and have
the bill passed. Naturally, since the government has a
majority, it knows it can impose its bill.
The House of Commons does not exist for the government to impose
bills. A government that respects the opposition does not
impose bills.
The government is making a mistake, because this is an important
bill affecting everyone. One day, it will realize that there
will indeed be the negative effects we predicted, and the public
will let the government know just what it thinks in an election.
Two years ago, in the last parliament, the Bloc Quebecois, the
NDP and the other opposition parties accurately predicted the
adverse effects of the employment insurance reform. We put our
finger on its major flaws, which would end up depriving people
of the income they need when they lose their jobs. We predicted
the adverse effects of the reform on the dynamics of the labour
market and on the employment situation.
We pointed all this out. Two years later, it is obvious we were
right. The minister and government of the day took no notice of
our objections and made no attempt to incorporate our
suggestions for improvement into the bill. Since the
legislation has been in effect, hundreds of thousands of people
have been hurt by the major flaws in this legislation.
Not one government minister would set foot in an airplane thrown
together the way the House sometimes throws its bills together.
The bill before us is ill-drafted. If it were an airplane, it
would never get off the ground. But it is proposed legislation,
and the government is determined that it will fly, with
predictable results.
There are still ordinary folks who will have to defend
themselves against this unjust and inefficient legislation, who
will have to prove that they are right. Worse still, even if
they are right, if the law says they are wrong, then it is the
law that will apply regardless.
I would also like to point out that the bill before us wants to
concentrate tax collection in one agency that is, to all intents
and purposes, independent of the minister.
It is a bill that separates tax collection in Canada from our
responsibility as parliamentarians. This is a serious matter.
It is serious because, the day something goes wrong in this
agency, we will rise in the House and question the Minister of
Revenue. We will tell him that there is such and such a problem
that should be corrected. Like all the other ministers hiding
behind commissions and agencies, the minister will tell us that
the agency in question is an independent body, with its own
problem-solving mechanisms, and that it is able to take care of
matters itself. He will tell us that there is a complaints
commission and that we should butt out.
With a bill like this, it is not the opposition the government
is telling to butt out, it is the poor population of Canada. The
problem is that the responsibility of parliament for an
important agency in charge of tax collection is being removed.
There is an old principle “No taxation without representation”.
To confer on an organization operating almost at arm's length
from parliament the power, duty and means to collect our taxes
is certainly stretching this principle to the limit.
I will go one step further. In Quebec, we have our own
department of revenue.
My question to the government is this: Since the social union
project to allow a province to opt out of a federal government
program is now on the table and will be in the coming weeks the
subject of further debate between the provincial premiers and
the federal government, could and should Quebec not opt out of
this project to have tax collected by an outside agency and
collect both provincial taxes and all federal taxes and then,
through the Quebec revenue department, send taxes collected on
behalf of Canada to the Minister of Finance? The Quebec revenue
department already does it, with great success and efficiency,
for the GST.
Since I am running out of time, I want to say that I appreciate
having had this opportunity to express my views.
I hope the government will consider withdrawing this bill
forthwith.
It is a rare honour to witness a government bill that we believe
is moving in the right direction. I am pleased to see that Bill
C-43 may reduce tax collection, administration and compliance
costs, particularly if the provinces decide to opt in. My
understanding at this time is that there is some interest by the
provinces in these revisions. However, none of them has yet made
any kind of formal commitment. Let us hope we can get them on
board.
Corporations, businesses and individuals alike will be pleased
that they will no longer have to deal with a plethora of
agencies. By focusing the tax collection needs with the Canada
customs and revenue agency, overall costs should be reduced. I
believe all Canadians would be in favour of reducing the cost of
government and its associated departments.
While I believe there are some significant steps forward in this
bill, there is a a lack of autonomous accountability in both the
existing and the proposed bills.
The proposed role of the agency is to be responsible to the
Minister of National Revenue. I believe we can do better than
this. When we deal with taxpayer money individuals want to be
assured there is full accountability and redress if and whenever
necessary. If we want to upset someone we can be successful by
telling him or her that they owe the government X number of
dollars and that their options for disagreement are limited.
This is true of people whether they be small business owners,
corporations or individual taxpayers. Financial accountability is
very important to all Canadians.
The Reform Party is very much in favour of a cost efficient use
of Canadian taxpayer dollars. This is one of our basic
principles. It is a grassroots principle that remains very
important to all our constituents and to all Canadians. The
inefficient use and waste of tax dollars may be seen in many
different examples at almost every level of government today.
Citizens are always pleased to hear of positive changes and
improvements to the government's use of their financial
resources.
What appears to be lacking in the proposed revisions in an
accountability process for the taxpayers. We have heard it said
already today but I believe there should be in place a taxpayer
bill of rights. Why would we need a taxpayer bill of rights? The
answer may be seen in a letter I received from a constituent who
had difficulties with Revenue Canada. I will read his letter for
members and see if they do not agree that a multitude of problems
exist with this situation. The letter is dated August 27, 1998,
addressed to the hon. Minister of Finance:
I sincerely hope that no one else has to endure what Mr.
Gravonic has gone through. However, I am sure they do.
I think we would all agree this case would make anyone angry and
very untrustworthy of the tax system. I am thankful and hopeful
that not every tax situation is like this one. However, even one
case is one too many.
A taxpayer bill of rights would ensure that Mr. Gravonic and
people like him would have recourse within the system rather than
spending hard earned dollars on court appeals. In order to be
effective, the taxpayer bill of rights must include several key
points.
Taxpayers must be able to read and understand the tax laws in
plain language terms. Legal double talk only confuses the
situation. Taxpayers must be treated professionally and with
courtesy.
Taxpayers must have a recourse method that allows them to
complain about service and treatment that is below standard. This
process must allow the taxpayer the right to move up the
seniority roster and be heard by a senior official and in turn
their superior if the answer is not satisfactory.
Taxpayers need the right to only pay the amount of tax due, no
more, no less. Taxpayers need to know what any collected
information will be used for.
When dealing with the proposed Canada customs and revenue
agency, taxpayers need the opportunity to represent themselves or
to have someone represent them through any dispute resolution
process. Those people who are in dispute with the CCRA need the
opportunity to record any meetings. All disputed claimants need
the right to appeal first administratively and then, if
necessary, legally.
When taxpayers have acted in good faith and without any
intention to evade, the proposed CCRA shall waive penalties and
interest. In cases where reassessments will cause severe and
undue hardships, alternative repayment methods shall be made.
The proposed CCRA will be entitled to seize or freeze assets
when fraud and/or evasion is suspected, but only when the CCRA
can show why such action should be taken.
That is a long list but I believe they are all necessary. They
will only be strong when there is an autonomous office willing
and able to stand up and support them. This office needs to be
an independent voice for the Canadian taxpayer which will
represent and fully support the interests of all Canadians.
This office should be set up as an independent voice of the
taxpayer, an office for taxpayer protection that represents the
interests of the Canadian taxpayer. I see this office being set
up similar to the role of the auditor general, a role that would
report annually to parliament on the status of taxpayer and CCRA
relations.
Do we need a taxpayer bill of rights in conjunction with the
changes proposed by Bill C-43? I believe so. I believe that the
53,500 taxpayers who filed appeals and objections last year all
believe we need such a process in place.
For the above reasons I find that unfortunately at this point I
must oppose Bill C-43 unless the government commits to passing
the taxpayer bill of rights with an office for taxpayer
protection.
I will list them, then comment on each.
First, the establishment of this revenue collection agency is,
in my opinion, an abdication of political power.
Second, the establishment of the agency is also an admission of
powerlessness on the part of the minister. Third, I believe it
is an anti-union measure. Fourth and last, but not the least, it
reflects the centralizing vision of the Liberal government
opposite.
Why do I call this an abdication of the political power? Because,
given the wording of the bill establishing this agency, the
minister will now be able to hide behind the agency and say it
is the agency's staff, not the minister, that is responsible for
any wrongdoing, thus leaving it up to the agency to face the
music.
At the political level, we will no longer be able to question
the minister in the House regarding any problem. I heard the
Reform Party member mention one such problem earlier. Clearly,
we must protect and, more importantly, maintain the principle of
accountability to parliament.
I also said the minister was powerless. I have always of him as
a nice guy, because I have worked with him on other issues in
the past. But, on the face of it, when I read the bill, I
realized he is the only person I know who wants to fire his
whole staff. He will not have anyone left, except perhaps his
chauffeur. Why, then, should we keep the minister? Is the
government telling us that we will no longer have a minister
responsible for this issue? All this indicates that no one will
be accountable in the House any longer.
I also feel this initiative is an anti-union measure.
I must remind hon. members that the public servants involved in
customs or tax collections account for about 20% of the entire
Canadian public service, one-fifth. With one fell swoop, with
passage of this bill, one-fifth of the federal public service
would no longer be public servants, they would be employees of
the agency instead. They would then be subject to whatever new
rules the agency felt like imposing.
I have some problems with the centralizing view of the
government, because the intention in establishing such an agency
is “to collect taxes from all Canadians”. Provincial taxes were
also mentioned. The bill even states that contracts could be
signed with municipalities and other organizations. This is
really wanting to grab the whole pie, slamming the door so no
one else can get any.
I have trouble with all this talk of establishing agencies. The
Liberals tell us it will simplify things and avoid duplication,
but it seems that those two words are synonymous for them. By
wishing to simplify things, they will create duplication. For
example, if this agency wanted to collect all of the GST and the
TVQ, these are already rolled together in Quebec, and collected
by Quebec. So what, exactly, are they up to?
Every time the Liberals over there speak of harmonization, it is
synonymous with interference. They end up with their hands in
the pockets of individuals, provinces and municipalities. This
business of the social union is proof of this, as they are
saying “We might give you part of it back, provided you meet
certain criteria, ours”.
I hope the other provinces and the municipalities will not
blindly fall into the trap of this new agency the government is
creating.
The creation of this agency will remove its employees from the
application of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. In
addition, the agency will be removed from the application of the
Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and the Official
Languages Act.
We are told that this is certainly not the case. So if all this
changes nothing, why create this agency at all? We are told “It
is to modernize the Canadian public service”. “Modernize” is
synonymous with “privatize” in the mouths of the Liberals. It
is becoming a bit annoying.
However, the word “privatize” frightens and bothers me. I will
give an example. The Canada Post Corporation used to report to
the government. It was privatized. Shortly before or after we
were elected, Canada Post bought another private company,
Purolator. So this means possible amalgamation. The government
still talks of mail or equipment delivery.
Is the government perhaps contemplating an amalgamation
involving this agency? Does this mean that, following
privatization, the agency would be in a position to decide what
it wants and could decide to buy H & R Block, a company that
helps people prepare their tax returns? Could we expect the
agency responsible for collecting to also be the one preparing
the returns?
I hope those on the other side of the House will be able to say
this is not the case. However, in many cases, and I could point
to a number of examples, some of which involve the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, the government annoyingly wants to be both
judge and jury. That is not a very good thing for Canadian
justice.
I would also like to speak briefly to clauses 15, 22 and 25. I
also have a point to make about clause 30. More specifically,
clauses 15, 22 and 25 provide for its operation, with a board of
15 directors.
Of course, these 15 persons will be appointed by the governor in
council. The public must understand that what this really means
is that they will be appointed by the government.
Who will the government appoint? Its friends of course, defeated
candidates. These jobs are for a term of five years, and
renewable to boot. This will make for a comfortable retirement
to look forward to for some members opposite. The former
solicitor general may want to look into this. We shall see; the
future will tell.
Under clause 30.(1), the agency has decisional authority over
its organization and general administrative policy. Basically,
it will have control over all matters relating to organization,
real property and personnel management, including the
determination of the terms and conditions of employment.
What does this mean?
In the context of privatization, budget restraint and
streamlining, should the employees who are declared surplus and
probably have to take the jobs they are offered in the new
agency already expect a salary cut?
This is not clear. The Liberals across the way never tell us
about the nasty tricks they are about to pull. We have to be
able to read between the lines.
I am afraid that they might not only cut the salaries of those
working for this agency but at the same time increase the
salaries of those running it.
Will future directors or vice-presidents of this agency want
their salaries to match those of their counterparts in a major
bank, because they handle roughly the same amount of business?
Is salary inflation to be expected? I am afraid so.
To conclude, I have noticed some consistency in the way the
people opposite approach privatization. They started by
privatizing postal services; this was done a long time ago. But
under this government, railways, ports and airports have been
privatized. Now they are talking about establishing a tax
collection agency.
My message to the rest of Canada is this: Is Canada being put up
for sale piece by piece? All the symbols on which this country
was built—ports, airports, railways, and now tax collection—are
being privatized and sold off one by one. This is the conclusion
I leave my friends from the rest of Canada to ponder.
Bill C-43 seeks to establish the Canada customs and revenue
agency, which will enjoy, under an illusory control, the
excessive and even kingly power to collect taxes. It is a power
that, until now, was the state's exclusive prerogative, although
there was a time when such was not the case.
During the middle ages, until the 14th or 15th century, there
was in Europe an institution called farmers general. These
individuals were despised by the public, because they were
mandated by the king to collect taxes. So, we are going back to
the middle ages in this area. This is clearly a step backwards.
I want to say a word about ADM, because of the obvious
similarities between that agency and the one that the government
wants to establish now.
ADM was given the power to manage Montreal's airports, without
any government control. Seven people decided the future of
Dorval and Mirabel airports. We all remember ADM's decision to
transfer international flights from Mirabel to Dorval. So, seven
individuals were given the power make a decision that turned out
to be disastrous for a region of Canada called the greater
Montreal.
At the time, I asked a question about this in the House and was
told that it was not the minister's responsibility, that it was
up to ADM. In other words, the minister told me he was washing
his hands of the whole affair, in this case Mirabel airport.
Nav Canada, which is responsible for navigation aids, was
another similar creation. It too is almost completely
autonomous. If Nav Canada were to decide tomorrow—and it
could—to shut down a control tower, and we were to ask the
minister about it, the minister could easily tell us that it was
up to Nav Canada, not him, and that he was washing his hands of
the whole affair, so to speak.
The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is more of the same. It
is part of a deliberate and long-term plan by the government,
which is once again creating an agency behind which it can hide.
From airport management and navigation aids, we have moved on to
tax collection. In creating these agencies, the government is
looking for two benefits. The first is to be able to reward its
political friends with plum jobs not governed by public service
pay rules. The second is to create a buffer zone from which the
government can safely blame the agency for anything that
happens.
This is scandalous, but I am objective enough to point out that
there is one benefit to creating this agency, and that is that
it will provide one more argument in convincing Quebeckers that
there is only one way out of this rotten regime and that is
sovereignty.
The Bloc Quebecois has expressed constructive opposition to this
bill from the beginning. The government is laying open to
question a vital principle, with its desire to create an
instrument for collecting taxes that would allow it to encroach
on others' areas of jurisdiction. Take, for example, the taxes
that could be collected in Quebec.
There is also the fact that the taxpayers' independence will be
greatly diminished if they have to deal with this huge
bureaucracy for tax collection.
Every citizen must contribute his proper share, must participate
in the government budget, but not excessively.
We are familiar with the cases of a number of people who have
received notices of assessment and then, after these are looked
into, it is found that a compromise could have been reached,
that more could have been done. Most of these cases are settled
through the usual mechanisms, but not all.
This bill will lead to more such cases. The government says it
must collect a lot of money. Such is the philosophy behind
their collecting money for employment insurance, money deducted
at source. I fear the same attitude will be behind the proposed
agency.
As well, the employees of this agency need to be independent,
and in the past their independence was linked to their status as
public servants, which is likely to undergo a significant
change. They may end up more vulnerable to political
interference. In the end, the people will be less well served
by the new formula proposed by the bill.
The argument that the provinces, Quebec for example, could
voluntarily come under the new proposal for this federal agency
to collect all taxes, strikes me as rather fallacious. It
smacks of Plan B. Some years ago, Quebeckers decided that they
wanted part of their taxes to be collected by Quebec, so that
the money would be divided as the Government of Quebec wanted.
We agreed on the GST. The GST is collected and administered by
Quebec, which then hands it over to the federal government, and
the future lies much more in this direction.
If people, even federalists, were prepared to consider taking
the opposite approach and, instead of letting the federal
government collect taxes and giving it spending authority in all
the provincial areas of jurisdiction, were to let any province
so wishing collect taxes and remit a portion thereof for its
share of services provided by the federal government, the entire
dynamic of Canadian federalism would be altered.
The bill before us is not based on this approach.
Instead, it is based on ensuring that the federal government has
an increasing number of ways in which it can invade the
provinces' areas of jurisdiction, gradually strangle them and
take their place. Ultimately, the federal government is
becoming ever-present. This is one more way of confirming the
old vision of Canada as a country with a single level of
government, in which the provinces are seen as little more than
overgrown municipalities. They have very limited powers and
they are certainly not seen by the public as the central
authority.
If I may digress, last night I was astonished to learn that the
first thing Mr. Charest did as leader of the opposition in
Quebec was to ask that Canada's flag be present in the National
Assembly. This from someone who says he is in touch with
Quebeckers.
It is my impression that he has not completed his “Quebec 101”
course, and that it may take years for him to understand.
Sometimes too, a person has to be willing to understand. There
is, perhaps, something missing here.
This whole dynamic is what underlies the bill before us. The
main focus of government for Quebeckers, the control centre, is
the Quebec Legislative Assembly. Quebeckers want to see it
collecting as much of their taxes as possible. We are not
prepared to go before the federal government like lambs to the
slaughter and to forgo our fair share of autonomy.
This bill was dormant for a long time.
Preparations were under way for a very long time to try and get
it past Parliament, and finally it was decided to table it. But
it is running into considerable opposition, particularly from
experts in the field and from all those who work for the
department and feel that this bill will make the taxpayer the
loser in the long run and deprive them of the necessary autonomy
to perform their duties.
I am going to propose another possible mode, one which the
government ought to consider. Instead of steamrollering a bill
through like this, the provinces ought to have been consulted in
order to see what model might have been acceptable to them, and
whether there are any conditions which might prove to be of
interest without making a government such as the Government of
Quebec feel caught in a trap.
Tax collection is certainly not the answer to all the country's
ills, but it is the kind of issue that goes to the heart of what
is really bothering people. In its determination to ram this
bill through, the federal government is invoking closure so as
to cut off debate before all parliamentarians have had a chance
to express their views.
There is no rush. We do not have a national or international
crisis. We have a bill that is sadly in need of improvement.
It is clear that the bill would have needed many more changes at
report stage to be acceptable to the majority of parties in the
House.
This is the sort of issue that demands that we take the time to
reach a consensus because it has a direct effect on the public
through tax collection and through negotiations with individuals
and with companies. There has to be broad consensus on the
approach. This was not a bill that had the support of the
majority, such bills often standing up very well in the long run
because enough thought went into them at the outset.
Instead, we have a bill passed by a majority that has its head
in the sand and has decided to ram the bill through, without
making the necessary amendments.
For these reasons, and for all the reasons mentioned by the Bloc
Quebecois members, I think it important that this bill be
considered further and sent back to committee, or withdrawn so
that it can be worked into something acceptable.
We would do better to take our time to produce something
acceptable and to remove all the irritants the bill contains for
those who would like a government, such as Quebec, to be allowed
to retain and to broaden its autonomy with respect to tax
collection.
At the time, like today, the Bloc Quebecois strongly rejected
this bill, which we deemed centralizing.
Allow me to explain to you some of the reasons behind our
opposition to this Liberal initiative. First, this institution
will become a superstructure, a super tax collection
institution, which will enable Ottawa to extend its influence to
all levels of government.
We already know that this agency sprung from the imagination of
senior tax officials in Ottawa. They would really like to
control a gigantic fiscal octopus extending its tentacles beyond
the provinces to municipal and local administrations.
Their intent is to administer everything from provincial sales
taxes to gasoline and alcohol taxes. We should ask ourselves
“Do Quebeckers and Canadians want to give such power to a single
government agency?” The answer, as you will agree, is no.
We oppose the creation of this agency because the government's
obligation to account to the public and to Parliament will be
weakened. In its present form, Revenue Canada is responsible to
taxpayers through the Department of National Revenue. So at the
moment, the government cannot evade difficult questions, such as
the family trusts scandal, for example.
However, the new agency would not be subject to the direct
control of the House of Commons and would therefore face less
rigorous parliamentary scrutiny.
Once again, do Canadians and Quebeckers want to have an agency
that the government can use as a cover? The answer is no.
This answer becomes even clearer when one is familiar with the
Liberal approach to management: they constantly hide behind
inquiries and independent agencies to avoid answering
embarrassing questions. That is how they reacted to the
questions raised concerning the involvement of senior military
officers in the Somalia affair. That is also how they reacted to
questions on air safety. They reacted the same way with respect
to food inspection.
This morning, in the Standing Committee on Health, we heard the
assistant to the auditor general and the president of the food
inspection agency, another independent agency established
recently, which is similar to the one contemplated by the
government in Bill C-43: the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
I urge hon. members to read the section of the auditor general's
report dealing with how this transition was handled. When I
toured Quebec over the summer, I visited a distribution centre,
an income tax return processing centre in the riding of my
colleague from Jonquière. I met more than 500 public service
employees. All of them cautioned us about two things.
The first one is the infamous pay equity issue. I will not bring
it up again, because it has already been the subject of
extensive debate in this House.
The second point raised by public service employees, residents
and voters from the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for
Jonquière, is their concern about the agency that will be
established under Bill C-43.
Let me go back to this morning's meeting of the standing
committee on health. The auditor general once again showed that
the transition from the Department of Health to a food
inspection agency had generated major distortions.
I will not draw a parallel, but allow me to voice my concerns
about Bill C-43, which will establish a similar independent
agency. I believe there is cause for concern.
My colleague, the Bloc Quebecois critic on this issue and member
for Saint-Eustache, expressed concern about it. It is important
to take note of that concern.
The government continued in the same vein to avoid having to
deal with the Prime Minister's involvement in police violence
against students at the Vancouver APEC summit. We refuse to give
the Liberal government another excuse to take cover and avoid
answering the public's questions in an area as important as the
collection of taxes.
The Canada customs and revenue agency could also be prejudicial
to people's privacy. As members know, we live in a world where
computer technology is becoming increasingly important, and
where private sector organizations buy and sell more and more
personal information. The federal government has already dealt
with the sensitive issue of protecting personal information in
Bill C-54.
My colleague from Chambly will be speaking soon. I remember his
comments about the concerns raised by Bill C-54. The Liberal
government is consistent. It is so uncomfortable with the
principle of protecting personal information, that it even
attempted to downplay this objective in the title of a bill that
is supposed to do just that.
Bill C-54 is entitled an act to support and promote electronic
commerce—“support”, “promote” and “commerce” are the three key
words—by protecting personal information that is collected,
used or disclosed in certain circumstances.
It is obvious that, with this bill, the Liberal government is
giving priority to commerce over the protection of personal
information. We now fear that it may be pursuing the same
objective with this agency, that is to maximize government
revenues, without regard for the protection of personal
information.
So, the government is consistent, in Bill C-54 and Bill C-43. How
can we confidently hand over so much personal information to a
super-powerful federal agency, when it was designed by a Liberal
government that will not give priority to the protection of
personal information over the promotion of unfettered commerce?
The answer is obvious.
Canadians and Quebeckers cannot trust such an institution. We
have serious concerns about the balance of powers that will
prevail within the new federal agency.
Who, exactly, will decide? In the end, who will be accountable?
These are questions we have.
I conclude by saying that if the federal government truly wants
to improve the administration of tax laws and streamline their
application, the solution is simple: Quebec already has a
revenue department that does a good job of collecting taxes. The
federal government should simply, once and for all, hand over to
Revenue Quebec the responsibility for collecting all taxes in
Quebec, and it should do the same with all the other provinces
that want to do so.
Such decentralization would give some credence to the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs, who claimed again yesterday that
the Canadian federation was open and decentralized.
The Liberals are eliminating Canada's democratic past. They
wanted to give the federal government powers that could have
been assumed by a neighbour, a friend or an enemy. They wanted
to gloss over our personal convictions so they could confer
responsibilities on the federal government, which fulfilled them
through the public service. This was a social consensus among
all taxpayers.
With this tax collection agency, who says that tomorrow I will
not discover that my Liberal opponent in the 1993 or the 1997
election is sending me my tax bill? He could, on the strength
of the election campaign in which we opposed each other, ask me
to remit whatever he feels like, taking me out of the political
circuit and into bankruptcy if he wants.
This sort of thing could happen. The government claims to be
serious and concerned about ensuring social and civil peace. I
doubt it very much.
There are matters the people have put in the hands of government
and this they accepted willingly and wholeheartedly. That is
what this government is scrapping. That was the word the
government used in relation to the GST. They were supposed to
scrap it, but scrap the GST they did not. Furthermore, as an
admission of their incompetence I am sure, they let Quebec
collect the GST. It seems to be working very well.
That is the kind of ethics these agencies have. This is sad. The
Liberals should realize this because, in four years, they will
certainly be gone. And the next government will not be a Bloc
Quebecois government. That much is sure, because this is not our
goal.
The government which will be replacing the present one here
in this House will probably hold the same line. Perhaps then
they will be the ones who are stuck. Perhaps then they will be
the ones who will pay for it. This is a short-sighted policy.
They do not see any further than the end of their noses.
They are placing their fates in the hands of agencies. Yet
there are political and social risks to this approach. The
social risks need to be looked at.
Some, I know, will take it very badly to have money collected
from them by people who have absolutely no vision of a just and
equitable society, people for whom all means to an end are
justified, that end being to collect taxes and probably get a
commission for doing so. Whether the taxes collected are
actually owing is not important, all that counts is the cut for
collecting them.
Probably 20% of the federal public service, which was the
object of a social consensus, is also being chopped. People
said “The government must assume its responsibilities and
someone neutral will do this. We will voluntarily submit to the
authority of that neutral entity, the public service”. But now
we are starting to see the buddies of the regime, the PM's
friends, being brought into the picture, and not for the first
time.
I see my colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière, nodding, and
she is right to do so.
Every day, I receive notices of appointments to boards of
directors, in agencies such as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
or Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. For the fun of it, I
took a look at the big book on financial contributions made to
political parties. Without exception, the names of all those
appointed to these boards is in the big book that lists those
who made contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada, for
example last year. This is getting to be a concern. People make
contributions to the Liberal party in exchange for political
appointments.
During the last parliament, we passed a bill to prevent double
dipping, that is to prevent those who are entitled to a public
service pension and who are sitting as members of parliament, or
those who are former MPs and have a job in the public service,
from getting two incomes. This is what we call double dipping.
But we should take a look at what is going on at the Department
of National Defence. There are at least eight or nine former
generals or high-ranking officers, who are retired from the
Canadian forces and collecting a full pension, which,
incidentally, does not compare with the small pension a member
of parliament gets after two terms. These people are hired as
consultants by the federal government at $180,000, $200,000,
$225,000 and even $250,000 a year. People get treated very well
when they are friends of the Liberal Party.
Since not everyone can become an ambassador, the government
must find other positions to appoint good Liberal troops, who
may not be as educated or as competent.
They will work in collection agencies harassing their fellow
citizens and clamping Denver boots on their cars. Every trade
has its value, of course, but nothing is too repugnant for an
appointed Liberal. He can do anything he is asked to.
The revenue agency can have them delivering pizzas if it pays.
You can have people do anything you want when their only goal in
life is to succeed and make money.
In those days, federal prisons in the U.S. used to be run by
agencies similar to the one the Liberals want to set up. That
system was abolished in 1949. I can assure you that prisoners
were not pampered. They were abused, and lost all sense of
dignity. They were treated like animals. They suffered from
malnutrition.
The only criterion in appointing people to manage prisons was
cost effectiveness. It had to be cheap. What is cheap is not a
recipe for success. So many thing are cheap.
But some are much too expensive. For example, cabinet ministers
who come up with ill-conceived schemes such as this one. That is
much too expensive.
The government should realize that this bill to set up an agency
for the collection of all taxes in Canada is dead in the water,
because the underlying principle on which the establishment of
this agency is based, namely the signing of administrative tax
agreements with the provinces, has yet to be applied in
practice.
When the bill was introduced, not a single agreement or even a
letter of intent had been signed with any of the provinces.
So how do you justify a bill that obviously reflects the
government's wishful thinking and the centralizing vision it is
trying to ram down the throats of the provinces?
This bill only reflects the centralizing vision of the Chrétien
government, and we can never say often enough that, for the
federal Liberals, rationalization means duplication and,
ironically, harmonization means interference. Did the people in
Canada and in Quebec ask for such an agency? To ask the question
is to answer it.
Besides being totally out of touch with people's real needs, the
government is trying, with this bill, to stretch its tentacles
beyond the provincial governments to municipal and local
administrations.
Moreover, what can we say about a government that delegates such
a fundamental responsibility as collecting and administering
taxes paid by corporate and individual taxpayers? Who will
ensure that taxpayers' rights are protected? Who will ensure
that personal information remains confidential?
In this age of computer information and centralization of
personal and financial data, people fear for their privacy, and
rightly so. The agency as proposed would have a personal and
financial data bank that should be of concern to taxpayers. They
should be able to expect their government to protect access to
this information.
With this bill the government is abdicating its
responsibilities toward taxpayers.
Even though the government claims the agency will be accountable
to elected representatives, the fact is this new structure would
become an entity difficult to get around and to control.
It may seem advantageous for the revenue minister to hide behind
the agency to avoid giving a quick answer to embarrassing
questions by members of parliament, but the taxpayers and the
members of the Bloc Quebecois only see further delays in
answering questions and more hurdles between problems and
solutions. Moreover, the revenue minister himself should be
leery of this new superstructure which might be beyond his
control.
I would like someone to explain where the so-called savings used
to justify the new agency are going to come from.
First, one further layer of bureaucracy is added in the form of
an appointed management board which will require time, money and
staff. Furthermore, senior executives will be entirely free to
pay themselves salaries comparable to those of executives in the
private sector. Finally, providing free services to provinces
who want to harmonize their program with the federal income tax
program will automatically bring an increase and certainly not a
decrease in the agency's costs.
Therefore I ask where it is expected that there will be savings.
It seems quite obvious to me that if there are any savings,
there will certainly be made at the expense of frontline
workers.
As a matter of fact, 20% of public servants will no longer come
under the Public Service Employment Act. Clause 30(1) shows the
government's true intentions, which are barely hidden. It says:
Clause 54 tells us even more. It says:
The anti-union nature of this bill is quite obvious.
With this bill, the government shows that it is incapable of
being a good employer, doubly so. It introduces a bill that
threatens the job security of one-fifth of the public service,
and after having shamefully delayed for many years dealing with
the pay equity issue. This government has proven that it prefers
strong-arm tactics to crush employees' collective demands.
I should point out that in my riding the union at the Taxation
Data Centre in Jonquière represents 1,200 workers.
Over the last several years, and with the spectre of this new
agency looming since 1996, employees and local management have
had to deal with a series of unbelievable adjustments, drastic
budget cuts, a reorganisation of services between various
taxation centres, the use of a large part of their operating
budget to avoid the Y2K bug, while implementing costly new
technologies requiring less human involvement.
All this turmoil has required superhuman efforts to minimise the
impact on jobs. So far, they have managed pretty well to avoid
serious problems. The Taxation Data Centre still has an
excellent reputation as regards the performance of its
employees.
In a region like ours, where unemployment is high, every job
counts.
What will be the impact of the establishment of this new agency,
and how many jobs will be lost in the next two years? Perhaps
no job will be lost. However, if there is little or no impact
on jobs, then should we not conclude that, in order to save
money, we will have to cut services to the public or impose user
fees?
Indeed, the agency will have the authority to establish user
fees for the services which are useful to the users.
Therefore, this measure could mean user fees for individuals or
small businesses, and that for the privilege of paying their
taxes. This takes the cake.
If the federal government really wants to reduce overlap and
duplication between the federal and provincial governments,
really wants to reduce costs for businesses, taxpayers and
governments, then we agree.
In Quebec we already have our revenue department which collects
provincial taxes and, since 1992, the federal GST.
As I was saying at the beginning of my remarks, I urge the
government to withdraw this bill which will not save any money
or simplify tax administration but will reduce parliamentary
control over tax collection and administration, at the
same time as threatening job security and working conditions for
40,000 employees.
I would remind the House that the government had announced in
the throne speech of 1996 that it would establish this agency to
convert the current Department of National Revenue into a
semi-independent agency.
The agency's mandate would be to act as a tax collector in
Canada, but not only for the federal government. Indeed, as
provided in the legislation, the agency could negotiate with
provincial and municipal governments agreements for the
collection of all kinds of taxes, including sales taxes,
property taxes, and so on.
We cannot approve this legislation which, from the start, aims
only at centralizing the collection of taxes in this country, at
downsizing the national revenue department workforce and,
mostly, at establishing an agency that, once again, will come
into conflict with the Quebec revenue department.
The quasi-independent agency would allow the revenue department
to hide behind it to avoid taking its responsibilities. It would
avoid its obligation to protect taxpayers against abuses of
power. This is worthy of the imagination of officials who want
to increase their power at the expense of the minister in order
to make decisions in his stead.
And who is going to suffer? Certainly not senior managers,
because those officials will have the power to pay themselves
salaries like those in the private sector. It will be the
support staff, the ones responsible for processing the claims,
in short, the majority of the employees. This agency is more
open to patronage and abuse of power.
The minister does not seem to realize the importance of the
powers he is giving to unelected officials who are not
accountable to anybody. Under the present structure, Revenue
Canada is fully accountable to parliament and to the taxpayers.
1310
However, parliament will have less control over the agency than
it does now over the department. An agency would feel much less
compelled than a department to be accountable, to provide
answers to questions and deal with concerns raised by members on
behalf of the public. Do we want to see the government resort
once more to an agency to avoid answering questions on tax
collection? The answer is no.
With the creation of an agency that collects taxes for provinces
and municipalities, do we have any idea of the volume of
confidential data this agency will have? With an agency of this
size, an incredible quantity of personal and financial
information will be in the hands of a single institution, which
will be less accountable before parliament and before the
minister than Revenue Canada is currently.
The main purpose of the Canada customs and revenue agency is to
conclude new tax administration agreements with the provinces.
When this bill was introduced, the government did not have a
single agreement. Quebec and Ontario were opposed, because this
level of taxation should be the responsibility of the provinces,
which should administer it. The western provinces, which seemed
cool to the idea at the start, are now opposed to it.
Even Prince Edward Island has told Ottawa that it is not
prepared to transfer other tax powers to the federal government.
So where is the support? The department itself says that the
provinces want the agency to prove its mettle before they decide
to give it more of their tax programs. It is outrageous to
think of supporting the creation of a new bureaucratic structure
in the hope that the provinces might participate in it. There
are no agreements, but hundreds of public servants have already
been released to work on this new agency the minister of revenue
wants to impose on us.
The business world should be the first to be interested in this
agency. And yet, the CCRA failed to impress small and big
business. The bodies representing small business expressed
their distrust of the massive powers to be centralized in this
agency.
In a poll, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business
indicated that 40% of the businesses that participated in a
study Revenue Canada commissioned from the Public Policy Forum
saw no point in having this agency. Over two thirds of these
businesses felt that, with such an agency, the costs relating to
their dealings with the department would be higher than they are
under the existing structure.
By establishing a quasi-independent agency, the government is
increasing the risk of fraud and of the sale of confidential
information, for which there is a very lucrative market right
now in the private sector.
As members can see, there are no benefits in establishing such
an agency. Quebec opposes the federal government's intention to
centralize all tax revenue collection activities in one
Canada-wide agency.
The Bloc Quebecois will continue to oppose the establishment of
this agency, which does not benefit the taxpayers in any way,
but may in fact cost them all they got, especially in terms of
democratic rights. When problems arise, having to do with the
administration of taxes or wrong decisions by Revenue Canada, we
will no longer be able to question the minister. He will reply
that the agency is calling the shots. And democracy will suffer.
The agency is a costly exercise both in terms of money and time,
the product of some wild brainstorm of senior department
officials. It is an idea in search of a rationale that has yet
to be found. We must put a stop to it before any more public
funds are sunk into it. Any number of improvements can be
contemplated within the existing structure, and they would not
involve the kind of costs and disruption inherent in the
establishment of an agency that is neither wanted nor required.
What does the taxation employees' union think of it? It has ten
arguments against this idea.
First, by creating a tax collection superagency, Ottawa's
influence would reach right into our communities.
1315
With this agency, accountability to the public and to parliament
will be weakened. The agency could threaten our privacy. Fourth,
the agency is a classic example of empire building by Ottawa's
senior bureaucrats from the isolation of their ivory towers.
Fifth, the primary reason for establishing this agency is to
sign new tax agreements with the provinces. Sixth, small and
large businesses are not impressed with the new agency. Seventh,
the agency will bring about new hidden taxes. Eighth, it will
bring new costs. Ninth, the agency is already wasting money even
if it does not yet exist. Tenth, the agency will be more
bureaucratic than Revenue Canada.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill and
will be voting against it.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am happy to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-43.
I represent quite a few employees of Revenue Canada in the
riding of Winnipeg Centre. The city of Winnipeg is the location
of a huge Revenue Canada operation with 5,000 employees. Many of
these employees who live in my riding have come to me with a
great deal of apprehension and a great deal of fear about what
this new superagency really means for them.
No one we have talked to can point to any compelling reasons
that we are making this move toward a superagency. If anything,
reason and logic do not seem to enter into this at all.
The biggest fear that has been articulated is that it is really
being driven by ideology rather than by any good reason, any good
logical business plan or expectation of savings. The real
opportunities for savings within Revenue Canada will not come
from the creation of some superagency. The real opportunity for
revenue will come from having an adequate number of auditors to
collect the taxes that are owing.
A group of auditors made representations to our caucus just a
week ago pleading this very case. Billions of dollars of taxes
are left uncollected each year because there simply are not
enough auditors in the field doing the job and getting these
revenues for the government to use. In other words, people are
getting away with murder in terms of taxation because they are
not being audited properly. Taxes are not being collected
properly. This is the case which was made to us by senior
auditors with Revenue Canada in their appeal to us to do
everything we can to oppose Bill C-43.
The auditors expect that the situation will only get worse after
the creation of the new superagency. The auditors feel, and I
think quite justifiably, that the whole move toward a superagency
is like a Trojan horse. They think it is wrapped up in a package
which would be palatable to the public but in actual fact it
contains a lot of surprises waiting to be sprung on us, not the
least of which is a move toward further privatization of
services.
The road toward ASD, alternative service delivery,
superagencies, whatever we want to call it, is the road toward
privatization and dismantling the public sector even in areas we
know should be managed and controlled strictly through the public
sector, like something as sensitive as the collection of our
taxes. Other ASD examples have been absolutely disastrous for
working people. They are always the last ones to be consulted.
I am thinking specifically of the privatization at Goose Bay.
All the non-military personnel were laid off and services were
contracted out to an out of country company, Serco, to provide
the same services that Canadians used to provide in good
unionized well paying jobs. These same people were hired back at
half the wages and are now working for a foreign corporation to
provide services on our military base. It is absolutely perverse
when we think about it.
It is that kind of background and that sort of recent experience
that has made Canadians apprehensive about Bill C-43 and the
creation of this superagency.
1320
It is not just the NDP and the labour groups that are directly
impacted by this who are apprehensive about it.
Yvon Cyrenne of
Raymond Chabot Martin Paré said in the chartered accountant
magazine of March 1998: “The creation of the customs and
revenue agency would, for all intents and purposes, be an
abdication of political power”. I would add that it would be an
abdication of political responsibility in that it would be that
much more removed from elected officials having any purview over
this collection. It would be strictly in the hands of this
freestanding, arm's length superagency.
About 5,000 employees of Revenue Canada work in Transcona and in
Winnipeg. Many of them live in my riding and many worked on my
campaign. Some of them were actually politicized for the first
time in their lives because of what was about to happen to them.
They were reaching out for some kind of political support from
anybody who would articulate or voice their concerns. I am glad
to have the opportunity to that today.
They have good reason to be apprehensive. Nobody really knows
what this is going to end up looking like. Will it look like the
Canada Post Corporation? Will it be a stand alone agency like
Canada Post? I do not think so, although that comparison has
been made. If it were, then the workers should fall under the
Canada Labour Code, not the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
That in itself is a huge issue for the unionized workers who
work for Revenue Canada. Where will the industrial relations be
when all of the dust settles? Can anybody answer that? What is
going to happen to their terms and conditions of employment? Are
they still bargaining with the same employer? Is the employer
that much different after they are removed from the public sector
in that sense?
There are hundreds of questions that are left unanswered. Many
were brought to our attention, as I said, when the employees of
Revenue Canada came to our caucus just a week ago and articulated
these fears. Representatives from the Public Service Alliance of
Canada, the Union of Taxation Employees and one other labour
group were justifiably apprehensive about this.
The term Trojan horse has been used. I have heard the term mega
taxman. It does not matter what we want to call this new
superagency, it is going to be something that Canadians will not
recognize and will not be comfortable with. Will it look like
the IRS in the United States, a boondoggle like the IRS that
answers to nobody?
This is what we are saying. When we get that kind of
independence, there is room for abuse. It is something that can
grow out of control, beyond what it was initially designed for.
There seems to be a sense in the public sector, certainly within
the federal government, of a belief in this right wing ideology
that all things in the public sector are bad and all things
privately run are good. There is a belief that some inherent
streamlining comes into play when things go into the private
sector, as if there is no waste in the private sector. This is an
absolute myth.
It is a cruel myth in that this bashing of the public sector
goes on. This atmosphere of contempt has been allowed to flourish
across the country. Public sector employees are knocking
themselves out to do their best, often with limited resources and
limited compensation. Abuse is heaped on them. Every time there
is a deficit or a cost overrun they say “Oh, it is that bloated
public sector. If we could only shed some jobs out of the public
sector”. There is this myth perpetrating that we can shrink our
way to prosperity.
Even the private sector went through its decade of lean and
mean, shedding employees and casting people off. Many of them
now realize they have gone too far. They have cut all the fat
and have cut into the flesh, the muscle tissue to where they
cannot function any more.
That is what is happening to our military. This compulsion,
this drive to cut, hack, slash and throw Canadians out into the
street has left us with a human resources emergency in the
military. The people who are being cut are the highly skilled,
middle band of trained workers, the people who actually had
administrative capacities, et cetera.
We still have the foot soldiers, the grunts. We still have
plenty of generals. It is that middle band of competent people
who can actually do things which is disappearing. The restoration
of funding overnight is not going to bring that middle band back.
Those people are gone. They are gone to the point where the
whole organization is at risk.
1325
Similar streamlining efficiencies, if we want to call them that,
are taking place every time we see this idea of offloading to
alternative service delivery. That is really what the
superagency is. It is ASD. It is getting the same job done in a
different way.
We would argue it is a step backward in terms of service to the
Canadian public. We are buying into an unknown commodity for one
thing. The reservations brought to us by the UTE, the Union of
Taxation Employees, are real, valid and justified concerns. They
are vehemently opposed to this.
The government has failed to prove to anybody's satisfaction
that this is a good thing to do. All we have heard is complaint
after complaint that we are going into uncharted waters, that
danger lurks in these uncharted waters. It will probably be the
working people who will end up feeling the brunt of it.
The government should also be forewarned that we are going to
lose valuable opportunities to collect revenues to the best of
our ability. If we listen to the people at the front lines who
really know what they are talking about, they say we need 500
more auditors in the field tomorrow, not cutbacks and reductions.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, this is the
second time I have risen in the House to speak to this bill.
I began my last speech by saying that Bill C-43 is a bureaucratic
aberration, a serious blow against democracy, protection of
personal information, respect for jurisdictions and service to
the people, nothing less.
After further consideration, I would say all that and more,
because the purpose of this bill is not just to replace the
Department of Revenue, but to create a body that will provide
services to the provinces and municipalities for the
implementation of programs and activities.
These words appear beside the words customs and taxes throughout
the bill.
This is an agency that will not be subject to democratic
control, that will operate at arm's length from the federal
government, that will have the appearance of a public agency but
that, in reality, will not be accountable to parliament.
It is another attempt to lump all the provinces together and is
the antithesis of what federal government is all about. It is
bureaucratic and undemocratic. But the government goes much
further; this bill gives it the authority to replace any other
level of government in their program activities. It is
unbelievable.
Protest has been widespread.
What is this government doing? As usual, comfortable with its
five-member majority, it charges ahead, creating problem after
problem, with the mindset of a central government that, in the
regions, would only have to deal with municipalities.
1330
It is serious, especially on the eve of negotiations on the
social union issue. It is serious because, while the provinces
are fighting as hard as they can to maintain the powers given to
them under the Constitution, the federal government, without
warning, is moving ahead, ignoring all the legitimate protests,
fears and concerns and muzzling the opposition. Why? Because it
is annoyed with the opposition parties for expressing their
disagreement.
I have a few new arguments to make. I said this agency will be a
business. Who will it serve, the public? No. It will serve
clients. These clients will be provinces or municipalities. What
will the directors' mission be?
Clause 42(1) says:
Every director of the Agency, in exercising their powers and
performing their duties and functions, must
Yes, but why? This is why:
So much for that. We have here a business that will act with a
view to its best interests and whose job will be to collect
revenues from taxpayers with whom it does not have the same
relationship as the one that exists between the taxpayers and
the state, the income tax return being a contract between the
taxpayers and the state. We can say that. There are countries
where things are done differently.
The system we have developed here is based on a voluntary
contract, namely the personal income tax return, which contains
all kinds of confidential information. Trust is absolutely vital
in exercising this civic duty.
The government also has the duty to build that trust. But how
can that happen when we know from the start that this agency will
be made up of an extremely large number of employees—40,000 is
the number we have been seeing—who will no longer come under
the Public Service Employment Act and who will therefore have
difficulty keeping their union? I hope they will be able to keep
it.
They will no longer be protected by this act, which allows them
to fulfil their duty to the state and to the people. Will they
be serving the people's interests? No. They will be serving the
agency's interests, and that agency is planning to sign
contracts with provincial and municipal governments for various
activities and programs.
The agency may licence, sell or otherwise make available any
patent, copyright, industrial design, trade-mark or other similar
property right that it holds or develop. That is what the
minister's bill says. It is an aberration in terms of democracy,
in terms of personal information and in terms of service to the
public. It does not make sense. It is unthinkable, but the
government is doing it anyway. This is serious.
1335
Let us just look at the personal information aspect. We know
that the people who will be processing income tax returns will
no longer be protected by legislation. They will receive bonuses
as a reward. That is what the bill says.
The Minister of National Revenue should reflect on this some
more and withdraw this bill that has to be a cause for concern
for Canadians. It breaks the fundamental contract of trust
between the taxpayer who signs his or her income tax return and
the state, because the state is abandoning its role and its
responsibility. That is the most serious part. There are a lot
of other things too but, essentially, that is the most serious
part.
The minister can say what he likes, he will no longer be
accountable to this House because he will be able to blame the
directors or the commissioner. He can smile all he wants, but he
will not be able to restore people's trust.
Without a union and without the protection of the law, employees
will be vulnerable to all kinds of pressure. We can think about
employee turnover, which will make the issue of personal
information an even greater concern.
With all my colleagues and all the people who are interested in
this matter, I urge the minister again not to go ahead with this
undemocratic bill that goes against the public's interest.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to have this opportunity to speak again to Bill C-43.
The member for Winnipeg Centre said that this bill is like a
Trojan horse. I echo his comments and the comments of other
members of opposition parties who are very united in their
concern about and opposition to this bill. It is a sad day for
parliament. We faced a closure vote this morning and we can see
that this bill is being rushed through by a slim government
majority.
There are questions that need to be asked on behalf of the
Canadian people. What is the imperative for having this bill in
the first place? What is the imperative for rushing this bill
through the House by forcing a vote to meet the government's
interests? Those questions have not been answered. That should
concern Canadians because the subject of Bill C-43 is the
creation of a new, privatized mega agency. That should concern
every Canadian and every member of this House.
In the past two years during which this proposal has been
contemplated a massive sales job has been undertaken by the
minister, by the government and by senior bureaucrats to try to
sign people onto the proposal. We see today that as of yet not a
single province has signed onto the agency. The reality is that
there is not a single binding letter of intent from any province
to sign onto this new agency.
We have heard from those who work at Revenue Canada. They know
what this agency would do, what its problems would be and
presumably what should be done. We have also heard from the
professional sector and even from the auditor general. From this
we can see that there are problems.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Bill C-43 is not the
answer. We have raised this continually in the House.
In fact, Bill C-43 is taking us completely in the wrong
direction.
1340
As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has pointed out, Bill C-43
will amount to what is probably the largest act of privatization
that this government has undertaken. We are looking at the
transfer of something like 20% of public service workers. Forty
thousand people will be affected by this transfer.
Many of us have heard some of the concerns that have been
expressed by the people who work at Revenue Canada. I really
believe that their concerns should not be taken lightly. In
fact, we should be listening very closely to the issues that have
been raised.
What are the issues? First, there is the issue of
privatization. I believe that the government has not yet made
the case to the provinces, to the House of Commons, or to the
Canadian people as to why this privatization should take place.
There are very serious concerns about the lack of accountability
that will be caused by setting up a super agency that will not
have the same kind of relationship with members of parliament
that we have seen in the past.
We have to remember that we are talking about one of the core
functions of the Canadian government, a function that sometimes
people rail against and get upset about, the collection of
revenue and taxes. Nevertheless, it is very much a core
function. For that very reason I believe that it is incumbent
upon us to fight tooth and nail to make sure that this parliament
retains a relationship and accountability with this core service
instead of allowing it to be let loose, allowing it to be
privatized.
Information that came out recently in the auditor general's
report is actually very damning about the bill which is before us
today. Some of the comments that the auditor general made in his
report about Revenue Canada, in particular about the
international tax directorate, tell us that only 52% of the
directorate's staff at Revenue Canada headquarters are in
permanent positions. The auditor general goes on to say that
“Because of the complexity and significance of international tax
issues, we are concerned that frequent staff movements may
prevent the directorate from maintaining the experience and skill
levels required to provide an appropriate level of service to
taxpayers and to manage the risks to the tax base that are
inherent in international transactions”.
The auditor general continues in his conclusions and
recommendations to state:
If parliament approves the establishment of the proposed new
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Department will become a
separate employer and assume most of the responsibility for human
resource management currently shared with central agencies. In
the absence of a comprehensive human resource plan and strategies
linked to the Directorate's business plan, the establishment of
the new agency will not in itself resolve the problems outlined
in this chapter.
He goes on to say: “It is important that the analysis,
planning and implementation of needed human resource initiatives
be carried out as soon as possible”.
I think this is a very serious issue that has been raised. We
have been told by the government, as it tries to sell this new
super agency to parliament, to the Canadian people and, indeed,
to the provinces, that we will see increased efficiencies, that
we will see improvements, that we will have a better service and
so on. However, it should concern us when we see this
information coming from the auditor general.
We find out that there has been a high turnover in staff and
that, in actual fact, Revenue Canada has lost billions of dollars
in revenue because it has not been able to attract the kind of
personnel at a very high level to do the very complex audits
which must be carried out.
This issue, which was been flagged as far back as 1991 and again
in 1996 by the auditor general, has simply not been addressed by
Bill C-43. In actual fact the government has lost a potential
$2.5 billion to $3 billion in revenue since 1995 because it has
refused to pay adequate salaries to attract the highly trained
professionals who would perform these very complex audits.
This year alone we lost a potential $1 billion in tax revenues
from some of the largest corporations because these audits have
not been carried out with sufficient frequency because the
personnel is lacking. Even Revenue Canada has acknowledged that
it has lost about $500 million in tax revenues in the Toronto
area alone because of the shortage of 500 tax auditors.
1345
This is directly related to the obsession of the government with
cutting the public service, cutting out these kinds of key
positions and now it is going further down the slippery slope
toward privatization where we as members of the House will have
less and less control and accountability over what this agency
does.
The opposition has tried to put forward amendments to prevent
this bill from going forward which is a reflection of the
increasing and mounting concern around the proposal of the
government to move in this direction and to ram this proposal
through.
Again I say to the minister and to the government if this
proposal is so good and so beneficial then why is it that not a
single province has signed on. The answer is that we know there
has not been a sign-on because there are serious questions that
have not been answered. It is time for the government to
acknowledge that the bill should be stopped and reviewed . We
should return to what the auditor general said and look at the
real issues and address the problems contained within the
department.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is interesting to listen to the opposition talk about the fact
that not one province has signed on to this bill.
There is a reason for that. The provinces, with the exception
of Quebec, enjoy the fact that the government collects the taxes
and the provinces do not have to take the heat for it. When
filing income tax in Ontario there is a section which gives the
formula for calculating provincial tax. If the tax is being done
by the taxpayer or an accountant, when they get to that page they
are still in the mindset that they are filing their federal
income tax and they are not thinking about the fact that there is
a totally separate regime of tax collection at every provincial
level. Why would the provinces want to kick up a fuss about
this? The provinces want the federal government to have a system
of tax collection that lets them off the hook and simply allows
us to transfer the money. It is not a surprise at all.
It is also not a surprise to me that not one province has signed
on to this. And I have not received one phone call in my
constituency office in Mississauga about this issue. And yet, as
members I am sure will admit privately at least if not in this
place, this is a bill that has had extensive work in this place
and in committee. It has been kicked around, dragged around in
every one of our caucuses. It has had presentations made. It
has been analysed from one end of the legislation to the other
and yet there is not a public outcry or concern being expressed
that we should, as the member says, scrap this piece of
legislation. I believe there is a reason for that as well.
We all talk at times in this place about there being only one
taxpayer. I use the example often of the ad I saw in a newspaper
that had a mobile sign outside of a private garage called Paul's
garage. The sign said “Our price includes the PST, the GST, the
EHT, the MBT, the MPT, the UIC, the WCP and the CPP”. On the
bottom it said “We would have included profit but we ran out of
room”.
The point I make is that we have a lot of taxes. Mr. Sekora, nice
to see you. We have those taxes simply because—
1350
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member meant to
refer to the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam and not to his name which he knows is out of order.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I was just seeing if you
were paying attention. Thank you for correcting me in that
instance. I could not remember the hon. member's riding.
Getting back to the point of taxation, with all these taxes that
are there for legitimate reasons, that have been put in place by
successive governments and regimes in various parts of the
municipal sector, the provincial sector and the federal
government, they are there to deliver programs to Canadians. It
is a burden, I do not deny that. We hear people talk on the
other side that we should just cut taxes, but what they do not
talk about is what we do with that tax revenue. What they do not
talk about is the fact that I think it is high time that a huge
organization like Revenue Canada is reviewed and changed.
This is not about privatization, as the member opposite says. It
is about more accountability. Members opposite, particularly in
the New Democratic Party, say is it not awful, because they would
purport to represent the union involved in this which is
frightened for jobs. I do not blame them for being concerned
about jobs, but the members opposite should know that there are a
number of points that will ensure this place continues to have
strong oversight over this agency.
Parliament will review the agency's corporate business plan,
just as it now reviews Revenue Canada's plans.
We will also review the agency's annual report regarding its
performance during the preceding year. I serve on the public
accounts committee and we hope we will see it come to that
committee. We will be able to have witnesses come before us from
the agency. We will be able to investigate to find out if they
are doing their job and serving Canadians well. We will have
opportunities for members of parliament to address us at the
public accounts committee or speak in this place if constituents
have concerns about the efficacy or how they are being dealt with
in any way whatsoever.
Before the agency is allowed to spend dime one, parliament will
have to approve its appropriations, just as we do now for Revenue
Canada. This sky is falling mentality that we are hearing is
nonsense.
There is an additional opportunity in this legislation for
parliament to review the agency. The legislation requires, for
the first time, a full scale review of this legislation five
years after it comes into force, and that is not an option. So
we know that once this bill is enacted and the agency is set up,
it comes before our public accounts committee every year. If we
call people we can review their budgets every year. They cannot
spend money without the approval of parliament. But we know
there is a mandatory five year review of the agency. It is a
five year mandatory review but it does not prevent us from
reviewing the agency on an ongoing basis if that is what we so
desire.
It is interesting to me to hear members talk about less
accountability to parliament when in fact this is a bill that
will establish an agency that will be more accountable to
Canadians, that will be more business friendly to Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh. Oh.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Members can laugh if they want, but
that is clearly the intent of the minister. The minister of
revenue will continue to have control over that.
I want to deal with an issue that we voted on earlier today in
relation to this bill, time allocation or what the members
opposite would call closure.
1355
The Bloc has put 188 motions to the bill. There happen to be
188 clauses in the bill. So every single one of its motions
reads the same, that clause 1 be rejected, that clause 2 be
rejected, that clause 3 be rejected. There are no suggestions
for positive change coming from the opposition. It is just
trying to stall. If we had good ideas, if any came from time to
time from that neighbourhood, we would be interested.
What is most astounding in all this is that the Bloc knows that
Quebec is the only province that collects its own taxes. We do
not even collect its taxes.
I know this day will never come but if I were ever sitting as
the Chair in this place and had the opportunity to rule, I would
have to rule that those amendments are contrary to the bill and
are therefore out of order. Therefore we should not need to put
in time allocation.
Members talk about time allocation as if it is some kind of
terrible thing. But the reality is that when we have
opposition members simply being obstreperous, simply putting
forth amendments with no thought whatsoever that are completely
contrary to the legislation, then any government worth its salt
with any—
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
think the hon. member requires a lesson in parliamentary
procedure. He is not to challenge the Chair, a lesson I have
learned well, and I think he should pay attention to that rule.
It is very important that he do that.
The Speaker: I hope all hon. members would pay attention
to the Chair and take that into consideration when they are
making their remarks.
The hon. member had about 12 seconds left but we will go to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
PHILIP GRAHAM
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the outstanding volunteer
efforts of Mr. Philip Graham of Minden, which is located in my
riding of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock.
Mr. Graham has volunteered his time for 50 years to weather
reporting for Environment Canada. On the rare days he has not
been able to record the weather readings, his wife Jane or a
close friend has recorded the information.
Environment Canada has a network of nearly 2,000 volunteer
weather watchers such as Mr. Graham who help keep an important
historical record of weather conditions across the country. Few
if any have been keeping an eye on the weather as long as Mr.
Graham, a retired Ontario Hydro employee.
Congratulations, Philip, and thank you for your valued
contribution to important historical information for Canada.
* * *
IMPAIRED DRIVING
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Christmas season is a time when Canadians get
together to celebrate a miraculous and blessed event. It is a
season of peace, happiness and joy. But every Christmas season
unfortunately the incidence of impaired driving dramatically
increases and tragically and senselessly Canadians are killed and
injured by the reckless acts of people who choose to drink and
drive.
I ask all members of the House to join with me and hundreds of
thousands of Canadians to recognize MADD Canada's red ribbon
campaign against drunk driving. If by displaying the red ribbon
on our vehicles we can prevent one death or one injury this
season we will have helped in the fight.
I say to all Canadians today over the Christmas season that if
you drink, please do not drive.
* * *
YMCA
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as one
of Canada's oldest and most diverse charities, the YMCA serves
over one million people and is a pre-eminent volunteer
organization. The governor general recently named new members to
the YMCA's Fellowship of Honour. These were selected for
distinguished leadership in the Y movement at home and abroad.
The new members are Russ Davey of Geneva Park, Rowley Hastings
of Vancouver, Henry Labatte of Toronto, Bill Ridley of Montreal
and Hal Studholme of Winnipeg. The sixth new member is Doug Kirk
of Peterborough. Doug has devoted untold hours of time and
energy to our Y.
1400
Volunteers are the glue that holds communities together. I
congratulate Doug and all these wonderful honourees who do so
much work asking for nothing in return. Their hard work and
dedication in organizations like the Y keep our communities
strong.
* * *
UKRAINIAN WORLD CONGRESS
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Ukrainian World Congress as
it holds its seventh world congress this week in Toronto.
The congress is an international co-ordinating body and is
spokesman for the world-wide Ukrainian community in 20 countries
and over 230 organizations and represents over 20 million
Ukrainians.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every
year since 1990 Canadians have commemorated December 6 as the
national day of remembrance and action on violence against women.
This year is no exception.
This year, 1998, says that nearly eight full years have passed
since the tragic deaths of 14 promising young women at the Ecole
Polytechnique in Montreal. By remembering these 14 young women
and acknowledging our collective laws we can be inspired to
create a more peaceful society.
I wish to recognize today the important work accomplished by the
men and women of Oakville and indeed those across Canada who
provide a safe environment for those escaping violence in the
home, as well as counselling, legal advice, education and
support.
This year as in years past let us pause and reflect, ensuring
that Canadians never forget this terrible moment in our history.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the crisis in agriculture is the focus of much attention
by politicians. The conclusion is that we need a large cash
bailout over the next few years.
In that light it is very interesting a group of grain farmers in
western Canada has made an offer to the government to give up the
cash they are entitled to if the government would give them the
right to market their own grain. Let me quote:
Many farmers feel they are ready to stand on their own feet, many
individuals who are suffering the current cash flow problems are
convinced this could have been averted if they had enjoyed the
flexibility, opportunities and price management tools that the
open grain market offers.
The government must pay attention to this offer. It is
refreshing to see someone put their money where their mouth is.
Will the government take these farmers up on their offer to give
up compensation in order to be able to market their own wheat and
barley? Do they own their own grain? Can they have the same
rights as those who live eastern Canada used to enjoy or who
produce other commodities?
* * *
[Translation]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
December 6 is the National Day of Remembrance and Action against
Violence.
It is a time to stop and reflect about the 14 young women who
lost their lives so tragically at Montreal's École Polytechnique
in 1989, along with all women in Canada whose lives are marked
by violence.
In 1991, this Parliament established December 6 as a day to
remember the tragic loss of these 14 young lives.
It is a day for reflection and for thinking about community
measures which can help put an end to systematic violence
against women. These 14 young women who lost their lives
symbolize our mothers, our wives, our daughters, our sisters,
and our female friends.
I encourage my colleagues to take a moment to think about the
families of these 14 victims and all other victims of violence.
* * *
[English]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is international day of disabled persons and I would like
to draw attention to violence against women and disabled women.
Violence is felt in every Canadian community. In my riding of
Kitchener Centre, Anselma House, a women's shelter, marked its
20th anniversary with a fundraiser supported by all sectors of
the community, both by men and by women. Anselma House took 950
crisis calls this year. Its 20 beds are always full. It has
been forced to refer almost 600 women and children to other
facilities.
For women with disabilities violence can be frighteningly
frequent. Eighty per cent of women with disabilities will be
victims of sexual abuse in their lifetime. These statistics are
shocking but they cannot lead us to despair. They must spur us
to action. Women with disabilities may face barriers to
reporting abuse or seeking help because fewer resources are
available to them.
On December 6, as we remember the 14 women who died in Montreal,
let us renew our commitment to end violence for women of all
backgrounds and abilities.
* * *
1405
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what happened at last year's APEC conference when pepper spray
met protesters? Will we ever know? Does it really matter?
Here are the questions. Were the protests captured on TV a
result of independent police action, or was it the Prime Minister
and his office suppressing Canadian rights of association and
expression? Were Canadians jailed to protect heads of state or
to save ruthless dictators from embarrassment?
Thousands of pages of evidence and audio and video tapes point
to the Prime Minister, but that evidence is tied up in legal
knots thanks to government paid lawyers. The public complaints
commission is shut down for at least six months. In fact the
commission was never designed to probe political accountability.
Here is why the APEC scandal matters to Canadians as expressed
by Craig Jones, one of the jailed protesters:
The root issue for me is to what extent we are going to accept
the political control of the RCMP by the executive branch of the
government.
Unlike the Prime Minister, Canadians do not want scapegoats.
They want political accountability.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DISABLED PERSONS
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
December 3, the international day of disabled persons, is a fine
beginning to the third edition of Quebec's week of disabled
persons.
Throughout Quebec, a number of different activities will focus
on the theme “Independence through access—everyone stands to
gain”.
For the disabled, access to facilities and to adapted
transportation is fundamental, as is the right to adapted
education and training leading to access to the labour market.
For them, as for the rest of us, access is independence.
Although much progress has been made, everyone will agree that
much more remains to be done.
I would like to make particular mention of the Office des
personnes handicapées du Québec. In its 20 years of existence,
this organization has done much to encourage co-operation between
the various organizations, thus helping to give the disabled the
voice to which they are entitled.
“Independence through access—everyone stands to gain”. I
certainly believe it.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
December 6, 1989, Canadians and the whole world realized the
seriousness of the problem of violence against women when 14
young women were killed at Montreal's École Polytechnique. These
young Canadians were targeted simply because they happened to be
women, which is horrifying but nevertheless true.
This national tragedy galvanized all Canadians into taking
action about the problem of gender-based violence. Canadians have
learned a lesson from this tragedy. Initially, they suffered a
deep shock and experienced tremendous sadness. Then they became
convinced that we had to put an end to this violence.
We also honoured the memory of these young women by taking
action and by working together to put an end to gender-based
violence.
The solutions to eliminate this problem require an effort from
all partners within the community. They must work together to
bring about real changes. Today, I invite—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yukon has the floor.
* * *
[English]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on December 6
we commemorate the terrible massacre of 14 young women. Yet a
culture of violence remains pervasive and even flourishes in our
federal institutions. Government is at fault for physical and
sexual abuse in the military, denying pay equity, and for keeping
poor women poor and vulnerable.
It is time for action. On December 6 the government should call
for a truce, a truce for one day when no woman is humiliated,
sold, hit or killed, no woman is forced to have sex, sell sex or
is killed for sex, a day when women can walk and live in peace.
* * *
DISABLED PERSONS
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today marks the sixth anniversary of the United Nations
international day of disabled persons. We must do everything in
our power to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy the same
advantages as other Canadians.
The international community has recognized the efforts of the
Government of Canada to break down the physical and attitudinal
barriers that keep persons with disabilities from enjoying the
advantages of full citizenship. In New York last year the Prime
Minister accepted the Franklin Delano Roosevelt international
disability award on behalf of all Canadians.
I encourage all hon. members to support persons with
disabilities as the government works to include all people as
full partners in their countries and communities.
In the gallery are three people who are shadowing members of
parliament: Nancy Villeneuve, Kathy Bainville and Tammy Culhan.
We welcome them to the House of Commons.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Mothers Against Drunk Driving recently highlighted
the sad fact that more than a year has passed since the justice
committee agreed to review the impaired driving provisions of the
Criminal Code with the goal of amending the present statute.
Although the committee's work is under way, public hearings are
not scheduled to begin until February of next year.
1410
Let us contrast this approach with my home province of Nova
Scotia where the legislative assembly unanimously passed
legislation to toughen drunk driving laws just two weeks after
the bill was tabled.
I congratulate Nova Scotia Conservative leader John Hamm for
sponsoring this legislation and getting Liberals and NDP to put
aside partisan bickering and advance the positive measures that
will crack down on drunk driving.
With the holiday season upon us, let us in the House follow Nova
Scotia's example of non-partisan participation in expeditiously
strengthening drunk driving provisions of the Criminal Code.
* * *
[Translation]
FIRE AT HÔTEL-DIEU HOSPITAL IN ROBERVAL
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a
major fire destroyed part of the Hôtel-Dieu hospital in Roberval.
I want to express to all the residents of Roberval and the
surrounding region my admiration for the community spirit and
the sense of organization they displayed to prevent this fire
from being even more devastating.
Thanks to the exceptional work of firemen from Roberval and the
neighbouring municipalities, the fire was very quickly brought
under control and did not spread to the institution's second
wing.
The staff of Roberval's Hôtel-Dieu hospital acted calmly and
countless individual acts helped save lives.
In the next few days, great efforts will have to be deployed to
temporarily reorganize the hospital, during the clean up and
reconstruction phases.
I want the residents of Roberval to know
that I will spare no effort to help those who face the difficult
task of rebuilding and of ensuring that all services are back in
operation.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr.Speaker, during the
emergency debate on agriculture last Monday evening the Leader of
the Opposition said:
Basically our position is this: If the finance minister will
clearly declare that the forthcoming budget will contain broad
tax relief for all Canadians... then the official opposition would
be prepared to support a temporary aid package as part of that
long term solution.
This sounds to me as if the Reform Party is ready to hold
farmers hostage in exchange for its partisan agenda. The party
across the way makes poignant statements about the plight of
individual farmers, frequently quoting and reading from
constituent letters. It acknowledges the farm income crisis and
urges a timely response. However it appears it will only support
a solution if it is on its terms.
This situation is too serious for the official opposition to
threaten to hold Canadian farmers hostage.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that the Government of Canada has conspired with Canada
Post to drive postal franchises out of business.
The fact is the schedule of commissions has been reduced by 71%
for stamps, which represents over 50% of sales for most outlets.
This gouging of revenues makes it difficult for the owners to
make lease and loan payments. In severe cases it is spelling
financial ruin and bankruptcy.
The Government of Canada is permitting Canada Post to steal from
its franchises. Instead of the entrepreneurs—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Nova.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Federal
Court of Appeal has overturned Justice Muldoon's decision
preventing seven complaints filed against Bell Canada to be heard
before a Canadian human rights tribunal.
At the heart of that dispute is the question of pay equity. Over
the past 13 years the federal government has been embroiled in
its own pay equity dispute with approximately 190,000, mostly low
income, female workers.
The Muldoon decision was thrown out. Yet the government
continues to refuse to drop the appeal and pay these workers the
long awaited benefits they rightly deserve.
The government has thus far spent $142 million on a useless gun
registry yet continues to ignore the pleas of our dedicated, hard
working federal public servants. It is time the government lives
up to its commitment by resolving this longstanding dispute.
* * *
CHARITABLE DONATIONS
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is
news and there is good news in the 1997 statistics released by
Statistics Canada today.
First the news. Fewer Canadians gave money to charities in
1997. It was down 3.1% from the year before. Just under 5.3
million tax filers reported charitable deductions on their 1997
personal income tax returns. However the good news is that those
who did contribute gave more, 6% more than in 1996, to the tune
of $4.3 billion.
Now is the time to be generous. As all Canadians donate they
should be aware that the maximum deduction limit allowed on
personal income was increased to 75% of net income by the
government in 1997 and compare it to the previous limit of 50%.
It pays to donate more.
1415
As we finish our holiday shopping over the next few weeks let us
all remember the less fortunate and give the ultimate gift, a
donation to a worthwhile charity.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the OECD presented its prescription for getting
Canada's economy back on track. Its number one suggestion was
faster and deeper cuts to payroll taxes.
What does the minister do? He raises payroll taxes. He gives
us 15 cents in EI taxes and takes back 30 cents in CPP taxes.
Does the minister really think the answer to Canada's economic
problems is to raise payroll taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the OECD report is a very good report. It supports the
general thrust and direction the federal government has taken
since we have assumed office.
I simply remind the hon. member that EI premium rates are today
the lowest they have been in the last nine years. The OECD also
supports a Canada pension plan that is available to all
Canadians.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
is simply not the case. The minister has raised taxes more than
any minister in the history of this country. We have the highest
personal income tax load in the G-7, 56% higher than the G-7
average. Those are the facts.
Given those facts, how can the minister say he is following the
OECD prescription?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's payroll taxes are lower than the G-7 average.
They are substantially lower than in the United States.
At the same time we have a Canada pension plan of which
Canadians are very proud, which is part of the confidence
building in this country. Canadians know that when they take
their retirement they will not be cast aside but will have an
adequate living.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
us address the issue of the Canada pension plan, this coming from
the minister who has just fired the chief actuary of the plan
because he dared to suggest that 9.9% was unsustainable, that it
would have to go to 10%, 11%, 12% or 13%. So what does the
government do? It fires the independent actuary of the plan.
Is that the government's idea of listening to independent
advice? It sounds to me like the government has an agenda, an
agenda to rip off Canadians through their pension system.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows the government did not fire the
chief actuary. He was fired by the superintendent of financial
institutions who operates an independent agency.
Let us get back to the real agenda of the Reform Party. Finally
the hon. member has admitted it. What he wants to do is destroy
the Canada pension plan. What he wants to do is take away from
Canadians their right to have a fair and equitable pension. He
objects to a sharing of risk.
What he is looking for is pensions for the rich and nothing for
the poor. That has always been their agenda.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the problem is when the finance minister speaks about
Reform policy he demonstrates he is truly a stranger to the
truth. There is no doubt about that.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to be very judicious
in his choice of words.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, Scrooge has nothing on the
finance minister. The only appropriate response for the measly
reduction in EI premiums is bah, humbug.
The fact is he is still ripping off Canadian workers to the tune
of $300 a year.
Why can the tax crazy finance minister not understand that his
obsession with high taxes is killing jobs, killing investment,
killing consumer spending and killing Canadians' dreams of a
secure financial future?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 1.4 million jobs since we have taken office, over
300,000 jobs this year alone, 57,000 new jobs in the last month.
We are creating jobs faster than the G-7, faster than the United
States. That is our job record.
1420
Let us put it against what Reformers would do. They would gut
health care, old age pensions, training programs, research and
development. They would gut every single chance this country has
to go into the new millennium, succeed—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister simply does not understand the
Reform Party's position. He is dreaming in technicolour. I
remind him that the jobs he is so proud of creating were created
in Ontario and Alberta where they did cut taxes. He can take no
credit for that.
He still does not understand so I will ask him very clearly. He
knows high payroll taxes and taxes in general kill jobs,
investment and consumer spending. When is this message going to
get through? When is he going to give Canadians the tax break
they deserve?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member says I do not understand the Reform
position so I will refer to its report. Reformers would cut EI
premiums, but for employers only with not a penny for employees.
How would they pay for that cut? They would take $3.5 billion
out of the health transfer. They would take $1 billion out of
equalization. They would take $920 million out of funding for
aboriginal Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
2010 OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
know that the intervention of the Minister of Canadian Heritage
and two of her colleagues biased the process to select the
Canadian candidate for the 2010 Games and penalized Quebec City.
While the Minister of Canadian Heritage said yesterday that her
colleagues were absolutely not involved in the matter, how does
the Prime Minister explain the fact that their names appeared on
the official list of the Vancouver delegation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said yesterday and I repeat today: the Government of
Canada supported none of the three candidate cities, and I hope,
now that a decision has been made democratically by a majority
of the olympic committee, that all members of this parliament
will support the decision of the olympic committee.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more
seriously than the minister, is it not true that the only reason
two ministers did not end up in Toronto was the pressure exerted
by the mayor of Quebec City, by the Secretary of State for
Regional Development, Quebec, the member for Outremont, and
finally, at the last moment, by the Prime Minister's chief of
staff, Jean Pelletier, following a call from the member for
Outremont to get Mr. Pelletier, the former mayor of Quebec City,
to act.
Is this not what happened. Can the Prime Minister deny it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the members of this House are entitled to make representations.
No ministerial representations were made to the Toronto
committee. It was a competition.
The member should perhaps read Foglia—a very well known
péquiste, but a man who can be perfectly reasonable—in La
Presse this morning. He said that, in his opinion, it was
probably a logical decision by a committee that had to choose
among three good candidates.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the decisions
of the Canadian Olympic Association should be made without
political interference. They should not be used for political
purposes.
Yet this was the excuse the Minister of Canadian Heritage gave
for delaying the announcement about the 2010 Games.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, whatever the role played by
his two ministers, the mere fact that they were announced as
participants in Winnipeg's candidacy represented an advantage
that Quebec unfortunately did not—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member has just said that this issue should not be used for
political ends. That is precisely what he is doing right now.
He is trying to show once again what a poor martyr he is.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: The fact of the matter is that there
were three candidates and the Olympic committee chose Vancouver.
1425
Members from the British Columbia area naturally support the
choice of Vancouver, just as members from the Quebec City area
favoured Quebec City.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am not
trying to make political capital out of this issue. What I want—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval has the floor.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, what is at issue here is the
behaviour of the government, which should be neutral. That is
what we are questioning, that is what it is our job to do and
that is what we will do, whether or not the Prime Minister likes
it.
Does he think that, when one of his ministers starts to promote
Vancouver, his government has been neutral?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there was also a cabinet minister from Alberta. There was no
cabinet minister from Quebec City because all local MPs are
members of the Bloc Quebecois. That is not my fault. I would
have loved to have a member from Quebec City in cabinet to say
that it was a great city. But what can I—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The Prime Minister still has some time remaining to
answer the question.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, a decision was made.
The members from British Columbia supported British Columbia's
candidacy. The members from the Province of Quebec who were
asked their opinion favoured Quebec City.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Bloc Quebecois members say they did
not support the candidacy of Quebec City. So we will tell Mr.
L'Allier that the Bloc Quebecois was not in favour of his—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party has the
floor.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
week the agriculture minister promised help for Canadian farmers
before Christmas, but the promise was short lived.
The minister now tells farmers they will not receive any help
before spring. Canadian farmers do not need a grinch as
agriculture minister. They need help now.
How can the minister not understand the urgency? How can the
minister not understand that the farmers need interim relief and
they need it now?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member needs to listen to what I
continue to say.
I explained the situation to my cabinet colleagues. The
government is fully aware of the seriousness, of the urgency and
of the importance of sending the message and informing the
industry before Christmas, sooner rather than later. I stand by
that statement.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
been listening to what the agriculture minister said.
The minister seemed engaged in seeking solutions to the farm
crisis. His references to a bankable promise before Christmas
even generated some hope. Yet today the minister admitted he has
not even discussed a way of getting help to cases of particular
hardship. These farmers are desperate. Many of them will go
under before spring.
Again, will there be cash by Christmas, yes or no?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward—Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat, as it seems the hon. member does not hear very
well, that we have said very clearly that if and when there is a
program we will announce it before Christmas so producers know
the support will come from the federal government in co-operation
with provincial governments.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in 1995 the New Brunswick government wrote a letter to Doug
Young, then minister of transport, asking for clarification on
government policy about charging tolls on the federally funded
highway between Moncton and River Glade.
Doug Young responded by saying “Yes, you can charge tolls on
one condition. The federal contribution will still have to be
cost shared by the province”.
Then Doug Young reversed his position completely and led the
consortium that broke that specific deal, that specific
condition.
1430
Will the Prime Minister please explain how a minister can
establish a specific government position and then go ahead and
break it himself?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has confused the facts so much that
it is a wonder he can really put a question together.
First of all, highways are a provincial jurisdiction. The
provinces set the priorities as to where they are built.
In the past there have been different kinds of funding
arrangements between the federal and provincial governments, but
it was not until 1997 that the whole issue of tolls came into
force. In fact, they were not contemplated in any cost sharing
agreement before 1997 when New Brunswick decided to apply tolls.
We, of course, have responded to that by saying to them that the
federal contribution should not be factored in as part of the
tolling arrangement.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am just quoting what the former federal minister said.
It is his condition. It is his policy. He said that the federal
contribution must stay in that cost sharing agreement and then he
led the consortium that took that share out.
There is not one cent of provincial money in that highway, even
though the federal minister, when he was the minister, said it
had to be there. He broke the agreement himself. He broke the
agreement on behalf of his consortium and I do not understand.
I would like the minister to explain how there could be one
policy for Canadians and one policy for Liberal ex-cabinet
ministers.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has taken great licence with what
the auditor general said and he has made allegations about the
former minister of transport, nothing of which stands up in
public.
In fact, I challenged the hon. member yesterday to state this
outside the House. He did not state this outside the House so
that Mr. Young could have recourse to him.
Let me quote from the auditor general, because he is fond of
quoting from the auditor general:
We found in all the negotiated agreements that the program
objectives, funding levels and cost-sharing ratios to be
maintained throughout the life of the agreements reflected the
government's directives.
Those are the words of the auditor general. There is no
wrongdoing.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food just said “as I keep
telling my cabinet colleagues”. The question is, how many times
does he have to talk to them?
He also said to the leader of the New Democrats “If and when
there is a program, it will be announced before Christmas”.
That is cold comfort to every farmer who is in desperate straits
right now.
Why is the government continuing to put this off? Is it if? Is
it when? Why will it not be today to help our Canadian farmers
right now?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is working very hard with
the industry and everybody involved and, actually, I thought with
the support of the opposition as well, and I appreciate that
support.
We are working very hard, as I said. We realize the seriousness
of the situation. If there is a program we will announce it as
quickly as we possibly can.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
two minutes ago it was if and when there is a program. Now it is
down to if there is a program.
When this minister talks about being a heavy hitter in cabinet
who will get help for people in the agricultural industry right
now, obviously it is either his inability or cabinet's refusal to
come up with some program that people need now.
How in the world is the minister going to be able to stand up to
the Americans and the Europeans when we need a long term solution
to high foreign subsidies and high Canadian taxes?
When will the minister announce his program to help farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am again amazed, but I am also pleased,
and on behalf of Canadian farmers I thank members of the Reform
Party for their new found support.
It was not that many months ago when they wanted to take
hundreds of millions of dollars out of support to Canadian
agriculture.
Again, I thank members of the Reform Party for their support to
Canadian farmers.
* * *
[Translation]
2010 OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I
understand the Prime Minister's reaction to the other Vancouver
matter correctly, the man who has been playing the token French
Canadian for the past 35 years would now like Quebeckers to
pretend we do not mind having been betrayed, but that will not
wash any more.
Has he not just admitted in his reply that his ministers took an
active part in the Vancouver bid, contrary to the cabinet
requirement of neutrality for all ministers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have served the people of Quebec well in this Parliament for 35
years.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1435
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, unlike the BC delegation,
which believed the members from their province could help them,
the mayor of Quebec city felt that the separatist members—-
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if he
were more aware of the situation in Quebec, he would know that a
conference was held with Québec 2010 reprresentatives in support
of them.
But I will ask my question of the minister responsible for
regional development in Quebec.
Is it not true that he received
a call from the mayor of Quebec City and that he was shocked
that two of his colleagues had broken the rule of neutrality
which applies to all cabinet members, and that he is the one who
called the Prime Minister's executive assistant to tell him they
should not go to Toronto as the official presenters of
Vancouver's candidacy, as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
was supposed to do?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will repeat again for the hon. member, who seems not
to want to understand, that the Government of Canada, for which
I am the spokesperson for sport, has never supported any one of
the three bids.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister denied three times in this House
that he or his office was involved in the firing of the chief
actuary of the Canada pension plan.
The minister's officials have now admitted that they
“suggested” to the actuary that his numbers should be changed.
Six days after he refused to fudge the numbers he was fired.
Why did the minister allow his officials to intimidate the
independent CPP watchdog?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is perfectly understandable that officials in the
Department of Finance meet with officials from other departments
and other sections of the Department of Finance all the time.
There are ongoing dialogues.
That is what happened in this particular case. I simply repeat
that neither myself nor my office was asked for an opinion on
this matter. We did not give an opinion on this matter, nor
would we had we been asked.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Dussault affair raises some very troubling questions
for Canadians. They are watching the lengths to which the
finance minister will go to keep his rosy projections from being
debunked.
I ask the minister, is it now his policy to suggest, request and
then demand that independent numbers be changed if they do not
suit him?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the preamble to that question is simply untrue.
* * *
[Translation]
PROFESSIONAL SPORT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a
time when Campaign 2000 reminds us that there are more children
living in poverty in Canada today than ever before, the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage just released a report
recommending that the federal government pump hundreds of
millions of dollars in hidden subsidies into professional sport.
Do we have the Prime Minister's assurance that he will deny any
tax or financial relief to sports tycoons until his record on
poverty is no longer as appalling as it is right now?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have just received from a parliamentary committee a
report containing a number of interesting recommendations, which
will be reviewed.
I ask that the people whose line it is that the contribution of
members is important give us a chance to examine the excellent
job done by members of this House, representing all parties in
this House.
We do not want to put the report in the garbage as the hon.
member for the Bloc did today.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I did
not put it in the garbage, but on my desk.
Will the Prime Minister remind sports tycoons, team owners and
the Liberal members acting as their lobbyists that they are bold
as brass to be holding their hand out for hundreds of millions
of dollars more, when they were not even able to put their own
finances in order?
1440
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the chair of the
committee, Dennis Mills, who worked so hard—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. minister not to name the
member.
Hon. Sheila Copps: I would like to congratulate the hon. member
for Broadview—Greenwood and all the members who worked on the
first report taking an in depth look at what the added value of
sport is in Canada. They speak of investing in health, in the
quality of life, in offering hope to young Canadians.
I hope we will have the time—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians do not rely on the government to tell them the truth
about the Canada pension plan. That is why we have an
independent chief actuary to give us the numbers. When that
actuary warned finance officials that the CPP rate would have to
climb above 10%, he was hauled on the carpet and it was
suggested, and I suggest none too sweetly, that he change his
report or else. Six days later he was out of a job.
Why did the finance minister allow his officials to pressure Mr.
Dussault into changing the numbers on the CPP report?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already answered that question. There is an
interim chief actuary who has been appointed, Mr. Hakeman, who is
extremely well qualified. In addition, the government has gone
to the Institute of Actuaries and asked it to suggest names of
people who would be able to conduct an independent review.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is disturbing to watch the forces of extremism that this minister
employs to protect his empire. The auditor general, for
instance, says that his accounting practices are not right. He
says that is too bad. When the actuary for the EI fund says to
lower the rate to $2, he says no way. When the chief actuary for
the CPP says that the numbers are wrong, he says too bad, you're
fired.
Why keep Canadians in suspense? Since he is going to do
whatever he wants anyway, why does the finance minister not just
tell us, is the rate for the CPP 10%, 11%, or 12%? What has he
decided today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again to simply demonstrate the extent to which the hon.
member is spouting nonsense, as the Minister of Human Resources
Development and I confirmed the other day, a recommendation was
made in terms of the EI premiums to the independent commission
and the independent commission looked at that recommendation. It
then made a recommendation which the government accepted.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In 1989, the Canadian parliament unanimously adopted a
resolution to completely eliminate child poverty by the year
2000. Now, thanks to the nice job done by the government, there
are 60% more poor children in Canada than in 1989.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development admit that,
given his massive cuts to employment insurance and to the
unemployed, he is the primary responsible for child poverty in
this country?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a
demagogic exercise about an issue as important as that of child
poverty in our country.
We took office in 1993. We faced an extremely difficult
situation. Child poverty is a problem about which we care a
great deal, and this is why we introduced, as part of the
employment insurance program, the family income supplement,
specifically for children. We also negotiated with provinces a
national child benefit, which came into effect in 1998 and whose
impact will be felt—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga West has the floor.
* * *
[English]
STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of
Women.
Even as we sit in this House, somewhere in Canada women are
being scalded with boiling water, burned, strangled, bludgeoned
or beaten, often to death. In the nine years since the brutal
murders of 14 young women in Montreal galvanized this nation, can
the minister honestly tell this House that there has been any
progress at all in the fight to stop violence against women?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many governments have taken a
great deal of action over the years to end violence against
women. But we know it is not enough. That is why this summer in
Iqaluit the federal and provincial status of women ministers came
together and declared that it is time for all governments to
cross political barriers, as well as federal and provincial
barriers, and take comprehensive and co-ordinated action to end
this.
Their proposal is based on five clear principles.
To live without violence is a right, not a privilege. Violence
is not a private matter, it is a criminal matter.
* * *
1445
SOCIAL UNION
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in a 48-hour period, this government's
response to the social union has gone from opposing it to
supporting it and back to opposing it, from a willingness to
compromise to refusing to compromise. This government has more
positions than the Kama Sutra.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Val Meredith: In an effort to determine the
government position, I ask the Prime Minister whether this
government is really sincere in negotiating a social union
agreement.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): I would
like to have a motion for details, Mr. Speaker. I am no expert
in the matter.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I respectfully suggest that the hon. member
switch books.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will emphasize the positions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, in August the premiers
made their negotiations public. The federal government responded
30 days later but unlike the provinces, it has kept its response
secret.
What is in the government's response that makes it feel it
cannot share it with Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are negotiating with the provinces at this time. We
are making some progress.
For more details on the other problem, I will inquire when I
visit Japan, sooner or later.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): 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?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there were payments made to the member's province
and other western provinces under the western grain
transportation fund. There is of course the fact that money has
lapsed in the highway funding for Manitoba and provinces west.
This is something that has to be addressed at some point in time.
That accounts for some of the differences. There were longer
term commitments for some of the eastern provinces that were made
before this government ever came to power.
1450
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): 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?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, these funding agreements actually came into place
and they were terminated. Unfortunately what has happened in the
last few years is that this government has been preoccupied with
getting the books in order and dealing with the deficit. As a
result, we need new funding for highways but not until the funds
are available. I think we have to look at the long term
commitment for highway funding that will deal with western
Canada's concerns as well as those of the other provinces.
* * *
PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
when the Department of Public Works told the Treasury Board that
the parliamentary renovation would cost $750 million, it told the
truth. When Glenn Duncan announced that the renovations would
cost $800 million to $1 billion, he also told the truth. Two days
ago when the auditor general said that the renovations would
eventually cost $1.4 billion, he also told the truth.
Why is the minister using different numbers? Can he not count?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the
hon. member can only deal with imagination. I have to deal with
reality. I can only speak on budgets that have been approved by
Treasury Board and projects approved by the government. That is
what we are doing.
The auditor general said in his report that we need a long term
plan. In the month of August I asked my officials to prepare a
long term plan and I will be getting a report next spring. The
auditor general said that we need an advisory committee. I
announced yesterday that there would be an advisory committee.
I believe the member today tabled his own report. I hope he
sends me a copy and I will refer it to the new advisory
committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, I can
assure you that the minister will get a copy, because Stephen
King himself could not have written a better novel than the
minister's Preserving the Hill.
Tuesday, the auditor general said that the cost of renovating
the parliamentary precincts would reach $1.4 billion and that it
was urgent to provide a long term comprehensive plan that would
include all renovations, and not only the minister's pet
projects.
How could the minister not mention in his report on the
renovation of the parliamentary precincts the hundreds of
millions of dollars referred to by the auditor general?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member just said is
not true.
I did appear before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
and Government Operations and the hon. member asked questions on
certain projects which, according to him, are not included in my
report. I gave all the explanations to the committee and to the
hon. member. Everything that has been approved so far is
included in the report.
I cannot include projects that have not been approved. I deal
with facts, not with fiction, like the hon. member.
* * *
[English]
PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many
public servants in my riding are concerned about the universal
classification system which is supposed to get rid of
discrimination in pay.
Can the President of the Treasury Board ensure that this is not
an excuse for salary reductions?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately the existing classification system is outdated and
needs to be replaced. We just had an agreement with our unions
to renovate it. The new universal classification system
eliminates gender discrimination and evaluates jobs effectively.
The government would like to reassure its employees that their
salaries will be protected and that there will be no wage
rollbacks.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a group
of aboriginal constituents met with the justice minister on the
weekend about the issue of compensation for residential schools.
In a letter to me they expressed their shock that the minister
said she is not willing to pursue the issue of compensation to
victims because aboriginals already compensated have not spent
the money properly.
Is she honestly saying that aboriginals are not to be trusted to
spend their money properly? Is the minister going to apologize
for these comments, or is she going to stand by them?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would think that is more
likely a comment to be coming from our hon. friends on the other
side of the House.
I did meet with representatives from treaty six and friendship
centres in Cold Lake. We talked about the issue of compensation
and about the problems of abuse in the residential schools.
1455
I explained that not only do we have a healing fund which will
help those who were abused in residential schools but we are
indeed dealing with claims. Some claims have been settled in
provinces like Saskatchewan. We are working on alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms to not compound the victimization
of those who have been hurt.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
agriculture industry is experiencing a serious crisis at this
time and strong measures must be taken to help it though this
crisis.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Since the Quebec
government has recently taken concrete measures to help its own
hog farmers, can the minister assure us that the federal
government will treat Quebec farmers the same way it will
farmers from the rest of Canada and that he will not reduce his
assistance to Quebec farmers because of the money they received
from Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a federal government program. I
can assure the hon. member, as I have previously, that all
farmers in Canada will be treated equitably. They will be
treated the same no matter what province they live in.
* * *
TOBACCO
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, given your ruling yesterday on Bill S-13, I would like
to ask the health minister a question.
The minister himself says he supports the idea of a levy on the
tobacco industry for prevention purposes. The vast majority of
Canadians agree. The health community is united on this
position.
Will the government now bring in its own legislation that places
a levy on cigarette companies for the purposes of funding an
anti-smoking initiative? Will the government live up to the
spirit and intent of Bill S-13? When will it bring in a bill?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we will examine the principles and the nature of Bill S-13 in
assessing our further steps. I want to emphasize for the member
and for the House the steps already taken by the government.
In the last 18 months we passed the toughest, smartest and most
effective anti-tobacco legislation in the western world. It
allows the Government of Canada to control tobacco as a product.
It limits advertising. Within years it will ban all sponsorships
and promotion.
In the next five years we will spend $100 million not only to
enforce that statute, but to target smoking among kids because
that is in the public interest.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, consider this: Doug Young, former transport minister,
political colleague and friend of the present minister, architect
of the highway agreement, is now positioned to collect millions
of dollars in highway tolls. Is there something wrong with this
picture? The present minister says no, it is a good deal. Who
is the minister protecting, the taxpayers or his friend, Doug
Young?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member once again
I must repeat, and I will quote from the auditor general's
report: “We found in all the negotiated agreements that the
program objectives, funding levels and cost sharing ratios to be
maintained throughout the life of the agreements reflected the
government's directives”.
* * *
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In 1996 the federal task force on disability issues reported and
made numerous recommendations. On this the international day of
disabled persons, two years have elapsed. When are we going to
see further action on these recommendations?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made much progress
to help persons with disabilities including on the
recommendations of the 1996 task force. In March this year Canada
received the Franklin Delano Roosevelt international award for
our progress on disability issues.
Is the job done? No. Is there more to do? Absolutely yes.
This is why the Prime Minister has asked me to work closely with
the provinces. We have established $190 million a year
employability assistance for persons with disabilities and we are
working as well—
The Speaker: That brings to a close our
question period for today.
* * *
1500
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members
to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Jorge Madrazo Cuellar,
Attorney General of Mexico.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I also want to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of His Excellency Pascal Couchepin,
Member of the Federal Council and Head of the Federal Department
of Economic Affairs of Switzerland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
since we are coming to the end of this session before winter
break, I would like to ask the government House leader if there
is any sense in carrying on with the weak agenda. Perhaps he
might want to tell us when we are leaving the House for the
break.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I intend to of course
demonstrate all the important legislation that we are going to be
passing over the next few days. The Chair will know that it is
all very important.
This afternoon we will complete the report stage of Bill C-43,
the very important piece of legislation respecting the revenue
agency. Division bells will be held on Monday at 5 p.m.,
pursuant to an order of the House made yesterday.
Tomorrow we shall consider the amendment made by the Senate to
Bill C-25, the National Defence Act amendment. I understand that
this is changing only one or two words. This will be followed by
report stage and third reading of Bill C-57, the Nunavut courts
legislation and by reports stage and if possible third reading of
Bill C-58, the railway safety bill. I understand that there are
negotiations right now proceeding on Bill C-59, the insurance
companies legislation, and I will get back to that later because
so far they are not complete.
On Monday we will begin with a motion to approve the appointment
of the commissioner of official languages. We would then attempt
to complete any business left over from Friday if such is the
case. We would following this deal with Bill C-35 respecting
imports. There are also ongoing discussions concerning Bill S-21,
the anti-corruption convention. I indicated that there were also
discussions on Bill C-59. Finally I do believe that there is
consent to do the report stage and third reading of Bill C-49,
the native land claims bill. Hopefully we can accomplish all
this business on Monday.
On Tuesday, we will consider the third reading of Bill C-43.
Next Wednesday and Thursday the House will hold the annual
pre-budget debate.
1505
[Translation]
The Speaker: I will now hear a question of privilege. I received
a letter in this regard from the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
Everything is in order and I am ready to listen.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
past two years, it has become common, if not systematic, to have
reports of the standing committees of the House and the content
of in camera discussions leaked to the media by Liberal members,
before this information is officially tabled in the House. It
was the case, over the past two weeks, with the report of the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs on nuclear
non-proliferation, the report of the Standing Committee on
Canadian Heritage on amateur and professional sports, and the
report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and
Access.
Such disclosure betrays the spirit and letter that must guide us
in the tabling of reports from the Liberal majority, along with
the dissenting opinions of the opposition parties in the House
of Commons.
Yesterday evening, the report of the Standing Committee on
Finance on prebudget consultations was no exception. It was
leaked during the 10 p.m. CBC national news. The Liberal
majority disclosed some information contained in the committee
report which serves the interests of the federal government and
which allowed the Minister of Finance to be in the limelight, to
promote his tax reduction initiative and spout propaganda about
the federal government's achievements.
This is contempt of the House, which may be punished. According
to Maingot, in chapter 12, page 229:
Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of
Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which
obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the
discharge of his parliamentary duty, or which has a tendency,
directly or indirectly to produce such results may be treated as
a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.
The disclosure of a committee report or of the content of in
camera discussions by members of these committees, before the
opposition's dissenting opinions are prepared and all the
information is tabled in the House of Commons, constitutes
contempt of the House and is a serious breach of democracy.
The Liberals' way of doing things is also an unforgivable
affront to the privileges of those parliamentarians who
respectfully and honourably comply with a rule which, for all
intents and purposes, practically no longer exists.
This also hinders the work of members, who make themselves
available for intensive consultations throughout the country for
two months and who see the results of their efforts and those of
all the witnesses who took part in the exercise reduced to
nought for purely partisan reasons.
This disclosure of the report of the Standing Committee on
Finance seriously undermines the credibility of the committee
and of its members and creates an unhealthy working atmosphere
in which suspicion and disrespect overshadow co-operation,
loyalty and one's word of honour. In fact, confidentiality and
honour no longer seem to hold much meaning for the Liberal
members of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Faced with these troubling incidents, I respectfully ask you to
tell the House whether the rule of confidentiality still applies
to House of Commons committee reports before they are tabled and
whether it is a rule we must observe out of respect for
parliamentarism and democracy. That being the case, I ask you
to consider the action taken by Liberal members of the Standing
Committee on Finance as contempt of the House. And, should you
agree that it is, I am prepared to move a motion in the House
that would allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs to conduct an inquiry.
If, however, it turns out that this rule of confidentiality is
no longer a sacred precept of the parliamentary system, we will
conduct ourselves accordingly in future. But it would be very
unfortunate if that were the case, for the loss of this rule
would strike a hard blow to democracy and to the credibility of
this institution we all respect as parliamentarians.
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the
accusation of this hon. member against anyone else in particular.
[Translation]
I must say that, on the substance of the matter, that is whether
or not it is acceptable for such documents to be leaked, of
course, the answer is no. I will never agree with that. I have
too much respect for this institution.
We agreed—was it yesterday or the day before? —to have the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs look into the
matter. In fact, I discussed this with my parliamentary
secretary, who happens to chair the committee.
1510
You can be assured of my full co-operation, Mr. Speaker; I will
do whatever it takes, even amend regulations if necessary, to
have documents tabled as soon as possible after committee work
is completed. I too want these leaks to stop.
I take issue with the member's allegation that it is members of
one party in particular who systematically commit these
offences. I am not so sure about that. Otherwise, I can assure
you I would have put an end to this practice a long time ago. I
do not know who is responsible, any more than the hon. member
does, but, unlike him, I am not accusing anybody. I am simply
saying that I do not know.
What I want, what we all want, I hope—I think I can speak for
everyone in this House—is to find a way to end any practice
that violates our rights and privileges. This is a very good
example of the kind of thing that happens and should not have
happened.
In this respect, I agree with the hon. member. I hope that the
committee can complete its work, its research, and present its
findings as soon as possible.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question of privilege will address two issues. First, the
reporting of this report in the media before being tabled in the
House is an attack on the dignity of the House. Second, the
premature release of this report in the media is an affront to
the authority of parliament since the finance committee made a
specific decision to prohibit the publication of this report
until tabled in the House.
The CBC network last night reported on the details of the
report. The CBC in its response to this report used words such
as “the key recommendations are” and “the emphasis will be
on”.
On the front page of the National Post an article says
that the Commons finance committee will ask the federal cabinet
to put in place a productivity covenant as one of its key
prebudget recommendations to the finance minister. Other
statements in the paper are:
In its prebudget report to be tabled tomorrow, the committee
calls on the... government to—
At this point the paper used quotation marks, giving the
impression that it was quoting the actual report:
What is more disturbing is that on December 2 in the National
Post Paul Wells wrote about the issue of leaked committee
reports and made this comment:
The catalyst for yesterday's round of soul searching was Reform's
House leader who rose to complain that yet another committee
report—this one from the subcommittee on pro sports—was leaked
to a newspaper.
The Toronto Star got that one, but we've scooped
a couple of reports here at the Post.
Journalists are now publicly bragging about obtaining leaked
reports. The impression left with the public is that the
authority and dignity of parliament is a joke. On page 41 of
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada it
states that parliament:
In the finance committee there was a discussion about the
potential for this report being leaked to the media. There was a
consensus among all members of the committee that this report
ought not to be published in the media before it was tabled in
the House. Since the committee has the right to prohibit the
publication of its report, the publication of its report by the
media is an affront to its authority.
In contrast let us consider the authority of the courts. When a
court orders a ban on the publication of certain elements of a
trial the media respect that order. When the House or its
committees order a ban the media ignore it.
Maybe we have this situation because committee members do not
have confidence that the government will seriously consider their
recommendations. They go to the media and hope at least to get
some recognition from the public for their work. At the same
time the government views the committee process as a
communication exercise reducing parliament to a minor bit player
in the legislative and policy making process.
The use of parliament by the government is not subject to
conventions or law or the Constitution, but it is subject to
decisions by the communications department of the Prime
Minister's Office.
We had a case this morning when a number of members were
complaining about how the minister of public works chose to make
an announcement outside the House regarding the renovations of
the parliamentary precincts. It is an example of how the Prime
Minister's communications department makes decisions based on
what is good for it, and the traditions of parliament be dammed.
The media that published the recommendations from the finance
report should be brought before the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs and asked how they received copies of
the report. The other matter to be determined would be whether
the media deliberately disobeyed an order of the committee and
whether there is any dignity left for the House to salvage.
1515
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is the third or fourth time this subject has been
raised in the House.
While I know it is a very serious matter for all members of the
House and they regard it as serious, I reiterate that if members
of a particular committee whose report was leaked or scooped or
whatever feel sufficiently strong about what has happened, and I
hope they will feel sufficiently strongly about it, they will
take the steps to provide a fuller factual background for the
House and not simply delegate this messy problem back to the
House or delegate it to the committee on procedure and House
affairs.
If committee members feel strongly about their work on a
committee they have the ability at that committee to take the
steps to find out what has happened, then report it to the House.
The House then deals with a better factual backdrop and takes
steps perhaps involving discipline, perhaps admonishment. I do
commend that to members. Let them take care of their own
backyard in their committees rather than simply complaining and
offering it up to the Speaker and to the PHA committee.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here we are once again. I think I have been up in the House
talking about this issue probably as many as nine times since the
election, twice this week.
I probably have a clear idea of what you are going to say. We
are getting used to that too, and I understand your position on
it, which I respect a great deal.
We brought this issues before procedure and House affairs. We
talked about it this morning and we will be dealing with the
issue. I am not sure what the outcome of that will be.
I am aware of even the offers that are made by various media to
members of parliament suggesting that if we get the documents
first perhaps we can have a front page or we will give a big
scoop here and a big scoop there. This is truly a result of
members responding to that, so the integrity basically falls
apart. Once it starts, where does it stop?
I am concerned as much as anybody else about the authority, the
dignity and the integrity of the House of Commons and its
offices, but obviously some in here are not and that denigrates
everybody in here.
My colleagues said we are responsible but we are not going to
tolerate being scooped. We will not be undersold in the House of
Commons. It is to the point now where I have to decide, if this
cannot be stopped, whether we consider on this side of the House
that reports in committee are just public documents. We are not
going to get into this. We have upheld what we feel is the
honourable thing to do and that is not to leak reports. This is
continuing consistently and it is getting worse. I feel obliged
to put the House on notice that we are not going to tolerate this
any longer. These reports have to be considered public because
we are not going to be out scooped by any of these people who
lack the integrity and the dignity they are supposed to have.
I am going to have a long talk with our critics.
We will get back to the House, but this is the last time I make
this statement. We are sick and tired of it, quite frankly, and
I am not going to allow my colleagues, our critics, to be
undersold by anybody in the House.
1520
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
justice committee experienced the same kind of situation.
I respect the suggestion of the hon. member who sits on the
justice committee that perhaps the committee should be looking at
this, but there is no process by which we can do that.
The chairs of the committees perhaps should take this seriously.
If a motion were put by a committee member to the committee to
look into and investigate to the best of its ability how a leak
occurred, that would be different. But I do not know whether the
hon. member was suggesting that chairs of committees are prepared
to accept and move on that kind of motion or whether those kinds
of motions would simply be voted down by the government side. If
what I am hearing is a suggestion that we could do that, then
that signal must come from the government side whose members
control all the committees. If that is the case, then perhaps
these kinds of things will not be brought to the House.
I did not even bring that issue to the House at the time it
occurred because I knew how useless it would be. I did not have a
name to present in conjunction with that complaint. But I did
speak to the reporter and I did, in a very diplomatic way,
suggest he had been used by the government to leak a government
report prematurely and he admitted that is exactly what happened.
But when I asked him who was his contact person, he just threw
his hands in the air and laughed. I understand he cannot reveal
and he would not reveal his contacts.
The point is if there is a suggestion that the government side
of these committees will look into these leaks, I think we will
get to the bottom of it. I think we will stop at least the usage
of House time in airing these things and having Mr. Speaker make
the only decision that you can make when we cannot bring forward
a name of a member of parliament responsible for the leak.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I wish to thank all the hon. members who spoke
today, especially the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who
has raised the question: What about the integrity and honour of
this House?
I must admit that I am becoming less patient by the day. This is
the second time this week that the same issue has been raised.
Today, neither the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot nor any
other member named names; they just referred to members of this
or that political party.
I would like to make a suggestion, which is more than a
suggestion really.
[English]
I would like the House procedure committee to address this
matter as soon as possible. I would like some kind of
recommendation to come forth to the House.
I have said on so many occasions that I do not have the power
needed to curtail this type of thing. Collectively members of
parliament have this power.
As a first step, and I would like this done urgently, I want the
procedure committee to deal with this issue and I would like some
suggestions. I do not like to go to the next step right away,
but unless there are some suggestions forthcoming for the
protection of all of us, then at that time I may consider just to
have a debate in the House to find out what we will do as a
House.
One hon. member brought up a very strong point. I do not know
if this is possible at this juncture, but the question is in my
mind, as it must be in yours.
1525
If a court of law can put a ban on publication on certain
materials and it is upheld, why can the highest court in the
country not do something? I put that as a question, only as a
question. But I wish that first the procedure committee would
have a look at it post haste and we will wait and see what the
outcome of that is.
But my patience, like yours, is wearing a bit thin, for all of
us as members. We do our work and I think that in honour we
should have the decency not to leak these papers for
one-upmanship. I do not like the word undersold. I do not like
the word scoop. We are parliamentarians and we are going to do
our duty as we see fit. I want this to be done as soon as
possible.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to correct an impression I left with the House as a result
of statements I made on November 2.
In asking a question of the solicitor general respecting a
flight taken by RCMP Commissioner Murray in the RCMP jet, I
implied the only reason for the commissioner's flight was to
attend a retirement party. As I did not go on to say that the
commissioner had other business in Vancouver and the timing of
the RCMP retirement party was established to coincide with the
trip, it was an unfair representation of the commissioner's
activities.
I have had the opportunity to meet with and personally apologize
to the commissioner and he has accepted my apology. I believe
that politicians must be accountable for their statements, both
in accuracy and fairness, and it is for this reason that I wish
to register my apology with this Chamber.
The Speaker: So noted.
Pursuant to order made yesterday, the House will now proceed to
Statements by Ministers.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government has made a pledge
to ensure that Canadians will continue to feel secure in their
homes and on their streets. Ensuring public safety is at the
heart of this government's mandate.
Having recently been appointed Solicitor General of Canada, I
want to build on the first annual statement made last year and
reaffirm the government's commitment to combat organized crime as
the key part of our public safety agenda.
Organized crime is a serious and growing concern. It is big
business and it is a national problem that threatens public
safety.
Earlier this year my predecessor released key results of an
independent study on the impact of organized crime. The study
assessed organized crime activity like money laundering, illegal
drugs, economic crime, people smuggling, contraband smuggling and
motor vehicle theft.
The study confirmed that organized crime has an impact that goes
far beyond the obvious violence and economic loss we suffer as a
society and individually. It affects the health and safety of
all Canadians. It has a devastating impact on our communities,
our families and those most vulnerable like the elderly and
youth.
Organized crime is an issue that is and should be a concern for
all Canadians. A recent poll shows that nine out of ten
Canadians consider organized crime to be a serious problem. This
tells us our priorities lie in a co-ordinated strategy to
effectively fight organized crime together.
The national workshop on organized crime last April was a major
step toward achieving this objective.
I would like to thank the policing and law enforcement
community, the provinces and territories, federal government
departments and others that participated in this event. We are
building on their advice and expertise.
Working with all these partners, we have identified a number of
shared priorities, combating drug abuse and the illicit drug
trade, addressing high tech crime, fraud and other economic
crimes, and reinvesting our national police services for an
integrated national public safety network.
1530
Organized crime is an issue that spans our nation and transcends
our borders. No one jurisdiction can effectively act alone.
Organized crime has no borders; it does not respect them. At the
international level we have been working very actively with our
partners. Over the past year we have expanded co-operation with
the United States through the Canada-United States cross border
crime forum.
In October federal, provincial and territorial ministers
responsible for justice recognized that organized crime was a
serious and growing problem. Their discussion resulted in the
first ever joint statement on organized crime which set out eight
shared principles of action. The statement reinforced Canada's
commitment to working together in partnership to combat organized
crime. I am pleased that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police strongly and publicly supported the joint statement. I am
confident we are on the right track, but we need to step up our
fight.
The federal government is taking action. Our next move will be
to help take the profit out of organized crime. Early in the new
year the government will introduce legislation to curb money
laundering. These measures will provide new and powerful tools
for law enforcement in addition to helping us work with our
international partners.
I am encouraged by the recent initiatives to combat organized
crime that have been undertaken by a number of provinces. I also
recognize the work of the RCMP and other agencies in my ministry;
federal departments such as justice, revenue, citizenship and
immigration; and other police forces and agencies that continue
to target resources to fight organized crime in a more
co-ordinated and focused fashion.
My ministry and our partners are fully committed to doing what
it takes to stamp out organized crime. I look forward to working
with CACP, police across the country, and the provinces and
territories in my new capacity as solicitor general. Together we
will work to ensure Canadians continue to enjoy a level of safety
and security that is unparalleled in the world.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
on behalf of the official opposition I welcome the opportunity to
respond to the solicitor general's statement on the state of
security in Canada, in particular organized crime. There is
overwhelming evidence that organized crime is increasing at an
alarming rate. Today's numerous headlines on organized crime
activities highlight the importance of action and commitment that
the government get on with its job.
We agree that its effects are far reaching and devastating to
our society both economically and socially. The Canadian
Security Intelligence Service is warning of the existence of 18
international crime rings in Canada. The CSIS report indicates
that the cost of international crime to the domestic economy is
$14.8 billion. Drug trafficking, dumping of toxic waste, money
laundering, smuggling of arms, contraband, counterfeiting,
security frauds, software piracy and auto theft are some of the
issues under the control of organized crime.
CSIS is reporting that international crime organizations attack
the very fabric of life in a democratic law based society like
Canada. Criminals involved in organized crime have successfully
landed in Canada without any opposition due to our lax
immigration policy and inadequate screening. Organized crime
with foreign origins poses a serious threat in many metropolitan
areas of Canada, particularly on the west coast.
The danger imposed by modern day organized crime is a serious
and destructive force. It imperils the security of our citizens
and our nation. This threat attacks us in our streets, in our
businesses and, worst of all, in our school yards. Organized
crime is a threat to our economic sovereignty because the cost of
organized crime in our society is astronomical.
1535
The counterattack will require additional resources, legislation
and co-operation provincially, federally and internationally.
Canada cannot afford the continuing lip service the government is
providing to the problem. We need resources. We need action and
we need it now. Canadians will only feel safe and confident when
these resources are committed to this attack. Crime is
organized. So too should government efforts be.
I join the minister in congratulating the work of the RCMP,
justice, revenue, citizenship and immigration, and others. I
presume the minister also congratulates CSIS on its work. All
these agencies must work together if they are to be successful in
the war on organized crime. Effort must be made to avoid a
duplication of resources and investigation by the agencies.
Taking today's headlines as an example, “CSIS warns of 18
international crime rings in Canada” and “RCMP charge four with
eastern European crime links”, we must ensure there is no
overlapping and squandering of essential but limited resources.
In summary, no turf wars.
The minister has said that crime respects no borders. I would
go even further and remind the minister that all those borders
are not defined.
On a related issue, according to a study published by Carleton
University, Canada is especially susceptible to economic spies
because it is one of the world's most open and trade dependent
countries. CSIS has warned that computer hackers pose a serious
threat to national security. Terrorists could hack into
government networks to sabotage and steal important valuable
information. CSIS's own computer network was broken into. It
has been reported that the RCMP web site has been tampered with.
A recent CSIS presentation shows that 28 federal departments have
been hacked.
Control of information is critical and concerns are not
restricted to cyberspace. The government even has trouble with
low tech like ink on paper. This past week access to
confidential documents has been made easier, thanks to the
federal government's decision to let contracts to bankrupt
companies that are supposed to shred confidential documents.
What happened? The documents were shipped out in their
entirety, not shredded or burned as required, to destinations
like China and Korea. The government has not retrieved the
documents. Nor does it seem to care. Some of these files were
so highly classified by the privy council and national defence
they should have been burned in front of witnesses.
The government's cavalier attitude does little to assure
Canadians that their privacy and security has not and will not be
breached. I urge the government to get on with the job. It
seems that sometimes with the government more is said than done.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House today, but I am also a little bit
disappointed.
To me, the ministerial statement by the solicitor general is
nothing but lip service. It is a perfect example of the kind of
promises the Liberal government makes, promises that are based
on noble principles but, unfortunately, never materialize. The
statement by the solicitor general is just cheap talk, despite
the fact that nine Canadians out of ten think organized crime is
a serious problem in Canada today.
This is even more so since recent events have shed some light on
the true role of the solicitor general within the government. As
we know, his predecessor was forced to resign and even admitted
that he was covering for the Prime Minister.
Nothing can lead us to believe that the new solicitor general
will be able to follow through on the intentions expressed in
his annual statement. His role will be limited to that of the
Prime Minister's valet, especially considering the fact that no
Liberal member seems to have what it takes to be a true
solicitor general. The solicitor general is really just a front.
The true solicitor general is the Prime Minister and his staff.
Money laundering seems to be the new priority of this
government. We must applaud this awakening that is kind of
sudden but oh so salutary if we want to fight organized crime
effectively.
In that context, the Bloc Quebecois, through me, has introduced
Bill C-435 to withdraw the thousand dollar note from circulation.
It is a simple legislative measure which, according to several
experts who were consulted, would really hurt the gangsters who
threaten our comfort and our safety.
1540
No one can dispute the merit of the legislative measure the Bloc
Quebecois has proposed. Canada is in fact the only western
country with bills of such large denomination in circulation.
In addition, it is a lot easier for money launderers to go about
with ten $1,000 bills than with a suitcase full of $20s or $50s.
It is worth noting that a study in the United States showed
recently that most $100 bills bore traces of cocaine. We might
well ask ourselves what is to be found on $1,000 bills.
A further bit of information. The Bank of Canada determined in
August that 3,372,000 $1,000 bills were in circulation. In
addition, 128,286,000 $100 bills are in circulation.
Withdrawing the $1,000 bill would be a positive step for the
government. It has the support of a number of representatives
of the police.
Before concluding, I would point out that the government should
swallow its pride, stop being arrogant with the opposition and
the public at large and give Bill C-435, which I introduced on
September 24, proper attention.
It would show it is not simply a government of verbiage, but
that it intends to take specific measures to fight this cancer
known as money laundering and organized crime.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. member for
Charlesbourg. I take this opportunity to welcome the new
solicitor general to his new post. He is, like myself, an
islander. He comes from perhaps a more gentle island, a little
less rugged than my own, but from parts of my island we can look
across the channel and see his island. That is as nice as I will
be.
I will move now to address some of the comments he made today in
his report. First I suggest that he wants to build upon the last
report which came before the House a year ago. It will be tough
going because there is very little foundation to build upon.
In the last year the commitments made by the previous solicitor
general to combat organized crime have not come to any kind of
fruition. Indeed, all we have heard is another statement of what
they hope to do.
I will read the definition of organized crime from the
government's own document. It includes economically motivated
illicit activity undertaken by any group, association or other
body consisting of two or more individuals. It is beginning to
sound like we might include leaked documents in this definition,
given the point of order today. The definition also includes, as
I have suggested, formally or informally organized, negative
impact of said activity, and so on.
The types of organized crime that take place in Canada would be
shocking to Canadians. It includes money laundering. It
includes the sale of illegal drugs. It includes, which I think
is particularly shocking especially to the generation following
us, environmental crime and the way hazardous waste is either
sold or hidden in the country. It includes contraband, economic
crime, fraud, migrant trafficking and motor vehicle theft. The
cost of these activities is in the billions of dollars. The cost
to the health of Canadians, particularly young Canadians, of the
illicit drug trade is staggering.
There is a statement from the government's document on the
organized crime impact study which deals with the seizures of
illicit drugs and the increase in the use of crack among
adolescents, which has gone from 0.5% in 1993, the year when I
believe that party took power, to 1.9% in 1995. There has been a
gradual increase in the use of illicit drugs.
These types of activities require urgent action.
1545
At the same time that we have this report and the government
talks about the need to combat organized crime, we have seen the
downsizing of the RCMP. We have seen the training centre in
Regina suffer from funding cuts. We have seen RCMP offices in
British Columbia suffer from funding cuts.
We in the New Democratic Party call upon the government to
reinvest in the necessary policing forces if we are going to
actually be tough on crime in this country.
I welcome the statement of the solicitor general. I look
forward to working with him in a constructive way to combat
organized crime in this country.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I also want to begin by congratulating the new
solicitor general, who is an Atlantic Canadian. I can certainly
say that he is going to have his hands full in the next number of
months.
I must say that today's statement is an absolute and utter
disappointment coming from the solicitor general. It really
consists of nothing more than another promise in a long line of
promises from the Liberal government to introduce new anti-money
laundering legislation.
This is the fourth time in two years that the Solicitor General
of Canada has made this specific promise. The present minister
is the third consecutive minister to make the promise.
Let me refresh the memory of the current solicitor general.
In September 1996, at a summit on organized crime, the solicitor
general of the day spoke of the grave concerns with the same
grave words used by the solicitor general today regarding the
increased threat posed by organized crime.
The solicitor general at that time promised to introduce new
legislation to enact new financial reporting requirements
regarding suspicious transactions and cross-border money
movement.
Thirteen months ago, in November 1997, the solicitor general's
immediate predecessor stood in the House and delivered his first
and last ministerial statement on organized crime. He too
promised anti-money laundering legislation.
In April of the same year, the same solicitor general reiterated
the same promise to yet again introduce anti-money laundering
legislation at an organized crime summit.
While the government held summits and made promises, organized
crime continued to increase and flourish in this country. In
particular, Canada has earned the unsavoury international
reputation as one of the better places in the world for criminals
to hide their illegal cash. That is not a partisan comment on my
part. That is the conclusion of the U.S. State Department.
In its annual report on the international narcotics control
strategy, the State Department of the United States called Canada
“an easy target for drug related and other types of money
laundering”. The report also put Canada in the same low category
as Brazil and the Cayman Islands for its organized crime. The
U.S. State Department also cited Canada's weak money laundering
laws as the main reason our country is viewed as a safe haven for
many international criminals.
More promises from this solicitor general are not good enough.
The law enforcement community is tired of the promises and is
tired of hearing about pending legislation. They want action.
It is not unlike the Minister of Justice, who has repeatedly
expressed her commitment to table young offender legislation in
this House. We are still waiting.
In August 1998, a senior CSIS official said that organized crime
in this country was at a crisis level. It is ironic that
yesterday's report from CSIS indicated that there are
international crime syndicates operating in this country. They
have identified 18 international crime syndicates operating at
this time.
This government's repeated broken promises to introduce new
legislation against organized crime have kept Canada's doors
open.
I am also extremely disappointed that the solicitor general
decided not to address the organized crime funding crunch in any
meaningful way in his remarks. The platitudes ring quite hollow
for all law enforcement agencies when they do not see the dollars
coming from this government to back them up. Simply recognizing
the problem is not good enough. Calling it serious is not good
enough.
Initiatives in pending legislation do not cut it. Last spring I
challenged the solicitor general of the day to justify the $74
million cut in this fiscal year to the RCMP's organized crime
budget. The solicitor general said that my information was
wrong, much in the same way he denied having an inappropriate
conversation with Fred Toole, much in the same way the Minister
of Transport denied allegations today.
Those allegations came from the commissioner of the RCMP and the
auditor general. The fact is that the RCMP in their documents
indicate that $74 million or 13% was cut from RCMP funding for
policing services.
This was reaffirmed in a letter of July 1998 from the RCMP
commissioner. The one and only strategic priority of the RCMP
federal policing services is protection against organized crime.
1550
Specific responsibilities of federal policing services include
the government's anti-smuggling initiative, proceeds of crime,
coastal enforcement, immigration enforcement and the criminal
intelligence program. These areas are all in decline.
How does the solicitor general honestly expect this House or the
RCMP, our national policing organization, to do its job in
fighting organized crime when the budget has been absolutely
gutted by the finance minister? Both the solicitor general's
predecessor and the RCMP commissioner publicly called for more
resources to combat organized crime. Front line police officers
in every major Canadian city from St. John's to Vancouver are
overwhelmingly asking that this resource be allocated.
It does not matter what the solicitor general says unless he is
prepared to back up the words. The presence of biker gangs on
the streets of Canada is becoming all too common a sight. The
strongest message that the solicitor general could give today
against organized crime would be to restore funding. Instead we
get more of the rhetoric that we have heard time and time again.
Today's statement by the new solicitor general provided him with
a golden opportunity to put his own stamp on his new ministry and
to prove that he is more than just a nice guy who is busy
undergoing on-the-job training.
RCMP, CSIS, corrections officers, customs officers and all of
our law enforcement officers deserve our congratulations,
particularly given what they are working with these days. I urge
the new solicitor general, if nothing else, if he really wants to
do something about organized crime, to visit the finance minister
and make a strong pitch for what is needed, more funding.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 24
minutes.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I have
the honour to inform the House that a communication has been
received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
December 3, 1998
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Charles
Gonthier, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his
capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate
chamber today, the 3rd day of December, 1998 at 5.45 p.m. for
the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque
Secretary to the Governor General
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-43, an act to establish
the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal
other Acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendments) by
the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): 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.
1555
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.
1600
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to address Bill C-43 this afternoon, a bill introduced
by the minister of revenue and Canadian Olympics lobbyist.
We have had ample opportunity to debate Bill C-43 here in the
House. Why do we keep wanting to debate it? It is that we
think, perhaps unreasonably, that our Liberal friends, our
friends in the government, might listen to reason on the fact
that all those concerned will be affected directly or
indirectly, in one way or another.
They fear the passage of this bill and the fact that the way it
is implemented could harm them and take away their
responsibilities and their independence in their respective
areas of action.
Whether we are talking about SMBs, cities, provinces, or the
largest of businesses, I think there is a consensus. We are
wondering why, in the face of such unanimity, the government is
so obstinate? It says “We want to continue, we want to
continue, we want to continue”. There is perhaps something a
bit twisted there. We may well ask. Perhaps there is downright
obstinacy on the part of the government and the minister
involved.
Maybe the minister, in lobbying for Vancouver to hold the
Olympic Games, forgot the file on his desk and his officials to
the opportunity to move it along.
However, I would be surprised if it were unionized staff because
the 40,000 unionized employees at Revenue Canada stand to lose
their rights and entitlements if the minister relinquishes his
responsibilities and shifts them to an agency like the one he is
proposing.
While he was off campaigning for the Olympic Games in Vancouver
at the expense of other municipalities, his employees, his
staff, were moving this bill along, not accepting amendments and
refusing to hear reason.
In his fine speeches and his press releases, the minister kept
saying “Yes, but we consulted”. Consultation has become a
government catch phrase. True, they did consult. But did they
listen during these consultations? Did they listen to those they
consulted?
The government, through the minister, says the provinces agree.
The fact is that there is not a single province that agrees to
have an agency like this one. This agency would be authorized to
collect federal taxes. It may also be authorized to collect
provincial taxes. I read speeches from Reformers, saying “This
is good, because in British Columbia, it is total chaos in this
respect. Therefore, it is OK for big brother in Ottawa to come
out and say it can put your fiscal house in order”. This
authority could extend to the collection of municipal taxes, and
even to school taxes.
Such an agency would definitely step in exclusive provincial
jurisdictions, not only in Quebec but also in all the provinces.
If the government turns a deaf ear to the provinces, small and
medium size businesses, public servants, members of the
opposition, perhaps it is because it has a superiority complex
or thinks it is perfect.
Yesterday, during the television program Maisonneuve à l'écoute,
Pierre Maisonneuve asked the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs “Do you not find that you often sound like a grandfather
with his grandchildren, or a father with his children?” This was
said by Pierre Maisonneuve. “You seem to be saying I am the one
who is right. Listen children, provinces, premiers and other
provincial officials, I can hear your whining, but it is just
whining”.
It is like parents with teenagers. Parents tell them “you can
argue all you want, father knows best”. There was a program with
that very title. This is how the federal government seems to be
behaving.
The federal government is the only one in step. The others are
all out of step. One wonders.
1605
Why are the provinces, the Bloc Quebecois and several other
parties and stakeholders opposed to a bill like this one?
Primarily, although not exclusively, because of the government's
loss of accountability to the agency.
The government is increasingly dumping its responsibilities.
Could it be that it is becoming lazy? Is this the idea of a
party in office?
The establishment of this agency, if it comes about,
unfortunately will result in a loss of accountability.
Some of my colleagues said “Just imagine asking the minister to
explain a scandal of one kind or another involving the agency”.
The minister would reply “It is not our responsibility. This is
an independent agency for which the government is no longer
responsible. We will ask questions, but it is no longer my
responsibility”.
The loss of accountability and responsibility on the part of a
minister is like the lobbying minister for Vancouver, who just
told us “I want to get rid of some of my responsibilities”. It
also makes us worry about the huge powers that this agency could
use. It would get these powers through the people appointed by
the Liberal government to the agency's board of management.
If we look at the board of directors of the agencies that were
set up recently, it is not surprising to realize that true grits
make up the majority of the board members. This agency that will
collect taxes throughout Canada will be controlled and managed
by people appointed by the Prime Minister. Things never change,
which is why the people who have considered the issue and have
legitimate concerns are not feeling too happy and secure right
now.
And what about the approximately 40,000 public servants at
Revenue Canada who will no longer come under the Public Service
Employment Act if this bill is passed? For these public
servants, this means losing the fundamental rights to be
protected they currently enjoy as employees of Revenue Canada.
Why are we not taking into consideration the views of small
businesses, which have said unanimously or by a clear majority
that they are against such a bill?
These are the questions my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and
members of the other parties as well as provinces and businesses
have put to the minister but remain unanswered. I would like to
know why the minister does not want to sit down with the
provinces and why he does not want to examine how Quebec manages
to harmonize the GST with the QST and then send what we owe to
Ottawa.
We now know where we stand in Quebec, in this respect.
The Heritage Minister often talks about “victims” in the House.
However if there are concrete and positive achievements, why not
draw from their example? Why always try to interfere with
something that works in Quebec or another province? The federal
father or grandfather is always explaining to his children that
they did well, but he is capable of doing better. He will crush
the work of a province, a municipality or a region to prove he
is the best.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois are speaking on behalf of revenue
employees, small businesses and individuals, and they are saying
to the minister: “Listen. Listen to us. Listen to them. Stop
the juggernaut of tax collection.
Let us work together on changes that will bring harmony”. But
for the federal government “harmony” means to implement what we
have decided, because anything we decide is good for you.
Quebeckers have had enough for a long time, but now we are
hearing the same thing from other provinces which are saying:
“That's enough. Hold everything and listen to us”.
[English]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
some hon. members in the course of this debate have said that
they cannot support this bill unless it includes provisions
ensuring that taxpayers are fairly and impartially treated by the
agency.
In effect they want to entrench the taxpayers bill of rights in
the legislation itself.
1610
I would like to remind hon. members that in 1985 Revenue Canada
was the first revenue administration to proclaim the rights of
taxpayers with its declaration of taxpayer rights. This
declaration is entrenched in the day to day operations of the
department and is part of the public service's ethos that will
carry over to the agency.
Bill C-43 also ensures that the Minister of National Revenue
will continue under the agency to be accountable to the public
and to parliament for all aspects of the agency's performance,
including the way officials exercise program authorities such as
assessing and collecting taxes and duties.
Under the agency members of parliament will continue to be able
to deal directly with the Minister of National Revenue to resolve
their constituents' problems. If there is ever a problem of
abuse of power, the minister will have both the authority and the
responsibility to correct it.
The Minister of National Revenue launched a fairness initiative
in March of this year to solicit feedback on the fairness of
Revenue Canada programs. To ensure the entire process would be
objective, Revenue Canada partnered with the Conference Board of
Canada to analyse the results, hold a national symposium to
verify priorities, and produce an independent report. According
to this independent report, Revenue Canada is well regarded among
Canadians.
I would like to assure hon. members that feedback from
consultations show that Canadians are pleased with the current
declaration of taxpayer rights. The conference board report
specifically states that Revenue Canada has already made
significant strides in making fairness an ongoing part of every
employee's job and that it is well equipped to provide fairness
to Canadians.
Many suggestions have been received to make further improvements
to the fairness of Revenue Canada. Department officials are in
the process of developing an action plan for the minister's
consideration.
In addition to not being necessary, adding a taxpayers bill of
rights to the agency legislation would have the effect of
amending program legislation such as the Income Tax Act.
Provisions such as those proposed should therefore be directed
specifically at that act and other similar statutes that the
agency would administer.
Some hon. members have also argued that five years is too long
to wait for a parliamentary committee to review and assess the
new agency. I would like to assure those hon. members that there
is nothing to prevent parliament from undertaking an additional
review at an earlier date, if considered necessary. Allowing a
period of five years to elapse before a formal review is
undertaken is a fairly common approach in federal statutes. The
reason for this timeframe is to give the agency adequate time to
implement and fine tune its policies and to operate for a
sufficient length of time for an effective assessment to be made.
I also remind hon. members that parliament will have other
opportunities to assess the agency on an ongoing basis. It will
review the agency's corporate business plan, just as it now
reviews Revenue Canada's plan. It will also review the agency's
annual report regarding its performance during the preceding
year. Before the agency can spend any money, parliament will
have to approve the appropriations just as it does now for
Revenue Canada. Finally, the auditor general will be the
agency's auditor and will report to parliament just as he does
for Revenue Canada.
Some hon. members have proposed that even if passed by
parliament, this bill should not be proclaimed in force without
the approval of at least one-half of the provinces. There is no
reason or rationale why the federal parliament would make coming
into force of this federal statute subject to provincial
approval.
I can assure hon. members that the agency would provide the
means to serve the collective interests of the federal,
provincial and territorial governments as well as the national
interest by setting the right conditions for even greater
co-ordination in tax administration.
I would stress that there is no obligation on the part of any
province to have the agency administer more programs on its
behalf.
1615
The agency is about creating options and opportunities for the
provinces. It must earn the business of the provinces and would
be well placed to do so once it is established.
[Translation]
All provinces, except Quebec, have left a door open to allow the
agency to deliver services to them. Detailed agreements may not
be signed until the agency has been established. This is why I
invite all members of the House to support the bill so the
agency can reach agreements with provinces to eliminate
duplication.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency. This bill establishes an agency that
will enforce and administer the Income Tax Act instead of
Revenue Canada.
This bill, which was introduced by the government last June, is
a result of the Speech from the Throne in the previous
Parliament. At the time, the government announced its intention
to set up a national revenue recovery agency.
The government has followed up on this and proposes in Bill C-43
to establish a semi-independent agency that will be responsible
for collecting all taxes in Canada.
The agency would administer all forms of taxes, from provincial
sales taxes to taxes on gas and liquor, on a country-wide basis.
There is, to say the least, cause for concern when a single
agency is given so much power, specially in an area of such
importance as taxes. I believe we are justified in asking if the
real interests of citizens can be protected by the private
sector.
Moreover, this superagency will be able to expand its powers
even more if provinces and municipalities accept. Indeed,
according to the bill, this agency will be responsible for
negotiating with interested parties to collect all forms of
taxes in Canada.
Yet, the numerous efforts of senior officials of Revenue Canada
convince the provinces to allow Ottawa to administer their tax
programs have failed.
When the government tabled its bill, not a single new tax
administration agreement with any province was in sight, and not
even a single letter of intent had been signed by a province to
be part of an agreement. Quebec and Ontario categorically
refused to even consider the possibility of dealing with the
agency. Even P.E.I. has indicated that it is not ready to
transfer further tax powers.
One of the reasons for creating this agency is doomed to failure
from the outset.
Provinces simply do not want to relinquish to the federal
government what little taxation power they have left. Quebec is
no exception. The creation of a huge tax collection agency
through which the governments hopes to extend its powers flies
in the face of Quebec's position and demands.
Naturally, the Quebec government is all for improving tax
legislation administration, which should be streamlined, but not
at the expense of its own administrative authority. One way of
making the system more efficient would be to have all tax
collection operations, both provincial and federal, concentrated
in Quebec.
The Quebec revenue department already collects the income tax
and other taxes in Quebec, as well as the GST. It could also
collect the federal income tax.
1620
Quebec's proposal is to have the Quebec revenue department
collect all taxes in Quebec. Unlike the proposed federal agency,
this department is fully accountable.
I find profoundly disturbing the concept of an agency not
reporting directly to a government being responsible for all tax
collection activities. How can we make sure such an agency will
give priority to the public interest rather than to its own
interests?
Also, in this era of computers and e-mail, many companies buy and
sell confidential data.
It is normal to wonder whether an agency, which will be less
accountable than a department such as Revenue Canada, will be
able to adequately protect people's privacy. It is easy to
imagine the wealth of personal and financial information that
could be concentrated in the hands of this body.
As well, with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, we are
talking about 40,000 employees, that is 20 per cent of the whole
public service that from now on will be at the mercy of the
agency's board of management.
Clause 30(1) of the bill states that “The Agency has authority
over all matters relating to general administrative policy in
the Agency; the organization of the Agency; Agency real
property; and personnel management, including the determination
of the terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by
the Agency.” Therefore, the Agency will have the power to raise
or lower salaries, hire and fire employees and improve the
managerial staff's terms and conditions of employment.
As we know, there is a very different salary scale in the
private sector. Just think of the large banks' CEOs, for
example. Everything in the current market suggests that
officials and managers will be very well paid, whereas the
working conditions of support staff, processing officers and so
on will not be as good. This is hardly reassuring.
The government said it wanted to modernize the public service
and improve the way fiscal legislation is implemented. But it is
on the wrong track with the establishment of this agency.
Modernization and privatization are not synonymous. It is
unfortunate that the government did not try instead to work
together with the public service unions in order to find ways to
improve the system. There is nothing to suggest that the agency,
as defined in Bill C-43, will improve anything. Quite the contrary.
As a matter of fact, according to a study by the Public Policy
Forum, 40% of the businesses surveyed saw no advantage to this
agency, and more than two thirds felt that it would increase or
maintain their costs and, therefore, would have no positive
effect in that sense.
Moreover, the structure proposed in Bill C-43 adds another level
of bureaucracy in the form of an appointed board of management,
which would only have a supervisory role, or so the Liberals
say. Nevertheless, this board will require time, money and
additional staff, and the agency will still be accountable to
Treasury Board for administrative issues.
So the government is keeping all the old mechanisms in place
while adding this new board. This means that we end up with yet
another level of bureaucracy that makes the system even more
cumbersome.
I just do not understand.
If the mechanisms are the same and if, as the government says,
the minister and his staff will still have control and will make
sure the agency is transparent, then we certainly have good
reason to wonder what purpose this agency will serve.
Is the government saying these things to ease our concerns and
is it planning to eventually give more latitude to this agency,
or is it simply trying to shirk its responsibilities and to
distance itself, among other things, from negotiations with the
provinces on tax administration issues?
1625
It is always easier to blame an agency and to establish
commissions of inquiry than to be accountable.
With what I just said, no one will be surprised to learn that I
too am strongly opposed to this bill.
Like my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I think that a task
as fundamental as enforcing the Income Tax Act cannot be
performed by an agency such as the one proposed in Bill C-43.
This is not the way to modernize and simplify the administration
of our tax system.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43
establishing the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
As the labour critic for the Bloc Quebecois I feel concerned by
this bill. As the member for Manicouagan just mentioned, 20% of
the public service of Canada will disappear, that is 40,000
employees. This agency will be a quasi-private business, and it
will be independent from the whole government administration. In
our view this goes against public interest and it will also
change the working conditions that prevail in the federal public
service.
I will also remind the House that this bill, slipped by us in
June, at the end of the last session, is very insidious,
particularly in an historical perspective.
While I am not a constitutional law specialist, I know that this
bill really goes against the spirit of the Constitution of
Canada and of the Canadian confederation, two words that are no
longer used because, over the decades, Canada has miraculously
evolved from a confederation to a federation of provinces.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is a perfect example
of this. Again last night, we saw him on television mixing up
issues and concepts. It is as if two and two no longer make
four. It is difficult to know where this country is going and
this is just the beginning.
People should know that the authority to collect income tax was
the exclusive prerogative of the provinces in the spirit of the
1867 Canadian confederation.
Now the federal government, as it did before during economic
crises or wars, is assuming the right to tax Canadians directly,
going against the spirit of Confederation. This we can never
stress enough, particularly on the eve of a debate as important
as that on the Canadian social union.
In this spirit we must be grateful and perhaps do like previous
governments, such as the Duplessis government in 1954, which
invoked the Constitution and its spirit when levying direct
taxation. We must thank him for having done so because we can
now rationally think and dream of making Quebec sovereign.
If the Quebec government had not assumed this right to direct
taxation, if it were still at the mercy of the federal
government, historically, where would Quebec be? Where would the
distinct society be? Where would our distinct character be? It
is because of direct taxation that Quebec can, in conformity
with the spirit of the Canadian Constitution—keep its dreams
alive and reach its full development.
1630
There is the historical aspect I just mentioned. As a member of
parliament, something else worries me in this bill. The bill
uses wording found in a speech by the President of the Treasury
Board and talks of modernizing the public service. That was the
term used when unemployment insurance was reformed. The
unemployment insurance reform gave birth to employment
insurance. As the months have gone by, we have come to see what
came out of that. Previously, about 80% of those paying
unemployment insurance were eligible for benefits. Now, after
modernization, 42% of those paying employment insurance can
become claimants.
Buzz words like “modernizing the public service” scare me.
They indicate that the government has some very neo-liberal
projects or intents. They are very anti-union and anti-labour.
They encourage a weakening of the middle class and of unions,
widening the gap between the rich and the poor in our society.
They are the reason for statistics like the ones published today
indicating that child poverty is growing in this country, in
spite of the commitments the government made.
These results did not appear as if by magic. They are the
outcome of decisions made secretly without any of us being
really made aware that they have been made.
Another aspect one must remember in this bill is it will reduce
once again the role of Parliament. Parliaments are more and more
weakened, not only in Canada, but in all the western world,
because elected representatives can no longer ask for
accountability and the executive longer has any accountability.
These past years, especially in the transportation area, very
important decisions have resulted in the fact that Parliament
can no longer ask for accountability in the management of public
assets. I am thinking of Nav Canada and air traffic controllers,
who used to be part of the department of transport. When faced
with certain decisions elected representatives used to be able
to ask questions and question the government. This is no longer
possible. This is a private agency.
I am thinking of Air Canada, where I met with union
representatives last week. The union is very worried about the
experiment under way at the Ottawa airport, where automated
tellers will replace some Air Canada employees. They will
directly serve clients, eventually causing massive layoffs.
Parliament has no authority to ask for accountability because
Air Canada has been privatized. Likewise with the CN, where they
made massive layoffs but we were unable to talk about it here
because it is a private agency.
And I did not mention the Canadian food inspection agency that
was established a few months ago. Elected representatives could
question the government on its management, but they cannot
anymore, because it is a private agency.
Take the ADM, Mirabel-Dorval.
The government hid behind this organization and said it could do
nothing. It gave a mandate to ADM and experts, who did what they
could.
As parliamentarians, whom can we hold accountable? How is public
interest served in all this? What is left for taxpayers who pay
their taxes and see decisions being made which have an impact on
their daily lives? Parliamentarians, who are asked questions—whom
else can people ask but their elected representatives?—will have
to give up sooner or later because they will not have the
authority to hold accountable those who should be.
The government is losing control. This is very serious. This is
very neo-liberal. This is very undemocratic.
Disappointingly, this is done with the approval of senior
officials, who instead of having the best interests of the
public at heart only have theirs. Here is what is written in a
clause on the loyalty directors will have to have for the
agency.
Subclause 42.(1) states, and I quote:
Every director of the Agency, exercising their powers and
performing their duties and functions, must
1635
Where is the public interest when the bill refers to the best
interests of the agency, an agency that is partly privatized and
that will soon be fully privatized? The clause reads “must
act... with a view to the best interests of the agency”. It is
immoral to write such things. When one is paid by the state, one
should act in the public interest. It is our first
responsibility. We act on behalf of the state, not even on
behalf of the government.
Members know how things work. A government that puts things like
that in its legislation is not even trying to hide its intent,
and this must be condemned. I cannot understand that the
Canadian elites have not done so.
For Quebec, this is a great lesson, in view of what we will all
be called on to ponder.
This is a unitary Canada, a centralized Canada, in which the
provinces will become regional governments and in which Ottawa
will control everything. This may be good for Canada—it is
their problem—but it is obvious that Quebec must get out of
this crazy situation as soon as possible, otherwise Quebeckers
will become increasingly diminished and enslaved in that
Canadian federation.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Yukon, the Environment; the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, AIDS.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
wish to dedicate my speech to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
I believe her to be a minister who has shown open-mindedness in
the past, and I believe she has an understanding of a number of
things.
I would like to ask her, through you, Madam Speaker, to give a
warm hand to our colleague, the hon. member for
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, who has done an excellent job for the
official opposition in connection with Bill C-43.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I am asking the Minister of Canadian Heritage
to join in our enthusiasm and feign applause at least for Mayor
L'Allier. I believe she needs encouragement to do so.
We feel obliged to explain to everyone listening why we, as a
responsible opposition, I would even venture to say one of the
best oppositions ever in the House of Commons, are opposed to—
Hon. Sheila Copps: Let's not get carried away here. We were in
opposition too.
Mr. Réal Ménard: —this bill, which creates the Canada customs and
revenue agency.
Hon. members should take just a second to imagine what it will
mean if we pass this bill—and I cannot imagine in my wildest
dreams that the hon. member for Hamilton East would stand up and
vote in favour of such a bill. If we pass this bill it will mean
that we have no belief in ministerial accountability and no
belief in the quality of the Public Service of Canada.
If such a bill is passed, in one fell swoop, without any
warning, and in a cavalier, peremptory and grotesque manner, 20%
of the Public Service of Canada is eliminated.
I wish to tell all ministers present, and I wish to tell the
somewhat left-leaning wing of the Liberal Party personified in
the heritage minister, that if they want to show interest in the
public service, they ought to call for anti-scab legislation with
all their might. If the Liberals want to do something about the
public service, what needs to be done is not getting rid of
people but addressing the real problems.
If the government wants to legislate labour relations, why does
the Minister of Canadian Heritage not rise and congratulate the
Bloc Quebecois, which since the early 1990s, when it appeared in
the House, when she was on this side and was the Rat Pack
incarnate in her vehemence, why does she not rise and
congratulate the Bloc for having introduced antiscab legislation
very early on? Is this not democratic? Is that not honourable?
Is this not an issue the government should raise?
There is a whole lot of legislation we would support as the
opposition, but do not ask me or the members of the Bloc to
support this centralizing, anti-union, anti-province pile of
papers.
I have a challenge to put to our ministers present. I would
like the Minister of Canadian Heritage to stop writing and
listen. Perhaps she could tell us if there is one province
supporting her bill.
1640
I challenge her to rise. We all know her sweet voice that is
sometimes cruelly silenced in Oral Question Period. Could she
tell us as Minister of Canadian Heritage and to the best of her
knowledge—I know she is not responsible for this and has her
arms full at the moment—but could she tell us if she can
whether one province, her province of Ontario for example,
supports this bill? Does her friend Mike Harris support a bill
like this?
Hon. Sheila Copps: He is certainly no friend of mine.
Mr. Réal Ménard: We know full well that there is no support for
this bill, which is obviously an unreasonable measure. This is a
bill that you should forthwith ask all your pages to collect,
Madam Speaker, so that we never hear about it again. That is the
best thing that could happen to it. Do not think for a minute
that we will let it go through without putting up a fight.
We are all here today to let our listeners know that, if passed,
this bill will result in the establishment of a government
agency that is not accountable to this Parliament.
Why is the Minister of Revenue—who was so voluble when it came
to promoting Vancouver's bid for the Olympic Games—unable to
explain by virtue of what principle it is consistent with
ministerial responsibility to surrender our powers and offload
onto non-elected representatives the responsibility of destroying
20% of the public service? This is not serious. I think this
bill should be immediately withdrawn.
There is at least ten good reasons justifying the Bloc
Quebecois' opposition. First, as I said, there is no support for
such a bill. There is an old principle in the British
parliamentary system, which the heritage minister must know and
which states that lawmakers must not legislate for no good
reason.
How is it that a bill like this does not address the real
problems? If the government wants to talk about taxation, it
should get cracking and introduce a bill on Canadian transfer
payments that would return to the provinces the money taken away
from them.
Between 1993, when the Prime Minister closed the red book, and
now, the provinces have been done out of $42 billion. Quebec
alone lost $7 billion. Is this the kind of federalism the
Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to see? Once again I ask
the Minister of Canadian Heritage to listen to what I am saying
and to tell me whether this is the kind of federalism government
members favour, that is to say a system that allows the central
government to literally destabilize the public finances of the
provinces.
When I was a hot-headed and dashing young university student
thirsting for knowledge, I was taught that federalism had three
characteristics. I was told it was a political system with two
levels of government: a central government and provincial
governments. In their respective areas of jurisdiction, each
level of government was supposed to be sovereign. That was the
first characteristic.
The second characteristic, they said, was that, under
constitutional law, a higher level of government was not
supposed to interfere in the affairs of so-called lower levels of
government. Well, what about bill like this, which goes right
to the heart of taxation in Quebec? I know that you will hardly
believe it, Madam Speaker, but if this bill is passed,
municipalities might even be asked to help with tax collection.
Is there anything more closely related to provincial governments
than municipalities? Why would the federal government need to
interfere in an area such as this one?
The problem is that there is nobody in cabinet to defend
Quebec's interests. Nobody in this government speaks for Quebec.
They have no backbone when it comes to defending Quebec's
interests. I am convinced we could not name a single minister
who did so. Certainly not the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges. He
does not talk much. He is not one to raise his voice.
1645
As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, if I asked you, would you be
able to name one minister who defended Quebec's interests when
it came to putting an end to such interference by the federal
government? No.
That is the sad part about it. If not for the members of the
Bloc Quebecois who are totally dedicated to defending Quebec's
interests, which is why we are respected and have the support of
the people, this bill would have passed without a hitch.
No, we will not let it happen because we have too much respect
for the Government of Quebec.
We fought hard to have our own tax system in Quebec. We just
have to think of Maurice Duplessis, of the Union nationale, who
asked Ottawa to give him back his loot. He was the first to
create a direct taxation system in 1948.
So we will not let it happen. The day is not over yet, and we
still hope this bill is withdrawn.
Madam Speaker, would it be possible to have the unanimous
consent of the House—which, I think, will be granted—to
continue my speech for another ten minutes? I am not finished
yet.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the member have the
unanimous consent of the House to continue his speech?
An hon. member: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Sheila Copps: Madam Speaker, I know the member does not
want to mislead the House. He mentioned a $7 billion cut in
transfer payments, when he knows this is totally untrue. I want
to give him the opportunity to correct this—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I am sorry,
but the debate must resume.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Madam Speaker, in
February 1996, in a rather trivial throne speech, the federal
government announced the establishment of a national revenue
collection agency. We believed this plan had been dropped, when
just before the House adjourned last spring the revenue minister
introduced Bill C-43 establishing the Canada customs and revenue
agency.
I want to say I support every amendment aimed at reducing the
scope of Bill C-43 because the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the
creation of the Canada customs and revenue agency.
What the minister pulled out of his hat like a rabbit, is not an
innocuous collection agency, but an evil creature, a
bureaucratic monster that threatens privacy, the rights of
Revenue Canada workers as well as provincial jurisdiction over
tax collection. Even the business community is against the
creation of the agency.
The minister said he wanted the House to pass Bill C-43 before
the holiday season. Why the rush? One wonders why he is going
ahead when nobody wants this customs and revenue agency.
The minister is proposing to alter the current structure of
Revenue Canada by turning it into a quasi-independent agency.
Therein lies the danger.
This agency would be responsible for collecting taxes on behalf
of the federal government, but also all manner of other taxes
including sales and property taxes, if collection agreements are
signed with provinces and municipalities.
I will set out the arguments against this bill.
1650
First, the customs and revenue agency is a threat to the privacy
of Quebeckers and Canadians. In this era of electronic
communications, the risk of trafficking in personal information
increases proportionally with the concentration of information
within private organizations. If it sees the light of day, this
agency will have access to an incredible quantity of personal
and financial information.
What is more, this agency would be less subject than Revenue
Canada to ministerial responsibility and parliamentary control.
Consequently, the dissemination of this personal information on
taxpayers would not be under public surveillance.
Second, the CCRA could prejudice the working conditions of
Revenue Canada employees, and even threaten their jobs. In
fact, 40,000 Revenue Canada employees would be removed from the
Public Service Employment Act. In two years, therefore, it
could cut salaries, dismiss people, or decide on their working
conditions, without their having a word to say in the matter.
By adopting this bill, the government is using a heavy hand to
modernize the public service, instead of seeking to reach an
agreement with the unions.
Third, the CCRA does not greatly impress small business owners.
Business was meant to be the primary beneficiary, yet
announcement of its creation met with an ambivalent reaction, to
say the least.
Organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business expressed their distrust of the concentration of powers
in the agency.
According to a public policy forum study commissioned by Revenue
Canada, fewer than 40% of businesses had any interest in the
agency. More than two thirds felt that it would cost as much if
not more than the existing structure.
Finally, and this is vital, the Canada customs and revenue
agency contravenes the federal principle that the provinces are
sovereign in their areas of jurisdiction. This is not the first
time that the Liberal government has come crashing into
provincial jurisdictions. This agency will violate the division
of powers between the federal government and the provinces.
If the provinces have separate revenues, they should collect
them themselves.
Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who we cannot call overly
sovereignist, rose some 30 years ago in opposition to the
practice of having the federal government collect more tax than
it needed to implement policies that were not within its
jurisdiction. He even thought at the time that such action was
illegal. In 1957, he wrote that “the federal government cannot
legally have money in its coffers it claims after the fact to be
for provincial use”.
What will happen if the federal government gives a central,
Canada-wide tax collection agency the power to collect taxes in
the place of the provinces and the municipalities? In our
opinion, it would be impossible to stop the centralization of
the Canadian federation once the federal agency is given the
power to collect taxes belonging to the provinces and
municipalities.
It is reasonable to assume that the federal government collects
its own taxes so it can carry out its responsibilities under
section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. However, its plan to
entrust appointed officials who are not directly accountable for
their actions with collecting provincial and municipal taxes is
unacceptable.
1655
In conclusion, at a time when the federal Minister of Finance is
announcing that he has billions of dollars in surpluses, he
should comply with the consensus reached by the provinces and
give back the revenues he slashed in recent years, to allow them
to look after health, education and social services, for which
they are responsible under the Constitution Act, 1867.
Unfortunately, we should not count too much on the members
opposite in that regard. Indeed, the Liberal members' mandate is
to defend the federal government, not the interests of
Quebeckers.
The example of the customs and revenue agency should convince
those who have not yet realized it that, for the past 50 years,
Canada has been headed inexorably toward centralization. The
federal government, and particularly this Liberal government,
has always tried to annihilate any desire for autonomy, whether
at the Quebec, provincial or regional level.
The proposed customs and revenue agency will concentrate in the
hands of a few superbureaucrats the power to dig into the
pockets of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, at the expense of
Revenue Canada employees, small businesses and provincial and
municipal governments.
The federal government already collects too large a share of tax
revenues and it uses its spending power in an inconsiderate
manner.
We will not, on top of that, give it carte blanche to collect
all taxes across Canada.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-43, which
proposes the establishment of such an agency, and this is why we
support all the amendments that seek to reduce the scope of the
bill.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to address this House on Bill C-43,
establishing the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. This bill
stems from the Speech from the Throne delivered in February
1996, when the government announced its intention to set up a
national revenue collection agency.
The CCRA for short will be spawned by the conversion of the
existing Department of Revenue into an agency operating almost
at arm's length from the government, whose mandate will be to
negotiate with the interested provinces and municipalities an
arrangement for the collection of all taxes in Canada. This is
what this agency is all about.
But where did the idea to establish this agency come from?
Obviously, this has to do with the centralizing vision of this
Liberal government, which keeps trying to strip the provinces of
their powers in the pursuit of a single vision dictated directly
from Ottawa.
The consultations carried out across Canada show that this
centralizing vision does not appeal to any of the provinces.
None of them readily supports this bill. I do not understand why
we are still debating it, when those concerned have not shown
any interest in it, quite the contrary.
We support the principle of single window tax collection,
whether the taxes are provincial or municipal, but in Quebec,
the provincial department of revenue should continue to collect
taxes as it has done quite competently for many years. We are
able, within the present structure, to collect all taxes, even
federal taxes and the GST, until we no longer have to.
Unlike the proposed federal agency, Revenue Quebec is fully
accountable, as is Revenue Canada, at least until the federal
government turns this department into a bureaucratic monster.
1700
I like to talk about accountability, because some words have
apparently dropped from favour. “Responsibility” is one such
word. But “accountability” has sunk even further in the
popularity polls. Whenever a minister is responsible,
accountable, we at least have someone we can address, blame,
make demands of.
We are living at a time when the responsibility of people and
the accountability of those to whom they report is not valued.
In a society such as ours, a modern society where youth are
watching what their elders do, and I am one of those elders, I
think it is too bad that we eliminate this very important aspect
of the role of those in charge of large organizations.
There is a major political abdication here. An independent
agency would mean that the Minister of Revenue could evade his
responsibility to protect taxpayers against abuses of power.
When we are talking about the Canada customs and revenue agency
created by this bill, this is serious. This government is
forever taking cover behind independent agencies and shifting
the blame.
In the case of scrapie, to which we devoted much time and
emotion, we never managed to find out who was responsible.
We were told it was the agency, it was someone in the agency, or
it was an agency regulation. There was so little accountability
that I would estimate they succeeded in destroying 10% of
Quebec's livestock before the Bloc Quebecois woke people up
demanding that they do something, and stop destroying flocks,
because something was wrong and they had not looked into the
matter. But it was not serious, no one was accountable, it was
the agency's fault.
This situation went on for months. We raised the issue in the
House several times. So if they have to keep increasing the
number of agencies, it puts a society like ours at a very great
risk.
Why create an agency? The bill does contain some very
important provisions, such as clauses 30 and 50, to do with the
agency's authority.
The agency has authority over “personnel management, including
the determination of the terms and conditions of employment of
persons employed by the agency”. Clause 50 deals with public
service staff relations. The agency would have control over
classification, training, development, terms and conditions of
employment, hours of work, awards, merit recognition, and so on.
As a result of the authority granted to the agency, we will have
two classes of employees, those employed by the government, and
those employed by an agency partly accountable to the
government.
I was a public servant once, luckily only for a short time,
thank God. I always wondered when I was in the public service
why things that were simple were made so complicated.
If the area of taxation and revenue has a culture, as a
government organization, which is such that the strict and
austere rules of the public service as a whole do not apply, I
believe there are all kind of ways to improve efficiency while
keeping the same rules with some exceptions—this is what we look
for within an accountability framework.
I want to talk some more about accountability because I believe
it is a major issue. Why chose a complicated roundabout way,
create different structures from those already in place and
working fairly well—even though there is always room for
improvement— to end up with two classes of employees, public
servants and quasi-public servants who will be better taken care
of because the agency will be able to do so? I object to that
completely.
1705
There are also very interesting things to be said about this
bill. I am thinking, for example, of the accountability to the
public and to Parliament. It always boils down to
accountability.
In its present structure, Revenue Canada is accountable to
Parliament and to taxpayers through the Department of National
Revenue. The government cannot avoid difficult questions even
though he would like to sometimes. When we discussed the family
trust scandal, we could talk to someone, ask questions and get
answers. If everything is diluted in an agency, things will
happen and sometimes we will not even be aware of what is going
on.
The agency will be subject to a less stringent parliamentary
scrutiny than the one currently imposed on the revenue
department. An agency would be less inclined to answer questions
that members would ask on behalf of the public, compared to a
department that has to be accountable. We know how the
government is behaving these days, constantly hiding behind
inquiries and independent agencies to avoid answering questions
regarding air safety, food inspection, abuse of power by the
RCMP and all kinds of things.
In this context, it is very difficult to see what we would get
out of it. However the worst part of it, apart from the lack of
accountability and responsibility, is the possible threat to our
privacy. It is a major concern. Tests conducted with our social
insurance number have shown how many firms, agencies and people
have access to our personal information through a computer.
It is a bit overwhelming when you go to a bank and ask to see
the information they have on you. Three quarters of that
information was not provided by you, but obtained through your
SIN.
In a world where computers are everywhere and employees are
supposed to be bound by professional secrecy—but we know how
things are these days—and no one is accountable at the top, we
have good reasons to ask ourselves serious questions. What kind
of information do they have on us? Who are they allowed to sell
it to? We know it has been done before. What will happen of all
that?
The new agency would be less accountable than Revenue Canada,
which is itself subject to leaks.
I do not know if people remember the old TV series on the future
called Future Shock. It tried to define how to protect people's
interests and it came to the conclusion that even our brain can
be protected.
I would not like to end up in such a situation. For all those
reasons, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the bill and will
oppose it at all stages. The easiest way to put an end to our
debate would be to simply withdraw it.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen.
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 1
stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to
Motions Nos. 4, 5, 12 to 24, 27, 30, 31, 34 to 36, 39 to 54, 57
to 63, 66 to 70, 73 to 99, 104, 105 and 108 to 204.
1710
For Group No. 2, pursuant to order made earlier this day,
Motions Nos. 3, 7, 8, 10 and 11 in the name of the member for
Calgary Southeast are deemed to have been moved and seconded.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 22
and 23 on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 5, be
amended by replacing line 18 on page 2 with the following:
That Bill C-43 be amended by adding after line 36 on page 2 the
following new clause:
“5.1 (1) In carrying out its responsibilities under section 5
with respect to the administration and enforcement of program
legislation, the Agency shall, in its dealings with taxpayers,
promote, respect and protect the following rights of a taxpayer:
(a) to be provided with a plain English or French version of any
provision of the Income Tax Act on request to the Agency;
(b) to be given the opportunity to provide a general explanation
of a question regarding tax liability before being subjected to
an audit or a requirement to produce receipts and other records
to document the matter;
(c) to have assessments, appeals and other procedures related to
tax liability dealt with expeditiously;
(d) to receive any information in the possession of the Agency
that shows or tends to show that the taxpayer may be entitled to
a refund of tax paid or a reduced assessment of tax owing;
(e) to confidentiality of all information provided by or
respecting the taxpayer to the Agency, except as may be necessary
for the administration of the Income Tax Act, and authorized by
law;
(f) to complain to a designated officer of the Agency of the
conduct of or a communication from any employee of the Agency and
to receive an explanation of it from the officer, and if
necessary, to complain further to the Commissioner;
(g) to refuse to provide information that is not required for
the administration of program legislation;
(h) to appoint counsel or an agent to represent the taxpayer at
any meeting that deals with liability to pay tax under the Income
Tax Act and to record, without being required to give notice, the
proceedings of any such meeting;
(i) not to be assessed interest or a penalty on tax found to be
owing unless the taxpayer has deliberately evaded the payment of
the tax or duty;
(j) in cases where the taxpayer has acted in good faith, to
reasonable, negotiated terms of payment of taxes owing so as to
avoid undue hardship to the taxpayer and the taxpayer's
dependants and employees;
(k) to be subjected to steps to recover tax owing, including the
seizure of property or freezing of assets, only if such steps are
necessary to ensure payment of taxes owing, and to have the steps
taken in a manner that protects, if possible, the interests of
the taxpayer's dependants and employees.
(2) The Agency shall include in every annual report made
pursuant to section 88, a review of the steps that have been
taken by the Agency during the year to fulfil its
responsibilities under subsection (1).”
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 17
and 18 on page 3 with the following:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 19 on
page 3 with the following:
“(2) The Minister is responsible for all aspects of the”
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
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.”
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to the motions in Group No. 2 before
us, which we consider to be nonsense.
First, I would like to express my objection and frustration
because by its arrogance, the government has gagged us on this
bill. Our time is very limited and we cannot discuss the bill in
length.
I would like to know to what extent provinces are favorable to
the bill.
New Brunswick is the only province suggesting that the bill is
worth examining, that it could perhaps create economies of
scale. However, before supporting the bill it wants to know what
is in it.
We ask ourselves the following question. In order for this bill
to be workable, would it be necessary to harmonize all federal
tax legislation throughout Canada? If this is the case, what
would be the cost? Members will recall that harmonizing the
Maritime provincial sales taxes with the federal tax cost $3
billion.
The majority of people who came as witnesses before the finance
standing committee were opposed to the bill. Public service
union members were opposed to it. And more than 60% of small
businesses are against it. Everyone is against it. Yet, with his
arrogance, the revenue minister still wants to impose this bill
on Quebec and the rest of Canada, when we know full well it is
not workable.
There is one another question the revenue minister has not
answered and I hope a government member will be able to answer
us. How much did the bill's formulating cost us, you, me and the
other taxpayers?
As the minister likes to say, “we have created a new vehicle',.
This new vehicle is not a Formula 1 race car. This new vehicle
will not work.
1715
The revenue department set up 12 committees made up of lots of
mandarins who worked on this for months, years even. How much
did it cost us taxpayers, just to come up with this utterly
useless bill?
There is something else I am wondering about in this bill. It is
the position of the commissioner who will head the proposed
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. This person will be appointed
by the governor in council. There is a big chance he or she will
be a friend of the governing party, someone who has rendered
valuables services to the party opposite. He or she will hold
office for a term of five years.
How much will the commissioner be paid? What will the annual
salary be? Is it possible this person will go to his bosses, the
ministers opposite and tell them: “I have as many employees
under me and I manage the same amount of money as the president
of the Royal Bank, so I should get the same salary he is
getting”. That is another absurdity.
The agency will simply be an added layer of bureaucracy. We are
the first to admit that the revenue department may not be always
up to par, so why add another layer of bureaucracy that will not
solve any of the problems we now have with the department, like
the auditor general told us this week. We simply do not
understand.
The only purpose this agency can serve is to take the 40,000
public servants targeted here and tell them: “We do not need you
any more”. The government is simply taking an axe to the Public
Service Act under the jurisdiction of the President of the
Treasury Board. They are looking for a way to say—and it will
never happen—that they have cut expenses. It is not true. By
creating this new agency, they are only shuffling the money
around. There will be fewer employees, but the agency's staff
will be better paid. We are getting four quarters for a dollar,
as they say.
That is why I am so vigorously opposed to this agency. We simply
do not understand why it is being established. What is its
purpose? Why does the government want to create this agency?
They already created agencies like Nav Canada, ADM, the food
inspection agency and the brand new Canadian wheat agency and,
to date, none of these agencies are working.
So why set up another one?
We are strongly against the creation of this agency, because we
care about the well-being of all Canadians and most particularly
about the well-being of Quebeckers. I urge all of the provinces
to stand up and clearly tell the government: “This is not what
we want. As provincial governments, we want to be able to
collect taxes and hand Ottawa its share”.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois and I are strongly opposed to
this bill.
1720
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad we
finally got to Group No. 2. I also regret that we have time
allocation on this so that we cannot express our genuine concerns
about these things.
While we have been sitting here I wrote my newspaper column. One
of the things I put in my column is that there are two ways of
getting legislation through the House. One is to engage in a
fair and an even handed debate, negotiation, give and take, and
to come up with a set of rules that is good for people.
I hope that when Canadians trust us to form the government I
will not have changed my mind on this. I believe it is a
legitimate role for the government to listen to what members in
opposition are saying. I noticed one of the members over there
gave a hearty laugh. I guess he is eagerly looking forward to
being on this side of the House again.
When that happens I think it will be important for us, when we
are on the government side, to recognize that everything may not
be perfect every time. If I have any role to play in it, I will
listen very carefully to what the Liberals on this side of the
House have to say on our legislation. I hope we will have the
humility to receive fairly legislation the Liberals bring to our
attention that they feel is not as good as it could be.
I have not spoken on this group at all and so I would like to
address myself primarily to the motions put forward by the Reform
Party, although the others also have merit. I am not going to
spend as much time on those.
I am going on the assumption that this independent agency will
happen. We have seen this over and over. The government will
arrange for this vote to pass. This government has already, with
its majority, voted for closure. I think this is the tenth time
in the last few months.
I will not mention names since I am not allowed and I will not
mention ridings since I do not want to embarrass anyone here, but
some in the Liberal Party when they were in opposition raised a
hue and cry when time allocation was used by the Conservatives of
the day. The Liberals said this is wrong, it is a defeat of
democracy. The Liberals had all sorts of bad things to say about
the use of closure. Now they are on the other side and on
command they vote in favour of it.
I suppose I am setting myself up for another quotation maybe
four or five years down the road, whenever the next election is,
when we form the government.
I think it is important to listen to these debates and to when
an amendment is put forward to improve it. That is what I am
trying to do now. I know members will not have been given the
freedom by their party to vote in favour of these very reasonable
and rational taxpayer protecting amendments.
I wonder if we would find among them some statesmen, if we would
find among them some politicians who will rise up and represent
the people who sent them here, the electors, and they will vote
in favour of those people instead of simply following the party
line. The purpose of my speech is to persuade Liberal members to
do that and to give them solid reasons for so doing.
One of the problems with this agency is the question of
accountability. Right now we have some degree of prime
ministerial accountability. We have some ministerial
accountability. Last night on TV I saw a clip of the Prime
Minister when he was leader of opposition. He wagged his finger
and said “when we form government you can count on it that
ministers will accept responsibility”.
We have seen a number of instances in the last little more than
five years where that has really not quite been the case. Of
course, the Prime Minister continues to say they have no
scandals, because what he does is pinch his eyes shut and pretend
they are not there and then he can proclaim that there were no
scandals. There have been a couple. The Prime Minister said he
believes in ministerial responsibility.
1725
What I want to do right now is simply challenge the Liberal
members when the vote is held on these amendments to vote in
favour of Motion No. 3. Motion No. 3 increases the
responsibility and the accountability of this new agency to
parliament instead of making it into a faceless irresponsible
bureaucracy whose function is to separate the taxpayers from
their money and which will not have political of any other kind
of accountability to parliament.
We insist that should be done. We want to ensure that the
employees, the directors and the commissioner of the new agency
are held accountable not to the minister in the backrooms but to
parliament directly. I do not think anyone on the Liberal side,
if they were on this side and the Reformers were speaking on the
other side, would be against this motion. They would vote in
favour of it.
Let us not allow walking across two sword lengths of aisle
change important principles we believe in. I would simply urge
them to do the right thing for taxpayers. I suppose basically
everyone n the country is affected by this legislation. That is
another reason why it is so odious for the government to have
invoked closure on this.
It is absolutely necessary that the government so arrange its
affairs that people believe in our government and believe in our
tax system. Our tax system is predicated on voluntary
compliance. If that is missing, the system falls apart.
We have seen it in the last number of years where with the very
undemocratic imposition of the GST many people have gone into the
underground economy. They do not agree with it. They said it
was not done correctly. They did not have representatives
representing them in parliament.
If we just jam this legislation through, two days of debate and
it is finished. It is a fait accompli. It is mandatory for us.
We have no option but to make sure people support this
legislation.
We should take the full length of debate on it so that we as
members of parliament can hear what our constituents are saying
and we can respond to them and make sure the taxation system is
fair, which I believe most people believe in. I have yet to hear
anyone in my riding say to me they do not want to pay any taxes
at all. But I have heard many times that they want fair taxation
and a fair taxation system.
If we vote in favour of Motion No. 3, put forward by my Reform
colleague, it would help to provide accountability of this new
agency to parliament. It would help people to have faith in and
to really have a good feeling about paying their taxes, something
they have never had before in their lives. I am sure the
Liberals would want the taxpayers to feel good when they send
their money to Ottawa.
1730
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in response to hon. members who are asking for the deletion of a
number of clauses in Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada
customs and revenue agency, I will explain why such an agency is
needed. The most important reason is the demand of Canadians for
streamlined and more responsive tax, customs and trade
administration services.
The agency is designed to improve services to Canadians, to
businesses, and to provinces and territories. This will be
accomplished in a number of ways. One way is expanding and
improving the co-ordination and administration of federal and
provincial revenue programs.
This will result in a number of benefits: a reduction of overlap
and duplication among levels of government, a potential for
significant reductions in costs to governments, a potential for
significant reductions in costs to taxpayers in complying with
tax laws, one level of tax collector that will create major
advantages for businesses, and an improvement in the competitive
position of Canadian businesses.
Another benefit of the legislation is that it will improve the
management of the agency. The board of management will help to
bring a client oriented focus to agency activities. The board
will also help to bring a strategic perspective to management by
using some private sector techniques to ensure efficient and
effective management. The agency will be able to tailor its
programs for administrative activities to meet its own needs. As
a result of this improved efficiency, the agency will be able to
reinvest productivity gains in programs for Canadians.
This improved management will also mean significant improvements
for employees. Employee representatives will be able to bargain
directly with the employer. This will result in more responsive
and simplified staffing and classification systems. In addition,
a new approach of recourse will focus on alternative dispute
resolution mechanisms such as fact finding and mediation. This
will also incorporate access to independent third party review.
Design teams comprised of employees, managers and unions have
been involved in designing the new human resource regime for the
new agency. The agency model proposed in the Canada customs and
revenue agency is unique since it combines the strengths of both
the public and private sectors while remaining fully accountable
to parliament and the Canadian public.
In developing the Canada customs and revenue agency the
department has been sensitive to the concern of the concentration
of too much power in one place. Tax, customs and trade
administration affect the lives and livelihoods of most
Canadians. They want to be sure they are dealt with fairly and
that their rights are protected.
In the design of the new agency the essential checks and
balances that govern the activities and ensure the accountability
of Revenue Canada have been maintained. For example, the
enforcement powers of the new agency will be the same as those
currently provided to Revenue Canada through legislation like the
Income Tax Act or the Customs Act.
If there is a problem or a complaint, the minister will still be
fully accountable to parliament and the public for the
administration and enforcement of specific legislation. The
minister will have the authority, as is currently the case, to
answer questions in the House and to ensure the agency is acting
properly in its dealings with the Canadian public. The existing
provisions for accountability are being enhanced by the addition
of three new accountability mechanisms.
The confidentiality of a taxpayer's personal information will be
protected under the agency just as it is currently with Revenue
Canada. The authorities governing confidentiality are clearly
set out in the legislation and they will not be changed by the
bill.
Bill C-43 will permit the agency to offer new and better
services to the provinces and territories. For example, at the
present time Revenue Canada can only collect provincial taxes
that are harmonized with federal taxes. The new agency would be
able to collect non-harmonized taxes, expanding the potential for
single window tax collection with considerable savings for
businesses and individual Canadians.
1735
Greater co-ordination among the federal, provincial and
territorial governments will simplify tax administration for
Canadians and reduce costly overlap and duplication between
governments. Increased operational flexibility in the management
of internal resources is a major change that will allow the new
agency to adopt a more client oriented approach.
The new legislation will allow the proposed agency to customize
its own resources and administrative functions to meet the needs
of Canadians as well as those of its employees. All of this
means better service.
Doing something better is not an expansion of power but an
extension of service, service to individual Canadians, service to
businesses, and services to provinces and territories. Better
service means savings in time and money, savings in compliance
costs for businesses and savings in administration costs for
government.
The intention of Bill C-43 is not to create an agency with
unlimited powers but rather to establish a framework with all the
checks and balances for a more efficient agency. The bill is
important and beneficial, beneficial for the government,
beneficial for business, and beneficial for individual Canadians.
This is what is expected of good government.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): 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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.39 p.m.,
pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1740
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed to
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 6 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 9 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 205. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 205 stands deferred.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I just want to float
something here. We have some 200-plus motions to do this way.
There have been no discussions, but I wonder whether hon. members
in order to expedite the matter would consider giving unanimous
consent to deem all motions moved, seconded, recorded divisions
requested and deferred.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
seeking unanimous consent to expedite the process. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 28 on
page 6 with the following:
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 29, be amended
“(2) A summary of expenses paid to the Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner under this section shall be disclosed to any person
on request, and shall be published annually in the Public
Accounts of Canada.”
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 8 on
page 14 with the following:
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 60, be amended
(a) by deleting lines 11 to 13 on page 19.
(b) by replacing line 14 on page 19 with the following:
“(b) payments received under contracts en-”
(c) by replacing line 16 on page 19 with the following:
“(c) refunds of expenditures made in the”
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 22, be amended
“(2) Before the Governor in Council's appointment of any person
as the Chair of the Board becomes effective, that person must
appear before an appropriate committee of Parliament.”
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 25, be amended
“(2) Before the Governor in Council's appointment of any person
as the Commissioner becomes effective, that person must appear
before an appropriate committee of Parliament.”
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 54, be amended
“54. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the Agency must develop a
program”
“(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.”
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 91, be amended by replacing line 9 on
page 27 with the following:
“7.2.2 of the Directive, except that a reference therein to two
years is deemed to be a reference to five years; and”
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 88, be amended by replacing line 34 on
page 25 with the following:
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) moved:
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-43, in Clause 89, be amended by replacing line 3 on
page 26 with the following:
“89. (1) Three years after the coming into”
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded
divisions on Motions Nos. 25, 37, 55 and 71 in Group No. 3;
Motions Nos. 28 and 32 in Group No. 4; Motions Nos. 64 and 106 in
Group No. 5; and Motions Nos. 100 and 102 in Group No. 6 stand
deferred.
Pursuant to order made Wednesday, December 2, the recorded
divisions on the motions stand further deferred until Monday,
December 7, at five p.m.
* * *
1745
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have the honour
to inform the House that a message has been received from the
Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain
bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
It being 5.50 p.m.
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on the today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1750
[Translation]
SALARIES FOR STAY AT HOME MOTHERS AND FATHERS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at
home to care for their children.
He said: Madam Speaker, I have tabled this motion many times
already.
In 1970, the royal commission on the status of women said that
women who stay at home provide as much goods and services as
women who have paid employment. And if they had paid employment,
we could help our children and get some regions of Quebec and
Canada out of poverty. We could review our approach and develop
legislation that is most of all fair for all families, that
gives back parents their primary responsibilities and allows
them to choose the method they prefer to raise their children.
Since the guaranteed annual income system is much superior, we
could provide an income supplement for all those who need it,
not only for low income workers. Our findings reinforce the idea
of implementing a guaranteed annual income to eliminate poverty.
As an example, I will read a letter from Julie Dupont, of the
Montreal area, dated September 10, 1998.
She says:
I am not in the habit of writing letters to newspapers to
complain or to make comments. I must say I do not have much time
for that—my husband and I have five children between 18 months
and nine years of age.
On July 20, the day of our wedding
anniversary, we received a nice gift from the federal
government: a reduction in our child benefits. The notice was
related to the new Canadian child tax benefit.
Some gift! While
our 1997 income was $11,530 less than our 1996 income, we were
told that our tax benefits would drop by $82 a month.
She is not the only one in this situation. In my riding, there
is a couple, Germain and Clémence Côté, whose child tax benefit
was reduced by $280 a month, and, furthermore, they are not even
entitled to a GST refund.
I will get back to Mrs. Dupont, whose tax benefit was reduced.
Here is another quote from her letter:
For a family of seven, I do not think one could say that we have
a very high income.
Because I could not believe it, I reread the whole notice and
the pamphlet that was sent with it. It says that this new
benefit “... includes the basic benefit plus a new supplement.
This supplement is the Canadian government's contribution to the
national child benefit program”. It also says that the program's
goals are “to reduce child poverty and to help the parents of
low-income families to return to the work force”. I might also
add that it discourages middle income parents who work to stay
in the work force.
Of course, we chose to have many children. And we live
adequately on one salary. We live adequately because we are very
frugal and because we have different strategies to save money
and to get the basics in life without becoming the victims of
the consumer driven society. We have simple needs and our life
is focused on the lives of our children, to our great pleasure.
However, raising five children with an income like this means
there must be limitations, sacrifices even. We are not asking
for charity, but it would seem normal to me to receive a little
support from society. After all, our five children will be
taxpayers one day. Very few families want to have more than one
or two children. We are constantly told how much courage and
patience we have and so on. Of course, we have more courage,
patience and energy than we need. The only thing that is lacking
is the federal government's recognition of our valuable
contribution to society, as parents of five future taxpayers.
This letter is asking for a salary for the parent staying at
home to raise the children, whether it is the mother or the
father. It could be a contribution or a supplement.
Right now, a committee of Liberals wants to pay stay-at home
parents a supplement to foster the children's development. There
must be something fairer for parents who stay home to take care
of their school age children. We are not telling working women
to go back home and cook. This is not the point.
1755
This is strictly about families, mothers raising their children.
There are examples where families are losing money to federal
taxes because they choose to take care of their kids at home.
Here is a quote from a letter sent to me by the Centre de femmes
de La Sarre:
If there is adequate pay for adults having decided to work at
home, great, but every woman must have the choice between
working full-time or managing the family home—.
—We are pleased to see that you mention very clearly the large
part of the work accomplished by women, in many cases without
being paid—
—The perverse effect of poverty among women and children has an
impact on living conditions and education, but we should first
address the problem of poverty without creating more problems
concerning the isolation and excessive responsibility given to
women with regard to the education of children. Women are not
the cause of poverty, and they are not the solution to this
problem either. It is the social conditions that are the cause
of poverty. Consequently, the time has come to address the real
social causes in order to fight more efficiently against the
increasing problem that poverty is.
We believe that your concern
about the elimination of poverty among women and children is
very important and very relevant.
This letter comes from Lulu Hébert, president of the Centre des
femmes l'E.R.I.G.E.
She also writes:
We are expecting you, Mr. St-Julien, as our representative in the
House of Commons, to adjust what you say in the House. Trying to
take women and children out of poverty is in itself a good
thing. But we must at the same time let families decide to have
one of their members work in the home. This way, nothing would
stop you from paying a salary with marginal benefits to an adult
willing to work at home and that would give more opportunities
to women who wish to invest outside the home. As the Centre des
femmes, our objective is to improve women's living conditions,
including the fight against poverty. This is why we are pleased
to share our thoughts with you.
We are hoping for your co-operation in considering this vision
which supports greater equality between women and men.
The purpose of this motion is to bring the government to
legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at
home to care for their children. The hon. member who prepared a
document for the Liberal Party said “It is imperative,
financially and socially, that the state do something to help
children. Many studies underline this need and demonstrate
beyond any doubt that the quality of early childhood care has a
significant impact on the physical and mental health of children
and on their social integration”.
Several reports on this were carried in the media in my area and
in my riding.
With regard to taxation and tax rates, why are families, in my
region and elsewhere in Canada, penalized because of the number
of children they have? Here are some examples. Mr. Germain's
family loses $280 per month. Mrs. Côté is expecting her 10th
child, so the 12 of them will be living on a net salary of
$22,000 or $23,000. Why? We keep asking ourselves.
Such situations exist in my riding. A destitute child grows up
to be even poorer and does not function well socially.
I have reintroduced this motion in the House to hear what other
members of our great parliament have to say, and to debate about
legislating to grant a salary to mothers and fathers raising
children.
I am looking forward to hearing other members, and I will reply
later.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Pursuant to consultations with all House leaders, I
believe you will find that there is unanimous consent for the
Reform members to split their speaking time on this important
issue. I would ask therefore for unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan is asking for permission to split the 10
minutes into two five minute segments. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I will be splitting my time this evening with the hon.
member for Lethbridge.
1800
I rise today to speak to Motion No. M-486 and in so doing to pay
tribute to a group of people that go largely unnoticed in our
modern society. This group of people is largely made up of women
but there are some men also. This group is stay at home parents.
In today's society it is not easy to be a stay at home mom or
dad. Career paths are demanding. To step off of that path can
often mean various forms of reprisals or discrimination and
second class status from many different sources. Fortunately
many parents are willing and able to make this commitment to
their family. In so doing they raise their children in the
manner they think is best.
I would be remiss also if I did not recognize the extremely
heavy burden that single parent families carry today. Single
parent moms and dads do not have this same option and in no way
am I passing my judgment on them.
As we all know, today's society has picked up the pace of living
tremendously from days gone by. The cost of virtually everything
from groceries and clothing to transportation and other
essentials has risen faster than the incomes of most people. This
continues to cause further economic strife in many families
today. Overall tax relief is necessary for families now, not at
some distant time in the future.
One way that some of the economic stress can be relieved is to
address how the child care expense deduction is formulated. The
current system clearly differentiates between single and dual
income families. In addition, the expenses are only allowable if
they are receipted, therefore restricting eligibility to
institutional daycares.
Parents that choose to stay at home are not eligible for this
same tax credit. The discrepancy between single and dual income
families is apparent in how the child tax credit applies to them.
One example of this is that in dual income families the lower
earner must claim the child care expense deduction, thus ensuring
that the value of the deduction is minimized.
The member's proposal does nothing to address this disparity and
inequity that stay at home parents face under our current tax
laws. Specifically I refer to their inability to claim the child
care expense deduction. Rather than treat all parents equally,
this motion would divide people into a multitude of different
camps.
There are at least four alternative options that should be
looked at closely and used as a replacement for this motion.
These alternative options would better address the inequalities
that exist under the current child care expense deduction.
The first option would be to give further consideration for
income splitting. The second option would be to give stay at home
spouses access to independent RRSPs. While both of these concepts
have merit, a further examination is necessary to determine the
specific financial and operational considerations of them prior
to any implementation.
A third consideration is to make the spousal exemption equal to
the personal exemption. In order to provide equity, the spousal
deduction needs to be equal to the personal exemption of the
primary income earner. In light of a more demanding economy,
this levels the field for those parents who are able to and
choose to stay at home.
A fourth consideration would be to convert the child care
expense deduction into a refundable child tax credit for all
children. Currently this is only available to those parents
using commercial daycare.
At this time only 16% of families use commercial daycare.
Contrary to past doctrines, current psychological and
sociological research supports the concept that children become
better balanced and more productive citizens when in the care of
a family.
As a parent of eight and a foster parent for over 25 years to
over 140 children, I strongly believe in the role of the parent
and the family institution. However, I believe that Motion No.
M-486 does nothing to lessen these pressures, nor does it really
address the needs of today's families.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to speak to Motion No. M-486.
Family issues are very important to me as a husband, a father
and a grandfather and they are important to my constituents.
1805
I find it very encouraging that the quality of family life is
finally receiving attention by this House. For too many years
the family has been ignored in the mad rush to be politically
correct. It is time the inequalities faced by stay at home
parents by our current tax laws were being addressed. As I have
said before in the House, as the family goes, so goes society.
I acknowledge this motion may be a step in the right direction,
however I am concerned with this motion which I will read for the
benefit of those who may not have heard it:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at
home to care for their children.
I am concerned this motion does not fully address the unfairness
inherent in our tax code. The current Income Tax Act is
discriminatory, plain and simple. It discriminates against
loving parents who forgo the riches of a second income in order
to provide parental care for their children.
I will illustrate with the example of two families living side
by side. Family A has a single income of $60,000 and mom cares
for the children at home. Family B has a combined income of
$60,000 and daycare provides for the children. In spite of
living side by side, family A has an after tax income of $3,365
less than that of family B. Why is there a difference? Because
this government discriminates against families.
The Reform Party has a long history of representing the family.
We are committed to fair family taxation. We have consistently
called for revision of federal income tax regulations to end
discrimination against parents who provide child care at home. We
support equitable tax treatment for one income families with
dependent children. Family taxation should be simple, flexible
and efficient.
Reform would replace the child care expense deduction with a
fully refundable child care expense credit. This is a much
better method to address inequities in the tax structure. Paying
parents a small stipend to stay at home with their children only
encourages further government dependency in addition to creating
another layer of inefficient bureaucracy. A child care expense
credit would give parents the freedom to choose how to care for
their children.
We recognize the most important caregiver for a child is its
parent. Study after study show how important parental care is to
the long term emotional stability of children. It is no
coincidence that as we see the number of dual income families
rise, we see youth crime skyrocket. Strong families are the
foundation of our society and preventing crime starts with a
commitment by the government to support our families.
The Canadian public is squarely behind me and my party on this
issue. In a recent Southam News Compas poll, 82% stated that the
government should make changing tax laws to allow one parent to
stay home a priority. Eighty-one per cent of respondents
indicated they want the government to make families the
cornerstone of a wide range of policies. When working mothers
were asked if they would rather stay home with their children or
go to work, a majority said that they would rather stay home but
felt they could not afford it. Why? Because of the oppressive
taxes levied by this government.
There are elements in the Liberal caucus that do not agree with
what I have to say next. Seventy per cent of Canadians feel that
the needs of children receive too little attention in divorce
courts. Sixty-two per cent feel that the needs of fathers are
being ignored.
I have spoken with many fathers who have never seen their
children after they got divorced. There are groups in this
country supported by grants from this government that feel
divorced fathers should have input into raising their children. I
cannot imagine anything more heartbreaking than not being able to
raise your own children.
The Reform Party supports the right of fathers to play an equal
part in the upbringing of their children. There are members in
the Liberal caucus who also support these efforts and I wish them
all the best in their endeavours.
The people have spoken. Canadians want their government to ease
pressure on working parents and to focus more policy on helping
families. This government needs to realize the people of Canada
elected it and it is time for the government to sit up and
listen.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, because I
know his concerns, which motivated this motion, are genuine.
However, we think this is the wrong venue. The member for
Abitibi probably picked the wrong assembly, as the heritage
minister knows full well. Family matters should not be raised
in this House.
If he wants to help women who deliberately chose to stay home,
he should make representations to his own government.
1810
First of all, he could ask his government to reinstate transfer
payments. Should I remind the House—the heritage minister knows
this even if she chooses to evade the question—that the federal
government has cut $42 billion since 1993. Of course, it means
that the various provincial governments are less able to offer
services. The heritage minister knows it and I wish she would
make the necessary representations.
Second, he should know what the Government of Quebec did in its
field of jurisdiction.
Coming from Quebec the hon. member for Abitibi must know that,
since 1994, the Parti Quebecois government in the National
Assembly—where it was re-elected with flying colours—has put
considerable effort into implementing a family policy.
Let me give you a few examples: day care centres at $5 a day,
something very important; the policy allowing children to access
the education network with government assistance starting with
kindergarten. We have also reviewed the tax legislation as
regards income tax. Those are several initiatives that come
under provincial jurisdiction.
We could go even farther, if we were able to do so in the
National Assembly, with more financial resources. That is why it
is very important to understand that the best service we could
do, as federal parliamentarians, for provinces that want to put
in place a real family policy would be to restore as soon as
possible the funding that was unfairly cut.
If the hon. member for Abitibi, whose intentions I do not
question, really wants to help women who have decided to stay at
home, he must also ensure that his government is fairer to them.
How can he not be concerned by pay equity, for instance?
Everyone knows an appeal is now before the Federal Court.
If heard, this appeal could mean much less money for women than
anticipated because we continue to discriminate on the basis of
sex in the public service, and the government was unable to
remedy this situation.
It is very important that we be able to improve the employment
insurance system. Again, I know very well that the hon. member
is sensitive to these concerns but we cannot have this kind of
inconsistencies within the same party. The hon. member cannot
stand from his seat and ask the government to provide additional
money to give women a salary when the policies of his own party
have made them poorer.
How can the hon. member ignore the issues of employment
insurance and of access to maternity leave? Feminist voices
within the cabinet were sadly silent with one possible
exception.
The qualifying conditions for access to maternity leave have
been changed. It is now harder for someone receiving EI benefits
to qualify for maternity leave than it was when the Liberals
came to power in 1993.
Before, you needed 300 hours of work to qualify for unemployment
insurance, compared with 700 today. There is something missing
in the hon. member's arguments. He should review this motion to
make sure he addresses the real issues.
To conclude, I know that feminist and women's organizations in
general believe that saying “We will pay a salary to those women
who choose to stay home” would send an extremely negative
message.
I do not dare even imagine what it would be like to be deprived
of the presence of the Minister of Canadian Heritage if she had
opted to stay at home.
Hon. Sheila Copps: It is a free choice.
Mr. Réal Ménard: We are very much aware that she has made
another career choice. We are pleased to have her with us.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: We would miss her.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I think it would be very wrong to send the
message “If you are a woman who chooses to stay at home, you
will get a salary”. That is not what women are asking for.
That is not what the feminist organizations are asking for. And
I believe this must be taken into consideration.
1815
It is quite right to say that it is a matter of free choice. I
come from a family of five children. I have a twin brother, an
older brother, a sister and a younger brother. My mother
decided to stay at home. She gave her best for her family—and
you can judge the results by what you see before you—but it was a
free choice. I am profoundly convinced of that.
There is no question of not addressing the real problems. The
real problem is taxation. The real problem is transfer
payments.
The provinces are $42 billion short. The province of Quebec is
$7 billion short.
Family policy ought to be developed at the provincial level.
Why? Because of its connection with education and child care. In
this respect, I call on the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
You should have seen her in 1994. There was no holding her back
from brandishing her little red book. What did that book say?
That the government would create 150,000 new child care spaces.
There was something about a national child care network. The
Minister of Canadian Heritage has not forgotten that, has she?
What is happening? First, funds should have gone to the
provinces. Today, five years later, nothing has been done with
respect to child care. I have even been told that $650 million
earmarked by Treasury Board for this purpose had not been used
because the federal government said that the provinces did not
want this money.
That is not true. I am convinced that all provincial governments
want their own family policies. Had the government given them
this $650 million and let them manage their own family policies,
they could have used this money according to their own
priorities.
Let us be clear, family is an important component of society. It
does not always fit the traditional concept of family. We often
talk about blended families. Two individuals who choose to live
together and raise children form a family. There are all kinds
of families nowadays. The traditional, nuclear family is no
longer the norm.
The family in which I grew up was made up of two parents who
lived together all their lives, with my mother staying at home
while my father was the breadwinner, and five wonderful
children. This may no longer be the norm, but one must accept
such realities.
We would be sending an extremely negative, incomplete and
strategically wrong message, and I would like the hon. member
for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik to take that into consideration. I
do not think that the status of women council and feminist
organizations, which know about and have studied these issues,
want the support—
Hon. Sheila Copps: It is a free choice.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Is the Minister of Canadian Heritage referring
to Quebec City?
THE ROYAL ASSENT
1820
[English]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, The Honourable Deputy to the Governor General
desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the
chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the
Senate chamber.
1825
[Translation]
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have the honour to
inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate
chamber the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General was
pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the
following bills:
Bill C-29, an act to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to
amend other Acts as a consequence—Chapter 31.
Bill C-52, an act to implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban
Treaty—Chapter 32.
Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada
and the Republic of Croatia and a convention between Canada and
the Republic of Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and
the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on
income—Chapter 33.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
SALARIES FOR STAY AT HOME MOTHERS AND FATHERS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker,
before being interrupted by what half this House considers
totally sacred, I was saying I thought that the member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik had not addressed the real problem, and
I sincerely do not believe that women's organizations, women and
their representatives want us to pass a motion that,
essentially, would send the message that if women choose to
remain at home and are prevented from participating in the
labour market, they will be compensated for it.
I close by asking the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, whose
influence on this government we know, to ask his government to
use its surpluses to restore transfer payments to the provinces
for social programs so that the Government of Quebec, the only
one permitted to develop a family policy, may do so.
I close by thanking the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, who
made us aware of this issue, but we in the Bloc Quebecois will
not be able to support his motion.
1830
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, I wish to inform
you that I rise on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for
Shefford. She is currently attending an international conference
on an issue that comes under her responsibility in the
Progressive Conservative caucus.
I am pleased to take part in the debate on Motion M-486, which
provides that the government should legislate to grant a salary
to mothers and fathers who stay at home to care for their
children.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik for moving this motion and for his
relentless efforts to help Canadian families.
Let me say from the outset that I support any proposal promoting
greater parental involvement in the first few years of
children's lives. The purpose of this motion is to put these
parents on an equal footing with those who work and enjoy tax
benefits for expenses relating to child care.
But before getting to the financial aspects of such an
initiative, let me talk about those ultimately concerned by this
motion, the children.
[English]
Numerous studies have shown that the quality of care received
during the first few years of a child's life has a decisive
impact on their physical and mental health, as well as on their
ability to integrate into society. It is therefore imperative,
in my view, that the state make a special effort to help children
from a financial as well as from a social standpoint.
Like most industrialized countries, Canada is at a crossroads.
The choices that we will make over the next few years will
determine our ability to participate in the economy of the
future, an economy that will be increasingly global and knowledge
based.
As we debate the strategic investments we will be required to
make during this period of economic and social change, our growth
could be impeded by a lack of vision which in turn could diminish
the quality of life of Canadians and of children in particular.
If economic growth is favoured at the expense of our social
environment, problems could arise. Studies on health and human
development have highlighted the importance of investing in
children during their critical formative years if we harbour any
hope that our society of the future will be populated by well
balanced, competent and healthy individuals.
It is now widely accepted that each dollar we spend today on our
children will ensure that we save double that amount in future on
health care, social and criminal justice programs.
By enhancing support for children and their families during the
initial developmental years we will be helping our children gain
some self-confidence and learn to adapt more easily. We will be
promoting sound learning habits, positive social behaviour and
good lifelong health habits.
[Translation]
Investing in our children is therefore essential to ensure the
quality of our social and economic life.
At a time when huge economic and social changes are taking
place, and when the gap in revenues is getting wider, the
pressures on Canadian families increase the risk that parents
may have neither the time nor the ability to take good care of
their children.
This brings us to today's motion. In light of what I just said,
members will agree with me that it is important to give parents
the means, the flexibility and the options they need to ensure a
good start for their children.
But before getting any further, let us take a look at the
preferences of parents when it comes to child care.
According to a 1997 poll by Compas Research in Alberta, 95% of
respondents thought that it was better for parents to care for
infants and pre-schoolers.
An earlier country-wide poll by Decima Research found that 70% of
households with young children and both parents working would
prefer one of the parents to be able to stay home to care for
the children, if they could afford to.
1835
The question is therefore as follows: should parents have to
choose between a job that they need and the attention a child
needs to become a healthy and responsible adult.
[English]
The Norwegian government answered that question with a
resounding no. As of August 1998 it is allocating $570 per month
per child under three years of age to households where one parent
remains at home to provide child care.
Should we broach this issue by focusing on equal opportunity and
equality between two income households and households where one
parent must provide child care?
In other words, since each taxpayer finances tax benefits,
without automatically claiming these benefits, could the current
Income Tax Act be deemed discriminatory toward households where
one parent stays home to care for the children?
That is a thorny issue, if ever there was one. However, this is
the view held by the national forum on health. It maintains that
Canada is the only country in the industrialized world that does
not take into account in the calculation of income tax expenses
incurred by households where a parent cares for children at home.
It further argues that households with children are discriminated
against in the process.
[Translation]
Some would say that the child tax benefit, which incidentally
should be indexed, provides assistance for low income households,
and that parents who pay for child care are entitled to a tax
deduction of up to $7,000 per child.
But some people fall between the cracks: households that do not
qualify for the child tax benefit and do without a second income
so that one of the parents can stay home and care for the
children.
On April 14, 1997, the Devoir featured an article that tackled
the issue head on, and I quote:
What about those who fall between the cracks? The market alone
has no answer, and neither do existing social solidarity
mechanisms. Another solution must therefore be found. For some
time now, people from widely divergent disciplines that rarely
have anything to do with each other(economics, philosophy,
sociology) are rediscovering the old idea of a universal income.
All the proposals focus on the same principle: pay each member
of society a basic allowance, with no strings attached.
[English]
Why should we reconsider at this time an idea hatched 200
years ago by Thomas Paine, the great English human rights
thinker, and later borrowed by 19th century French utopian
thinkers and later still, by at least two Nobel Prize winners for
economics who hold generally opposing views, namely Englishman
James Meade and American Milton Friedman? As far back as the
1960s, they were calling for the introduction of a negative tax.
We could give a Keynesian answer to that question: When
circumstances change, my position has to change as well.
I am not someone who has ever shied away from exploring new and
innovative ideas that could shed new light on our social
conditions which no longer meet the changing needs of a modern
society.
This being said, I do not wish to comment on or argue the
feasibility or even the eventual terms and conditions of a
program to financially compensate parents who remain at home, as
recommended in today's motion. I will leave this up to those who
are qualified to do that.
[Translation]
What I think we should do, however, is offer new opportunities
to parents wishing to stay at home to care for their children,
which would mean a better start and, ultimately, improved
opportunities for this country's most important resource, our
children.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I
must advise the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development that she will have only five minutes since
we must give the proposer his right of reply.
1840
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to address the private member's motion
introduced by the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
Let me say at the outset that I applaud my colleague for his
interest in the matter of support for families. Last month we
debated his previous motion on this issue.
Few issues matter more to the government than nurturing Canadian
children, both for their inherent value and for our collective
future. There can be no debate that we need to support all
Canadian families if they undertake the important work of raising
the next generation of workers, artists, parents and community
leaders.
This government shares my hon. colleague's concern for Canadian
families and the challenges they face. However, I am not
convinced that the best way to address those challenges would be
by providing a salary for stay-at-home parents with pre-school
aged children.
It is important to recognize that the Income Tax Act already
includes a number of provisions to assist parents who choose to
remain in the home. The spousal credit reduces income tax when
one spouse earns little income and stays at home. This measure
allows the taxpayer supporting a spouse to reduce the amount of
federal tax paid by $915.
As well, the Canada child tax benefit is based on family income
and provides a special annual supplement of $213 for each child
under the age of seven for families where one parent stays home.
This benefit is provided to three million Canadian families.
There is also the caregivers tax credit which offers a credit of
up to $400 to individuals who care for either elderly relatives
or disabled children.
The child care expense deduction available to working parents is
designed to provide assistance to families who must incur child
care expenses. Without this support many would not be able to
earn an income, attend school or take a full time training
course. Eight hundred thousand taxpayers count on this deduction
to help compensate them for the additional costs they must bear
for child care.
This debate should also focus on the crucial consideration of
the needs of children. While we must ensure that parents receive
credit for the task they are doing, our overriding concern ought
to be the health and welfare of the next generation.
It is precisely because this government is committed to ensuring
a good start for all of Canada's children that we launched the
national child benefit system with our provincial partners. It
will help millions of low income Canadian families with children,
regardless of their child care arrangements.
With the additional $850 million committed in the 1998 budget,
there will be a total of $1.7 billion each year in new income
support for Canadian families. This is in addition to the $5.1
billion in existing benefits and will bring federal income
support for families with children to just under $7 billion.
Our innovative and progressive programs, such as the national
child benefit system, will get Canadian children off to a good
start in life by improving benefits and helping parents re-enter
the job market so they can better meet their own children's
needs.
Even though Motion M-486 is obviously well intentioned, our
government remains convinced that the best course is to build on
the programs we have and that is why I am unable to support this
motion at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would like to tell
the hon. parliamentary secretary that there was a mistake in the
amount of time allotted to her. If it is her wish to do so, she
may conclude her remarks.
Ms. Bonnie Brown: Madam Speaker, there is
one more point that I would like to make and I will take
advantage of this bit of extra time. I am speaking about the
point raised by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve when he
suggested that this government wanted to take away Canadian
women's maternity rights. I believe if we check Hansard
that is what the member said.
I want to assure the member and all Canadian women that this is
the last thing in the world this government would ever intend to
do. Every woman has the right to be a mother and we would never,
ever take away her maternity rights.
I am sure the member can rest easy knowing that we are not
trying to change human nature in this country. We are trying to
support those women and men who wish to be parents and raise
their children.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to be able to speak to this important motion. The
parliamentary secretary has assured us not to worry, that the
Liberals are in charge and everything will be fine. I guess we
should relax easy knowing that the family is protected.
Yet I find it rather ironic that while it is undoubtedly true
that the Liberals are committed in principle to supporting
families and to not undoing the facts of biology, they do indeed
tax families much more heavily if those families make the
determination that one of the parents is to stay home and look
after the children.
1845
I have some firsthand experience with this since my wife has
worked as a nanny. The best and most important principle is that
parents should be given a free choice as to who looks after their
preschool children and their school age children before and after
school. Different parents for different reasons make different
choices. My wife has done such a great job raising our own three
children so I can go on public television and tell all the
members in the House that the family that had my wife as nanny
probably could not have chosen better, except if their mother
could have stayed at home, but she was working and that is her
choice.
When our children were young my wife said she would be a full
time mom and stay with the children. All our lives we lived on
one income. We chose to live on only my income because we
thought it was very important for the children to at least have
mom home. It would have been wonderful if we both could have
stayed. We would have been even more skinny than we are now.
That would have been most unfortunate. All those years we paid a
penalty for that choice. Had we made the same amount of income
between us, with my wife earning some and me earning some, our
tax bill would have been considerably less.
I remember teaching night classes. I taught at a technical
institute. One of the pleasures of that job was to teach night
courses. We had wonderful young people during the day and in the
evening the institute filled up with working people who went
there in order to upgrade their skills. I taught mathematics and
computing. I had a lot of people who wanted to learn how
computers worked. You can tell by my age that I was invented
about the same time as computers were. They were new when I was
a young man giving instruction at the technical institute. I
worked Tuesdays and Thursdays. I remember saying back then that
I work on Tuesdays for Trudeau and on Thursdays I get to work for
my family. That was because even then the marginal tax rate was
around 50%. If my wife had been able to earn that money she
would have had a lower taxation rate because that is the way the
tax structure was.
I always felt that the real solution, not the solution this
member is proposing of paying a salary with taxpayer dollars,
is simply to arrange our tax system in such a way that families
that make that choice are not discriminated against by the tax
system. That is something I strongly believe in. It is
something I hope this government will very quickly implement. I
do not expect it but I would like to see it in the next budget.
We are probably only about two and a half months away from the
next budget and I would like to see that happen in the next
budget.
I wish the Minister of Finance would say, as the parliamentary
secretary just said, we value families.
I hope he follows that by saying beginning today we will no
longer have discriminatory tax practices against those families
that choose to have one parent at home. I would be so
appreciative. If that happened it would be very persuasive
because it is such an important thing, although maybe not enough
to make me vote Liberal.
1850
Of course I will not vote Liberal because the Reformers are the
ones who thought of this and that is one of the reasons I joined
the Reform Party. We are promoting the idea. That is one idea I
really wish they would steal. I think it is so critically
important.
I remember over the years sometimes it was tough, especially
with my working overtime and being involved in a lot of voluntary
organization for which I got no extra money. Sometimes I did not
get to see my family as much as I wanted. I really wished that
there would have been a less discriminatory tax practice even
against the parent who was out trying to earn a living so that I
would not have had to work as many hours in order to provide for
my family.
I strongly urge the government to consider that. Certainly the
member who has brought forward this private member's business
today has the right principle, to free up parents to make those
choices. We just disagree in the detail of how it should be
done.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to thank all the members who spoke on this
motion. I honestly believe all contributions are important. I
want to thank the Liberal member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies,
who seconded this motion.
I would like to pick up on a few points. The member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve talked about the province of Quebec and
mentioned 1994. It is true that, on September 18, 1994, the
Premier of Quebec presented the major elements of the
government's employment program. This program is aimed at
reforming social security and creating a healthy fiscal
environment.
He said:
Any contribution to the discussions is welcomed. It is only with
everyone's participation that we will succeed in developing a
system that is efficient, fair, flexible and affordable and that
will meet the existing and future needs of Canadians.
According to the Quebec Commission of Inquiry on Health and
Social Welfare, the first official proposal to provide an annual
guaranteed income in Canada was made in 1971 by a provincial
commission in Quebec, the Castonguay-Nepveu Commission, which
proposed an income security program for that province.
Right now, Quebec is part of the Canadian family, that is very
important, but I did appreciate what the hon. member said about
pay equity. Pay equity is a much talked about issue in the
public service. However, nobody talks about pay equity in a
family setting, for those who raise children, the mothers who
stay home to take care of the children. They too should get a
pay cheque and pension for that work.
Pay equity for work done at home is the fight of every Canadian
woman and many Canadian parents today. It is a fundamental
right. That is my position. We must find a way to help families.
Giving more money to the poor will contribute to the eradication
of poverty.
In my documentation I read something on Newfoundland income
supplement program that was set up in 1993. I quote:
The commission believes that an aggregate guaranteed annual
income, however modest, with an income supplement program based
on an earnings test can be financed through savings made in our
EI program and the replacement of the provincial welfare system,
without any new taxes or increased deficit.
Finally, I want to remind the House that we seem willing to
grant tax breaks to hockey teams, to all of the Canadian hockey
teams and hockey players who are earnings millions of dollars.
Clémence Côté, from Val d'Or, always told me that there is a
serious deficiency in the Canadian tax legislation, because it
penalizes families with children, in the sense that the
Government of Canada does not take into account the number of
children a family has.
In conclusion, I think we need to set up, on an experimental
basis, a Canadian annual basic income program.
This is the only way to assess how a guaranteed income program
can help to eradicate poverty.
1855
I have listened to all the members who took part in this debate.
The time has come for a new solution, for a commission of
inquiry on poverty and the family. As Réal Caouette used to say
all the time “A guaranteed annual income would help families
out”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
this item is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, in November
I asked the Minister of the Environment to make a commitment to
clean up the Marwell tar pit in Whitehorse. It has been
designated a contaminated site.
Environment Canada file No. 4186-3-19 of September 1989 provided
background information on the contamination on this site. It was
a U.S. military refinery during World War II. It was sold and
then left. There was an attempt to clean up the pit. However, a
large bermed storage tank has been left there.
In 1958 Billy Smith was trapped in the pit and died of exposure
because he sank into the tar. In 1970 the land was transferred
to the commissioner of Yukon. Contrary to the Fisheries Act, the
departmental analysis indicated that hydrocarbons, oil, grease
and manganese have been released to or near fish bearing waters.
The Yukon River runs almost directly through the area.
Yukon has hundreds of contaminated sites. This is just one of
them. In 1994 the Yukon government asked the then ministers of
the environment and northern affairs to clean up the site. These
letters were acknowledged but never answered. More recently the
Whitehorse mayor has asked for the clean-up.
Canada negotiated with the United States $135 million to clean
up old U.S. military sites. There is also an abandoned DEW line
site in Yukon as well. But this agreement does not address or
resolve the mess left by the U.S. military.
Will the government commit to protecting the vulnerable northern
environment and start by cleaning up the Marwell tar pit. As well
there are Conal road, the Haines highway, the pipeline, abandoned
airstrips and another Conal pipeline. It is very critical. The
northern environment is vulnerable. It has been over 50 years.
Will the federal government take its responsibility and clean up
the Marwell tar pit?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Yukon on
behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
concerning contamination at the Marwell tar pit within the city
of Whitehorse.
The site is not under the administration and control of the
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The land
has been under the control of the Government of Yukon since
1965-66.
In 1994 the department worked in partnership with both
territorial and city of Whitehorse officials to assess the site
in question. As part of the assessment process, the Department
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development funded two pilot
studies investigating the effectiveness and feasibility of each
of the two remediation options identified. This work was funded
under the Arctic environmental strategy which was established in
part to assist communities with issues such as this.
Departmental officials in Yukon have and will continue to offer
expertise and assistance to territorial and community officials
in assessing and remediating contaminated sites within Yukon.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in
conjunction with an established public policy advisory group will
address agreed upon priorities within the constraints of
available funds.
Finally, the Government of Canada recognizes that the north is a
dynamic and important part of Canada. That is why we work
closely with our partners in a broad range of initiatives
affecting the environmental, political and economic aspirations
of northerners. That is why the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development will continue in its efforts to address
environment issues in Yukon.
1900
[Translation]
AIDS
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, last
Tuesday, I asked the health minister, on world AIDS day, about
the situation concerning the approval of medication in Canada.
It is acknowledged the approval process for new drugs in Canada
is not very competitive, and this is evidenced by the fact that
two antiviral agents have been available for a year and a half
in the United States, but are not available in Canada.
It has been estimated that the workload of the health protection
branch, the unit that approves and market new drugs, is similar
to what exists in the United States. However, here in Canada, we
have one third of the resources available in the United States.
I rose in the House several times to ask the health minister to
review the process, to provide resources, and groups have
proposed some solutions.
One of these solutions could be a joint approval process for new
drugs. There is no rationale for a drug company that has an
affiliate in Canada and one in the United States to submit the
same research monographs in both countries, and this could be a
joint process. This solution was proposed to the minister.
The second part of the solution has to do with the fact that the
Health Protection Branch, now called the Therapeutic Products
Branch, sees to it that different persons work on the analysis
of the files at each stage of the process. With the Canadian
AIDS Society and other organizations concerned with these
issues, we think that one way to improve the drug products
licensing process would be to mandate the same public servants
from the beginning to the end of the process.
So I am asking the government to review this process. I would be
very happy to work on it in a parliamentary committee, but
members must know that Liberals have defeated a motion I put
forward in the standing committee on health asking for the
creation of a task force and a parliamentary committee on this
issue.
So, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice—who is not very knowledgeable in these matters, but
very knowledgeable in other areas—will give me some hope.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to be able to give a more detailed answer
to the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve about the approval
process for AIDS medication.
The Canadian approval process is still one of the most highly
respected drug regulation mechanisms in the world. At the
present time, 13 antiretroviral drugs have been approved for
AIDS therapy in Canada. There are several other medications
especially designed to target opportunistic infections and
illnesses affecting AIDS victims.
[English]
HIV-AIDS drugs submissions are eligible for priority review or
fast tracking where there is probable clinical evidence that the
drug may provide an important therapeutic gain. A number of
HIV-AIDS drugs were reviewed on a priority basis. New drug
submissions for HIV-AIDS drugs are generally reviewed within
defined performance standards which are comparable to
international standards.
[Translation]
Medication for HIV/AIDS that is still experimental, or is not
for general sale in Canada, is accessible to Canadians through
clinical trials, extended access programs, and the special
access program. The latter provides AIDS patients with rapid
access to experimental drugs on special authorization at the
attending physician's request.
[English]
Additionally, with the announcement of the notice of compliance
with conditions policy, drugs are permitted to be marketed in
Canada when there is predictive rather than conclusive evidence
of clinical benefit in the treatment of serious life threatening
diseases. Under this policy the drug product manufacturer is
required to continue to study the drug in order to confirm its
benefit.
[Translation]
Health Canada is involved in several initiatives which ought to
simplify the drug examination process. These include
development of an electronic drug submission system,
harmonization—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. parliamentary secretary.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow, at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.03 p.m.)