EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 130
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 1, 1998
1005
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-54. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1010
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1015
1020
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1035
1040
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1055
1100
1105
1110
1115
1120
1125
1130
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance and Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1135
1140
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1205
1210
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1225
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
1230
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1245
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1250
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1305
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1320
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1325
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1340
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
1345
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DYSLEXIA
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
1400
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ONOWAY, ALBERTA
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENIORS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GM PLANT IN BOISBRIAND
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENTAL ILLNESS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPPOSITION
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1405
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE PAULINE JULIEN
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BREAST CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN NATIONAL
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL DAY OF OLDER PERSONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1410
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WHALING
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARCTIC COUNCIL
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE PAULINE JULIEN
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1415
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ECONOMIC SITUATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1425
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Wood |
1430
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Wood |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONTREAL CONVENTION CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1440
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRATT & WHITNEY
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1445
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WATER EXPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1450
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANK MERGERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INFORMATION HIGHWAY
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1455
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN COAST GUARD
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1500
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIRBUS INVESTIGATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Statements By Members
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1510
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1515
1520
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
1525
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1530
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1535
1540
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1555
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
1600
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1605
1610
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1625
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1630
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1645
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1650
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1705
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1710
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1715
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1735
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC Summit
|
1830
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1835
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 130
![](/web/20061116192534im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 1, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
[English]
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-54, an act to support and promote
electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is
collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by
providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or
record information or transactions and by amending the Canada
Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute
Revision Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
BILL C-68
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition signed by constituents who are
asking that Bill C-68 be repealed and that the hundreds of
millions of tax dollars that are currently wasted on the
licensing of firearms be redirected to more cost effective
efforts of reducing violent crime and improving public safety,
such as more police on the streets, more crime prevention
programs, more women's crisis centres and so on.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have a number of petitions to present concerning the
multilateral agreement on investment.
This agreement was being negotiated at the OECD and was stalled
in the spring of this year. Many of us hope that it will be
stalled for good.
People continue to express their opposition to it, particularly
in light of the decision this summer whereby the government had
to back down from its ability to legislate in the environmental
interests of Canadians because of a suit brought against it by
Ethyl pursuant to chapter 11 of the NAFTA, which would be
extended under the MAI.
Canadians continue to be very concerned about the possibility of
an MAI, particularly one that contains an investor state
provision, so I table these petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1010
[English]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal other acts as
a consequence, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today
to lead off debate on second reading of Bill C-43, an act to
establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
This bill represents a major milestone in the evolution of tax
administration, customs service and trade administration in
Canada. It is an integral part of our government's drive for
better service for all Canadians.
The genesis of this bill is quite simple. It is built on five
simple facts about tax collection. I would like to discuss those
facts quite briefly. Flowing from those facts are five clear
principles. Those principles, those values, I would like to
describe in some detail for they are the principles, the values,
which are the foundation of the legislation before us.
Fact number one is easy. Nobody particularly likes to pay
taxes. The truth is that since the Prime Minister named me
Minister of National Revenue I have not had a Canadian come up to
me and say “Herb, my taxes are too low. Can you find a way to
raise my tax bill?”
Fact number two is equally easy. We live in a country where
millions upon millions of citizens voluntarily pay taxes.
Something which we can all be really proud of is that in our
country citizens voluntarily fill out their tax forms and remit
the money they owe. In our society small businesses fill out
their GST forms and send in the money owing. In our nation,
millions upon millions of citizens make their declaration of
customs openly and honestly.
This leads to fact number three. The reason Canadians pay their
taxes is because we understand the imperatives of our democracy.
We understand that we are rated number one in the world by the
United Nations because of our health care, our support for young
people, our support for senior citizens, our commitment to safety
and security for families and our determination to bring out the
best in our nation.
Canadians understand that meeting those objectives and rising to
those ideals costs money.
Fact number four is the logical corollary of the other facts.
Canadians want to ensure that the system is fair. We want to
ensure that the system is as logical and straightforward as
possible. Since we are so amazingly and willingly ready to pay
taxes voluntarily, we rightly expect the system to be as modern,
as intelligent, as streamlined and as service oriented as
possible.
Fact number five is that there are two ways to improve the tax
system. The first way is through changes to the tax law, which
is something we address annually when the finance minister brings
down his budget. The second way is to improve the structure of
the tax system, to improve the process, to modernize the method
of service, to modernize the method of management, to simplify
the means of compliance and to eliminate overlap and duplication
among the different levels of government.
Those are the facts and the realities on which our tax system is
built. Those are also the facts which lead to the five
principles, the five values of this bill. The principles and
values are very simple. Canadians want service and fairness.
They want to work in partnership. They want accountability and
modern management of resources.
1015
This bill before the House of Commons will deliver what
Canadians want: more efficient customs service; less
federal-provincial overlap; lower compliance costs for
businesses; more flexibility to meet a changing world; a more
simplified system for taxpayers; less cost for Canadians.
We are talking about service for over 22 million taxpayers. We
are talking about administering over $600 billion in trade. We
are talking about serving over 100 million travellers annually.
We are talking about service for over 75,000 charities, service
for nine million Canadians who receive GST credits, service for
over three million parents who receive the child tax benefit.
Combining a new form of management structure with strong
ministerial accountability and strong traditional Canadian
values, the new agency will ensure better service for all those
Canadians and for our country.
The introduction of this new agency structure will maintain
parliamentary accountability to clients and to the public. The
agency will be accountable to parliament and to all Canadians.
The new agency will benefit from management practices that are
characteristic of successful organizations outside of government.
Yet the Canada customs and revenue agency will be part of the
public service of Canada. It will be a vital component of our
democratic parliamentary system.
We were told by Canadians that it is important that there
continue to be ministerial accountability for how tax, tariff and
trade systems operate. We have listened attentively and
responded fully.
The Minister of National Revenue will be fully responsible for
the agency to parliament. The Minister of National Revenue will
still be responsible for the powers, duties and functions vested
by the Income Tax Act, the Customs Act and all other program
legislation. The Minister of National Revenue will still be able
to direct how taxes are assessed, to seize and release goods, and
to determine how import and accounting data should be processed.
I will still be answerable to all members of parliament and
through them to the citizens we are all elected to serve.
In Canada we have always made sure that individual taxpayers
retain their privacy and are not subject to political influences.
We have a longstanding practice in this country that the
Minister of National Revenue does not become involved in
interpreting the law in individual cases. The minister may
however inquire into specific cases in order to guarantee
fairness for all taxpayers. Questions are often asked in the
House of the minister. The power of the minister to inquire into
these matters and respond to the House will be maintained under
the new agency.
Canadians will continue to have a Minister of National Revenue
whose primary concern will rightly be to ensure that citizens are
given the full benefit of the law. In short, Canadians' right
both to impartial decision making and to redress through the
minister will be retained.
Accountability and fairness are cornerstones of our Canadian
system of revenue collection. These vital principles must and
will remain paramount. Fairness forms the basis for the millions
of tax, customs and excise transactions. It is at the heart of
every communication Canadians have with tax officials on the
telephone, or with our employees at the counter, or with customs
officers while crossing the border. It underpins all our
programs and services.
Notwithstanding an excellent record, we can and must do more.
Last March I launched the fairness initiative to consult with
individual Canadians and businesses on how fairly we administer
our programs and to identify ways to enhance fairness.
We have consulted widely and we will shortly have a report
produced by an independent organization, the Conference Board of
Canada.
1020
I intend to issue a fairness action plan that will continue to
ensure that Canadians continue to receive the fairest customs and
revenue administration possible. Fairness is a fundamental
priority for Revenue Canada and fairness will be a fundamental
priority for the new agency.
Another fundamental priority for the new agency will be a true
spirit of practical partnership with other levels of government
and all Canadians. By working even more closely with the
provinces and the territories, the new agency will be able to
expand the programs and services that we provide.
I should point out that provincial participation will be
completely voluntary. This is not a power grab by the federal
government. In fact the agency's structure gives for the first
time ever a real say to the provinces and territories in managing
how we collect taxes.
Right now we administer social benefit programs for British
Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, the Northwest
Territories and Nova Scotia. We collect personal income taxes
for nine of the provinces and we collect corporate income taxes
for seven.
With the agency we want to create real opportunities for greater
partnership with the provinces. We want to reduce overlap and
duplication. We want to save money for the provinces. We want
to save money for Canadians. What we are trying to build today is
an organization that will create more win-win situations for
tomorrow.
We are currently engaged in joint studies with several provinces
on the feasibility of the new agency administering more of their
programs. There is only one level of taxpayer and that taxpayer
should only have to deal with one level of tax administration.
I should tell the House that my provincial counterparts
generally like the concept of an agency. They see it as an
important step toward pragmatic forward thinking reform on behalf
of and for Canadians.
To guarantee that the provinces and territories truly have a
central role to play in the new agency, they will nominate 11 of
the 15 members of the new agency's board of management. This
will provide for sensitivity to provincial and regional concerns.
The members will be appointed by the governor in council. This
board of management will bring a client oriented approach to the
provision of services, and a more progressive and businesslike
approach to management.
Operational accountability will not be as diffused under the
agency as it is now under Revenue Canada. That is because the
authorities for management and administration which are now
shared among Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission and
other government departments and agencies will be united under
the new agency. The agency will be more directly accountable for
the results it achieves. It will be accountable to parliament
and to Canadians.
The move to new models in improving the efficiency,
effectiveness and accountability of government services is a
worldwide phenomenon. Countries like the United Kingdom,
Australia and New Zealand with parliamentary systems similar to
ours are all pursuing new administrative arrangements to improve
service delivery to citizens.
Although the new agency will remain part of the public service,
we propose to make important changes that will shift certain
management responsibilities directly to the agency. Specifically,
a modern tax and customs administration needs the flexibility to
tailor its human resource systems, such as staffing,
classification, training and recourse, to meet the needs of
Canadians and to meet the needs of employees.
1025
Presently the staffing process at Revenue Canada can take
between six to twelve months. That is simply too long. Agency
status will allow us to develop a staffing system that is faster,
more flexible and more progressive in providing opportunities for
employees and rising to the challenges and opportunities of the
modern technological era.
The proposed Canada customs and revenue agency will provide us
with the flexibility we need to meet the needs of the future head
on.
More and more transactions are taking place through electronic
commerce. Why not have a single, virtual office window for
federal and provincial tax as well as customs administration?
Why not employ a single business number approach to increase
efficiency even further and yes, to enhance compliance as well?
My roots are in the business community. Because of this, I know
firsthand just how important customs, trade and revenue
administration can be to the well-being of a business. I believe
that streamlining and simplifying procedures is a critical issue
for the growth of Canada's business enterprises, and consequently
for the growth of the Canadian economy.
Revenue Canada is already a leader in areas such as electronic
tax filing. We would like to take those initiatives further by
putting a framework in place that will allow us to expand the
reach of our service to and for Canadians.
I want to emphasize that this is not an exercise in changing
departmental organization charts. This is an exercise in
changing our approach in how we do business, in how we deal with
the people we serve.
We want to work together with all our partners for the benefit
of Canadians. Even now, Revenue Canada is highly involved with
formal and informal consultations that include business people,
customs brokers and tax professionals among others. Their input
was important in the preparation of the legislation that I am
placing before this House.
Canadians want their system to be user friendly and transparent.
They want it to be fair, where fairness means equal and efficient
treatment. Canadians want us to minimize the costs of compliance
with the tax system.
In January 1998 the Public Policy Forum released an important
study on the costs of compliance with Canada's tax systems. The
forum estimates that with a single administration, there are
potential annual savings to Canadian business of between $116
million and $193 million. In addition, the forum estimates
between $37 million and $62 million in potential savings in
administration costs for governments.
The transition to agency status is a means to an end. It marks
a realization of our commitment to fairness and excellent service
for all Canadians, our commitment to work with the private sector
and our commitment to maintain Canada's reputation as a world
leader in revenue, customs and trade administration.
It is something else too: a new model for governance, where
success builds on the blending of governmental accountability and
private sector flexibility. The best of both worlds: one unified
better way of doing business, one unified better way of serving
Canadians.
The Government of Canada is working with all Canadians to
address our shared needs and our individual aspirations, and to
help ensure all of Canada's citizens can reap the benefits of
building our country for the next millennium. What we have before
this House is an important stepping stone in that process. It is
an opportunity to strengthen bridges among governments and on
behalf of the Canadians we all seek to serve.
I believe that the creation of the Canada customs and revenue
agency is a positive, a practical and a philosophically sound
step forward.
1030
What we want to create is an organization with a state of mind
that is the state of the art.
The new agency promises to usher in a new era in revenue
administration and customs administration as we enter into a new
millennium; a new era of service, fairness, partnership,
accountability and wise management of our resources; a new era
that clings fast to values on which our country is built but
meets the needs of our times and the times to come.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise this morning to address Bill C-43. At the end of
my speech, we will introduce an amendment to this legislation.
The Bloc Quebecois and myself are totally opposed to this bill.
As you may remember, the government first announced the creation
of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in the Speech from the
Throne delivered in 1996.
At the time, the government had defined a number of objectives
for the agency. First, to provide programs and services in a
more efficient and cost-effective manner, through greater
autonomy and flexibility.
Second, to improve services and reduce administration and
enforcement costs by working with the provinces to eliminate
duplication and overlap. Third, to strengthen the effectiveness
of the Canadian federation and to contribute to national unity
by making the agency responsible for providing federal,
provincial and even municipal services to Canadians.
Before explaining why we are totally opposed to this bill, let
us take a look at each of these objectives.
Let me begin with the third one. That objective mysteriously
disappeared when the second progress report was tabled, and it
is obvious that the agency as proposed will not contribute to
the effectiveness of the Canadian federation and to Canadian
unity.
The second objective is doomed from the start, since none of the
provinces has agreed to enter into any agreement with the
federal government so far. The provinces are very unenthusiastic
about the establishment of such an agency. Quebec, for one, is
formally opposed. While not being totally against the idea of
the single level of taxation referred to by my hon. colleague,
the minister, Quebec feels that tax administration should be a
provincial responsibility.
Ontario's opposition is even stronger than that of Quebec. In
fact, the Minister of Revenue of Ontario recently stated he was
considering the possibility of taking over personal income tax
services. As we know, in Ontario, personal income taxes are
currently collected by the federal government. The minister now
wants to look after it at the provincial level.
The maritimes are very unenthusiastic because the program to
harmonize the sales tax is not producing the expected results,
in spite of the fact that this new approach to tax collection
has cost Canadian taxpayers over $2 billion.
1035
Also opposed are all western provinces, except Manitoba, whose
premier suggested it might be worth looking into. The premier of
Manitoba may be looking for a job opportunity after he leaves
politics. After all, the position of agency commissioner is an
attractive one with an attractive salary. The commissioner would
be appointed for a term of five years, which is renewable, so
that he could hold office for several years, making very good
money.
In the face of this opposition, Revenue Canada's spokesperson,
Michel Cléroux, explained that the provinces had not said no.
That is not a very good explanation.
Returning to the first objective, which was to provide more
efficient programs and services at a lesser cost. First, I do
not believe the agency will produce the promised savings. Right
from the start, those promoting it accepted that the greatest
savings would come from harmonizing taxation. I would remind
you, however, that, as we all know, extension of the harmonized
sales tax flew like a lead balloon.
Another thing, the proposed agency will not require the
provinces to pay for collection and processing of their taxes if
the provincial programme is fully harmonized with a federal
taxation program. This so-called free service represents an
increase in agency costs, not a decrease.
The agency's status will also enable its executives to pay
themselves salaries comparable to those of business leaders in
the private sector. Will the agency commissioner, who will have
responsibility for hundreds of thousands of people, and billions
of dollars, demand to earn the same amount as the President of
the Royal Bank?
Will his annual salary be up in the millions? Those are
questions that need to be asked.
Regardless of the position one adopts on this, one cannot avoid
acknowledging that this is a new expenditure coming at a time
when the morale of public servants who are not in executive
positions is suffering seriously after a six-year freeze. It
must not be lost sight of that, since April 1, the present
government has awarded its executives raises of up to 19%.
The agency has already cost the taxpayer a fair bit. Thousands
of departmental employees have been involved in design teams and
other internal exercises aimed at turning the dream of senior
management into reality. A good part of the focus of Revenue
Canada has been turned away from more important and more
pressing matters which the minister ought to have been looking at.
I will give you an example. You will recall a CBC program,
which reported that, according to Department of National Revenue
documents, over 500 of the 1,500 auditor positions in the
Toronto region were vacant. This situation would mean a
shortfall for the federal treasury in this region of over $500
million in 1997.
If we apply this to the rest of Canada, we estimate the loss
would be over $2 billion, due to the lack of Revenue Canada
auditors.
1040
There is another point I wish to make: the agency would be less
effective as a solution than the status quo. The myth
surrounding the agency is that it could provide tax services
more cheaply and more effectively. However, the structure
proposed for the new agency adds another level of bureaucracy in
the form of an appointed board of management, which would have
nothing more than a supervisory role. Nevertheless, time, money
and staff must be provided for the board and its staff. This
would mean another level of bureaucracy.
At the same time, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency would
report to Treasury Board on administrative matters, such as its
activity and human resources plans.
Another point I wish to address is that this agency would
seriously weaken the Department of National Revenue. By
removing the agency from the direct supervision of the
minister's office, the bill would seriously weaken the
Department of National Revenue's bureaucracy. The minister
would receive a corporate business plan from the agency in which
he would have a very small hand, or none at all, making it
practically a fait accompli. The minister would be told what to
do.
Fourth, the agency would upset the balance between tax policy
and tax collection. There is, at the present time, a healthy
balance between the structure and tax policy, which should be
left up to the department and the Minister of Finance, and
enforcement of this policy, which is the responsibility of the
Minister of Revenue and his department, the Department of
National Revenue.
The agency's status would upset this balance. The agency's
bureaucrats would inevitably launch into a turf war with their
Department of Finance counterparts.
This would be a costly and unproductive exercise that would
serve the interests of no one but the mandarins.
Fifth, the agency would open the door to bureaucratic patronage
and the abuse of power. In practice, the agency would have
carte blanche with respect to contracts, and with respect to the
management of property, materiel and information, as well as
technology. With limited outside oversight, the risk of
favouritism and abuse of power by bureaucrats is very, very
high.
Sixth, the agency would pose a threat to taxpayers' privacy. My
colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, mentioned this
yesterday in a question having to do with the report tabled by
the auditor general. If the agency were actually to achieve its
objectives, personal information would be concentrated in a
large organization not overseen directly by Parliament.
Moreover, internal departmental documents indicate that creation
of a “big brother” raises reservations among some of those
involved with privacy issues. We share those concerns.
What do the experts and the business sector think of this
agency? Nothing good. In his report of December 1997, the
auditor general voiced concerns about the responsibility of the
proposed agency by asking “What assurance will the people of
Canada and parliamentarians have that the public interest is
protected?”. I share Mr. Desautels' concerns.
As well, a Public Policy Forum, or PPF, study commissioned by
Revenue Canada reported that Canadian business had serious
reservations about the creation of this agency.
1045
The PPF report referred to the agency's objective of
rationalizing and simplifying tax collection. However, 40% of
the businesses the foundation surveyed saw no advantage to a new
national collection agency and over 68% felt that such an agency
would add to their compliance costs, or have no effect
whatsoever.
As we have seen, then, the promise of a single tax collection
agency did nothing to bring about the harmonization of taxes in
all provinces. If this harmonization did take place in the
three Atlantic provinces, that is because they were paid $2
billion while Revenue Canada was a department, and not an
agency.
A serious question arises: how many billions will the provinces
have to be paid to gain their participation in this project?
Continuing with outside commentaries, I quote a Canadian Press
article by Bruce Cheadle, which appeared in the Halifax
Chronicle-Herald on February 9, 1998, stating that some observers
see the agency as a pretext for getting rid of employees or
increasing executives' salaries, or both.
Professor Vern Krishna, head of the CGA Tax Research Centre at
the University of Ottawa, is quoted as having said: “—what are
the advantages? Mainly, a little less direct control by
government, and in particular a little more leeway with employee
salaries—This is not as fabulous a concept as they would have
the public believe”.
An associate with the Montreal firm of Raymond, Chabot, Martin,
Paré & Associates—or RCMP, as it is known in Quebec—said that
the “creation of the customs and revenue agency would, in every
respect, amount to an abdication of political power”. That
comment was made in the March 1998 issue of CA Magazine. It was
not made three years ago, but in March of this year.
One has to wonder. Why has the government developed this bad and
even compulsive habit of creating agencies? This is, as the
spokesperson for RCMP pointed out, an abdication of political
power. We have a number of examples of that pattern. The new
Canadian wheat agency just started its operations and people are
already bickering. Nothing works.
And let us not forget Nav Canada, which cost millions of
dollars. Remember what happened. Nav Canada said that all its
employees would keep their jobs for at least two years. Now, 30%
of the employees who were guaranteed a job for two years will
actually lose their job after just 18 months.
Will these job cuts jeopardize the safety of airline personnel?
That is one concern we have regarding Nav Canada. Is this yet
another meaningless commitment made by the government?
Another example that really fires me up is ADM, the Agence des
aéroports de Montréal. Remember the mess in which the agency
found itself in February 1997, when it decided to transfer
international flights from Mirabel to Dorval. That decision was
made unilaterally by dictators, without any regard for what
people thought. A year and a half later, it is still a mess and
nothing works.
Bloc Quebecois members put questions to the Minister of
Transport regarding ADM, but he told us he could not do
anything, that the agency had total control.
1050
Since when do these agencies have the authority to spend
taxpayers' money without having to answer to anyone? It is
highly improper.
In conclusion, I think that the government finds the present
human resources system to be in need of improvement. Rather
than make changes to Revenue Canada's present system, it prefers
to create a completely new external body.
In the face of this admission, we can also conclude that the
government feels that federal employees are being paid at rates
well below those of the private sector.
Rather than raising the pay scale for all present positions, the
government prefers to create a structure within which it will be
easy to pay salaries that will attract and keep excellent
employees.
The following question then arises: Can two people performing
the same duties, or doing the same type of job, one employed by
the agency and the other employed by a department, be paid at
different rates? That is what I am asking.
In closing, I would like to move an amendment to the motion for
seconding reading of the bill.
That the motion be
amended by deleting all the words after the word ”That” and
substituting the following:
”Bill C-43, An Act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency and to amend and repeal other Acts as a consequence be not
now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill
withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing
Committee on Finance.”
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Debate is on the
amendment and I recognize the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-43. I wish to
congratulate the minister. It has only taken him 15 months to
get his major legislative proposal before us. After saying that
it would come here last fall and then last spring, it is finally
here. If the minister is lucky it will be passed by the end of
the century.
Clearly the minister has enormous pull with the government House
leader as well as with bureaucrats in the finance department who
we know have been fighting over the loss of control they may face
as a result of the bill. I do wish to congratulate the minister
on finally managing to bring it before us.
1055
The concept was unveiled in the throne speech of February 1996.
It has taken the government two and a half years to flesh it out.
It was one of its big ideas, one of the grand schemes, one of the
great Liberal projects to create this super tax agency, this IRS
style agency which would be removed from direct oversight and
accountability to the people's representatives in parliament.
However, when the government took the original versions of the
bill around for review and input it saw that Canadians actually
believed in something called parliamentary accountability and
ministerial responsibility. We are pleased to see that
consequently the government made some modifications to its
earlier legislative proposals and has mentioned the minister in
the act at least a few times.
The grand scheme, which the Liberals proposed two and a half
years ago in the throne speech and which the Minister of National
Revenue has been out on the road flogging for the past year, has
turned out to be not such a grand scheme at all. In fact it is a
whole series of administrative changes which simply does two
things: creates more bureaucracy and less parliamentary
accountability.
The stated purpose of Bill C-43 and the creation of the Canada
customs and revenue agency is to create greater efficiency in the
tax collection process, to create greater administrative
flexibility, and to strengthen the federation through the
creation of a single national agency. These are all marvellous
motherhood objectives but we have to look closely at whether the
bill actually achieves them.
First, with respect to efficiency the minister quoted in his
speech a study conducted by a public policy forum in his
department which reviewed the efficiency costs and studied
cutting the cost of tax collection down to size. It suggested
that there might be cost savings in compliance of about $170
million and further potential savings in administrative costs of
about $100 million. This was quoted by the minister in his
speech.
What the minister did not quote was that the entire study and
these cost saving estimates were predicated upon a national
revenue agency which collects all provincial taxes for all
provincial governments. Clearly that will not be the case. The
study demonstrates that if there are to be any cost savings they
will come from the participation of the provinces. When we
listen to the provinces what do we hear? Silence.
The Minister of National Revenue has been criss-crossing the
country over the past year. I actually bumped into him in the
hallways of one legislature going in to see the finance minister
of Alberta. I am sure he has been working very diligently, along
with his officials, to persuade provincial finance ministers to
believe that letting federal bureaucrats collect their taxes is a
good idea.
However, sorely the minister's efforts have produced no proof.
Not a single province at this point has indicated that it is
prepared to participate in the CCRA, the proposed Canada customs
revenue agency, and several provinces have stated their outright
opposition, most notably the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
The Quebec minister of finance, Mr. Landry, said in a letter to
my office that “Quebec opposes the federal government's
intention to centralize all of the tax revenue collection
activities in one cross-Canada agency. We already have our own
department of revenue, which collects all taxes in Quebec. In
1982, we took over the administration of the federal goods and
services tax, the GST, and we have proven our efficiency by
providing a top quality service to Quebec taxpayers”.
[English]
We have received similar responses from the finance ministers of
British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta, all of whom indicate that
they have not seen anything compelling in the government's
proposal for the CCRA which would persuade them to participate.
The provincial treasurer of Alberta wrote in a letter to me that
he was “concerned that such a large agency might become
bureaucratic, unwieldy and aggressive in its dealings with
taxpayers, and Alberta will want to know how the federal
government plans to address these issues”.
1100
Of course the biggest province, Ontario, which produces about
40% of the tax revenues in this country has taken the position
that is almost completely contrary to where the federal
government is going.
It says it is actually prepared because of federal interference
to pull out of the federal-provincial income tax collection
agreement so it can begin to tax directly on income as opposed to
taxing on federal tax. It wants greater flexibility, greater
autonomy and greater accountability to its own provincial
taxpayers rather than greater centralization in Ottawa.
In fact, the minister of finance of the province of Ontario said
to me in a letter from last year:
Ontario is unable—due to a lack of information—to assess
whether the CCRA will provide improved services, at lower costs,
to Ontarians.
In the 1997 Ontario budget, I indicated that we have significant
concerns with the current arrangements for setting and collecting
Ontario's income tax. Ontario has suggested that the discussion
about the creation of a new agency should include a review of the
framework under which the provinces can make policy changes in
harmonize tax arrangements. The province must have the capacity
to adjust its tax policies to appropriately reflect the
provincial needs, regardless of the method of collection and
administration.
And so we see that this grand scheme of the minister and
government to have all the provinces participate in one mega tax
collection agency has fallen on cold ears and has not been
received positively. Any punitive efficiency costs,
administrative savings would not be realized without the
participation particularly of the larger provinces.
Not only is it provincial governments who elect not to
participate that will create inefficiencies but 40% of businesses
surveyed in the public policy forum study saw no advantage to a
single tax collection agency and 68% thought that a single tax
collection agency would increase, not decrease, compliance costs
or have no impact at all. The minister has not been able to
persuade businesses and the business community in Canada that
this proposal would create efficiencies in terms of compliance.
We can look further at the other provinces. Not only are
Alberta, Ontario and some of the western provinces talking about
pulling away from their involvement with the federal tax policy
but so are some of the Atlantic provinces. The province of Nova
Scotia is considering removing itself from the HST, the
harmonized sales tax, or as it is known on the east coast the
BST, by going back to the original retail sales tax.
The Government of Prince Edward Island, which never committed to
the HST, which was seen as a step on the way to a single tax
collection agency, has committed itself in its election policy
not to adopt the HST.
It is not hard to understand why the provinces would be so
sceptical about participation in this grand federal scheme given
the paternalistic attitude of this government with respect to the
sovereignty and the democratic responsibilities of the provinces.
Just look at how this federal government has responded to the
good faith constructive initiatives taken by the provincial
governments this summer at their Saskatoon assembly with respect
to the social union proposals.
Instead of responding positively and affirmatively, engaging in
a constructive dialogue, the federal government just brushes the
provinces aside, reminding the provinces and reminding taxpayers
that this is precisely the same government which pontificates
about the importance of national policy in matters like health
care but which proceeded in the last term of government
unilaterally to cut $7 billion without consultation or
forewarning social transfers for health care and education.
The federal government slaps the provincial governments by
taking $7 billion away from critical social programs and slaps
them again by lecturing them about the importance of those very
programs which it has slashed and then the provinces come up and
suggest a renovation of social policy between the federal and
provincial governments through the social union recommendations.
The federal government slaps them again by saying we don't care
what recommendations you come up with, we are going to proceed
unilaterally.
Is it any wonder that the provincial ministers of finance and
premiers would be so unenthusiastic in their response to the
revenue agency proposal?
1105
Finally, with respect to efficiency one could argue that this
act without the participation of the provinces would in fact
result in greater inefficiency because what we have here in Bill
C-43 is an act which creates a new bureaucracy. It creates a new
board of governors with no clearly defined role in the governing
structure of the proposed agency.
This bill creates a new commissioner, a new patronage position
to be appointed by the government. It creates an entire new
apparatus for the governance of Revenue Canada without any
assurance that the provinces will be participating and that
governance structure is even necessary. We would like to know
exactly what the costs involved are in the creation of these new
bureaucratic processes in this bill.
The second punitive objective of this bill is to create greater
administrative flexibility. The minister rightfully points out
that under the very strict, burdensome and bureaucratic
employment and management guidelines of Treasury Board, Revenue
Canada is finding it increasingly difficult to hire and maintain
high quality, well trained people in an extremely competitive
labour market.
The minister points out, as we have heard from recent media
reports, that this is a particularly critical problem with
respect to tax auditors in certain regions of the country such as
southern Ontario. We have an unacceptably high level of turnover
with respect to skilled auditors who can find considerably
greater levels of compensation in the private sector than they
can working under the unreasonably bureaucratic regulations of
Treasury Board.
This is a serious problem because Revenue Canada is an enormous
department. It is an enormous bureaucracy with approximately
40,000 employees who constitute approximately 20% of the public
service of Canada which raises about $1 billion a day with
operational expenses approved by parliament of about $2.3 billion
per year.
We agree that in such an enormous federal bureaucracy we ought
to aspire to greater flexibility in the administration of human
resources and the management of personnel and their compensation.
We agree that government ought to operate more like business and
less like bureaucracy. We believe that there ought to be
incentives for efficiency in the public sector and that good
people should be paid more. There should be a greater
consideration of merit as opposed to bureaucratic schedules in
the compensation of employees at Revenue Canada and in all other
government departments.
I am very intrigued by the progress made in this respect by the
governments of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and others, as
mentioned by the minister in his speech, that have been able to
achieve greater administrative flexibility and operate in a more
business like fashion through the adoption of more flexible
policies.
But it is not necessary for the government to adopt the agency
or to pass this legislation or to diminish parliamentary
accountability in order to achieve those savings, efficiencies
and incentives. All the government needs to do is pass
legislation amending the Public Service Employment Act and other
statutes exempting Revenue Canada from Treasury Board guidelines.
We requested and received an opinion from the Library of
Parliament research branch on this very question. We said is it
possible for this parliament to give the minister of revenue the
flexibility to pay his best people more, to operate in a more
business like fashion with greater incentives and less
bureaucracy without adopting an agency superstructure and
diminishing accountability. The answer from the Library of
Parliament was indeed it is possible. From its report of May 29
of this year: “The Public Service Commission could seek an
amendment to the Public Service Employment Act to exempt the
department from the staffing requirements under the act.
Alternatively, the department could be given authority for its
own staffing under another act of parliament”.
At the current time the Treasury Board and the Public Service
Commission have responsibilities for different aspects of the
human resources regime in federal government departments,
including Revenue Canada.
1110
In sum, it simply is a ruse for this minister to argue that he
needs to create another bureaucracy through the CCRA board and
commissioner, that he needs to jeopardize parliamentary
accountability and ministerial oversight in order to achieve New
Zealand and United Kingdom style efficiency gains. Those gains
can and should be made through normal legislative changes without
jeopardizing accountability and the minister, I think, knows
this.
There is no reason why the Department of National Revenue should
be isolated in this effort to find greater efficiencies and more
business like incentives. If the minister of revenue really has
a problem with the way the Treasury Board guideline restricts his
ability to hire people and manage human resources, he ought to go
before the cabinet and suggest that all these statutes governing
Treasury Board guidelines for personnel be changed and amended as
we would strongly support.
That takes us to the question of accountability. This really is
our central concern. Originally in the early drafts of this
legislation the government had really proposed the adoption of an
IRS style management structure where the revenue agency would
become a quasi crown corporation responsible in name only to the
minister and through him to parliament. But for all intents and
purposes executive authority in this enormous tax collection
bureaucracy would be centralized in the hands of a commissioner
and a board of directors.
We and many other Canadians, businesses, provincial governments,
stakeholders made it clear that we would simply not accept such a
radical diminishment of parliamentary oversight and democratic
authority in Revenue Canada or its successor agency. We are
pleased again to see that the government responded to some of
those concerns by bringing the minister back into the scope of
the act. But our concern is still that there will be a transfer
of executive responsibility, of policy making authority to the
commissioner of the proposed agency and his or her board.
This is something which the auditor general has flagged as an
absolutely critical issue for this parliament to consider. In his
report in December of last year the auditor general said that the
new Canada customs and revenue agency is “an extremely and
critically important one” to watch because of the nature of
taxation and revenue collection within a democracy.
He said also that he is concerned with “substantial amounts of
money that are being put into the hands of arm's length
organizations and that new ways of spending may also diminish
parliamentary control over government activities”. He pointed
to the $800 million innovation fund administered by an arm's
length organization and the millennium fund which could be as
much as $240 million. The auditor general is worried about the
effectiveness of parliament's accountability regimes which
contribute to the overall health of our democratic institutions.
He said that as the structure of government and the ways it
functions are modified, it is important to preserve the
accountability and oversight for elected representatives.
That is about as clear a signal as we can get from the man we
charge to ensure the government spends and operates in an
accountable manner. He is saying we ought to be concerned about
the potential for diminished accountability here.
This really is an important principle because the whole history
of parliament is a history of the common people rising up against
the abuse of executive or in the past royal authority principally
in the collection of taxes. Historically parliament's central
raison d'étre was the oversight of the tax collection power of
government, of the executive branch, because the power to tax is
the power to destroy. It is an awesome power. The powers we
invest in the Minister of National Revenue are almost police
powers. We grant to him and he grants to his officials the
power, the government's monopoly, the state's monopoly on
coercive power.
1115
All too often this coercive power is abused. Even though the
minister theoretically controls the department and is responsible
to parliament, every member of this place knows of outrageous and
scandalous instances where officials of the Department of
National Revenue have exceeded appropriate bounds in the tax
collection process.
I have raised a number of these cases in the House over the past
year. Let me review some of them to remind us why accountability
is so important.
Let me remind the minister of the case of Ms. Janice
Collingridge of Calgary. Ms. Collingridge is a severely
handicapped quadriplegic who is unable to speak. She is in a low
income situation, such that the government of Alberta provides
her with a subsidy to contract homecare workers to assist her in
her daily duties.
It turns out that a couple of years ago Ms. Collingridge managed
to use some modern technology to type out on a computer a
schedule for her homecare workers to come by at certain times of
the day and to give them certain chores and responsibilities.
The tax dogs at Revenue Canada found out about this terrible act
on the part of Ms. Collingridge, this work schedule that she had
produced, and they said “Ms. Collingridge, we are afraid that,
based on the fact you created this schedule, these homecare
workers we regard as employees of yours who are now obliged to
pay payroll taxes and you are now liable for back payroll taxes
of about $5,000”.
A non-verbal, low income quadriplegic gets dragged into the Tax
Court of Alberta at Calgary by this minister's officials to try
to force her to give this government $5,000 for supposedly
withholding payroll taxes for people who were there helping her
live on a daily basis, supplied by the provincial government. I
say shame on this minister and his department and this government
for allowing that kind of rabid abuse of power to occur. This is
what happens when the enormous power of tax collection is abused.
There are dozens of cases like this that I have reviewed in the
past year alone. Let me review the case of, for instance, the
Ethier family of Alberta who was assessed about $2,000 because a
disability credit was terminated by the minister's tax police.
Mrs. Ethier was disabled and unable to dress her upper body
without assistance. Her doctor wrote in a medical report that
she was unable to perceive, think or remember to the extent that
she was limited in the ability to do personal care or manage
personal affairs. In other words, she was seriously disabled.
Medical reports clearly indicated this condition, but despite
this evidence Revenue Canada officials ignored her medical
reports and persisted with their re-assessment to deny her
disability credit. Revenue Canada ruled that she could work when
the doctors said she could not.
This is a curious position because her own doctor said “She
constantly needs supervision”. This is the kind of
hard-hearted, cruel tactics sometimes employed by the minister's
tax cops.
[Translation]
Let us talk about the case of Régent Millette of Laval, Quebec.
His is a good example of the extraordinary tax collection
powers of the government. Mr. Millette wrote my office to tell
me about the many difficulties he had experienced in recent
years, when his property was seized and his family and friends,
including his 91-year-old mother, were harassed. He had a very
difficult time coming up with enough money to meet the needs of
his family. The problems he was facing pushed him to the brink
of suicide.
1120
When his case came up in court, the judge, Mr. Justice Jean-Louis
Beaudoin, said “The law is the law, and we must apply it. This
is the only reason I support the opinion of my colleague, but I
deplore the cavalier and clearly abusive fashion—”
The judge himself said that Revenue Canada officials had used
illegal means to collect the money.
[English]
Finally, I raise the case of Suzanne and John Thiessen of
Manitoba. They had confidential income tax information leaked to
the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation without their consent.
We raised this case in the House and the Minister of Revenue said
“We have provisions to ensure the confidentiality of information
at Revenue Canada”.
If that is the case, then why have I received several similar
reports of leaked tax returns going to a crown corporation in
Manitoba without the authorization of these taxpayers?
These are all reasons we need not to diminish accountability in
the tax collection process, as the minister proposes to do in the
bill, but rather to enhance accountability to ensure that cases
like the Collingridge case, the Millette case and the Thiessen
case cannot happen, and that if they do happen, somebody, namely
the minister, is going to be on the hot set and accountable to
the democratically elected representatives of taxpayers.
We propose to do precisely that through the adoption of a
taxpayer bill of rights. Let me be clear. We would be prepared
to consider supporting the bill because of the potential gains in
terms of efficiency and flexibility in administration if the
government were to adopt a taxpayer bill of rights with teeth to
put the rights of taxpayers ahead of the tactics used by the tax
collectors in the process.
Today we have released and tabled our draft taxpayer bill of
rights which would enshrine the rights to due process in the tax
collection process and the presumption of honesty on the part of
taxpayers. Now we have something called the declaration of
taxpayer rights which is really just a gimmicky slogan that
people find in brochures which the government distributes. It
has no statutory authority. We are calling upon the government
to pass a law which would enumerate the rights of taxpayers in
the audit, assessment and collection processes of the revenue
department or future agency.
The rights that we would enumerate in the taxpayer bill of
rights would include the right to understand tax laws. Lay
people should have access to the tax laws in plain language, not
in the kind of incomprehensible gobbledegook which is found in
the 1,300 page Income Tax Act.
We would include a right for taxpayers to be treated in a
professional and courteous manner, for taxpayers to be able to
complain about poor treatment or service, to receive a written
response from officials at the agency or department and also the
ability to appeal such a response.
We would grant taxpayers the right to pay the amount of tax
required by law and not a penny more. Government officials would
be obligated to inform taxpayers in cases of overpayment.
We would provide taxpayers with the legislated right to know the
purpose for which information is being requested and information
on exactly what penalties are applicable if that information is
not provided.
We would include the right for taxpayers to represent themselves
or appoint someone to act in their place in any dealings with
Revenue Canada or the CCRA, as well as the right to record any
and all meetings with revenue officials without being required to
give notice of doing so.
We would continue to give taxpayers the right to appeal revenue
rulings, first administratively through the appeals branch and
later through the courts. We would have Revenue Canada waive
penalties and interest wherever it can be shown that a taxpayer
acted in good faith and without the intention to evade, or relied
upon incorrect advice provided by revenue officials.
1125
I could mention numerous cases where revenue officials have
given inaccurate information, taxpayers in good faith have taken
it and ended up finding themselves being penalized for having
done so.
In cases where penalties and interest can cause severe financial
hardship or in cases where reassessments can be proven to cause
severe financial hardship, alternative arrangements should be
made available through abatement or negotiated repayment
schedules.
Finally, where fraud or evasion are suspected, Revenue Canada
officials would be permitted to seize or freeze assets after
first demonstrating a compelling reason for which such action
must be taken. Taxpayers would have the right to complain to the
office for taxpayer protection, which we would create in this
taxpayer bill of rights, in cases where the seizing of assets can
be expected to create serious financial hardship for others, such
as employees or family members.
This is just a brief summary of some of the rights that we think
could be incorporated in such a statute, but we would invite
input from all members, parties and Canadians on how to
strengthen a statutory protection like this.
The bill that we propose in terms of a taxpayer bill of rights
would, as I have mentioned, be enforced by the office for
taxpayer protection. He or she would be an officer of
parliament, similar to the auditor general, who would report to
parliament and would be asked to provide us with a summary of at
least 25 of the most serious problems encountered by Revenue
Canada or the revenue agency in a given year.
The taxpayer ombudsman would be empowered to issue taxpayer
protection borders where necessary to protect taxpayers from
arbitrary treatment that could lead to undue financial hardship.
He or she could act as an advocate of last resort for taxpayers
who feel they are being treated unfairly or in an unjust or
arbitrary manner by revenue officials.
He or she could assist taxpayers in resolving disputes with the
revenue department or agency, could identify areas where
taxpayers have been consistently having problems with the agency
and could offer some recommendations on how these problems could
be resolved.
Finally, the taxpayer protection officer could make
recommendations to parliament about proposed changes to the
administrative practices of the revenue agency in order to
minimize problems incurred by taxpayers.
This is not a completely novel idea. Recently many Canadians
heard about the scandalous revelations before the United States
Senate finance committee on the operations of the Internal
Revenue Service. As a result of the horror stories that were
told by many taxpayers, the Government of the United States, the
Congress and the presidency have adopted a new taxpayer bill of
rights, which includes many excellent ideas which, again, give
the presumption of innocence to honest taxpayers in the
collection process.
We want to remind the government that it does not matter how
much it tinkers with the tax collection process, that unless and
until we see fundamental reform of tax policy in this country,
giving the provinces greater flexibility to administer their own
tax laws and getting this destructive 1,300 page Byzantine tax
code that nobody understands, under control, and until we provide
Canadians with real tax relief, people will not have faith in the
tax collection process.
Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the finance minister to Louis XIV, said
that tax collection consists of plucking a goose so as to produce
the most amount of feathers with the least amount of hissing.
It seems that that is the objective of this government. It is
goose plucking and trying to do so in the most efficient way
possible. However, the reality is that Canadians are overtaxed.
They are overburdened by an enormous tax code, by a department of
over 40,000 people, sucking up enormous resources that could
otherwise be directed to productive private sector employment and
economic activity. Instead, billions and billions of dollars in
this economy are wasted by businesses and taxpayers in complying
with the enormous and out of control Income Tax Act.
The official opposition will oppose Bill C-43 unless the
government responds to our call for the adoption of a taxpayer
bill of rights with teeth and the creation of an office for
taxpayer protection to enforce that act.
1130
Furthermore, we really are not that interested in this
government's plans for continuing to pluck $160 billion out of
the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. We want to see tax relief and
fundamental tax reform. I call upon the government and this
minister to start moving in that direction.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I think you will find that there is
unanimous consent for the following motion.
That the 36th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs regarding the membership and associate membership
of the standing committees of the House be deemed tabled and
concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
FINANCE AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find that there is also unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That the following standing committees be permitted to meet later
this day for the purposes of Standing Order 106:
Finance at 1.00 p.m.
Public Accounts at 3.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
similarly I think you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That the 37th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs regarding the selection of votable items in
accordance with Standing Order 92 be deemed tabled and concurred
in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an
act to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency and to
amend and repeal other acts as a consequence, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I too wish to say a few words on the bill that is before
the House today.
It is a bill to establish a taxation agency. In other words, it
takes the function that Revenue Canada now has away from Revenue
Canada and establishes a taxation agency which would have
sweeping powers to administer not just income tax at the federal
level and to collect that tax, but to collect income tax at the
provincial level, to collect the federal GST, to collect
provincial sales taxes, to collect liquor taxes, gasoline taxes
and eventually down the road to collect taxes from
municipalities. That is the purpose of the bill before the House
today.
It is a very important and fundamental change in the
administration of taxes in this country. It is a bill that
deserves a lot of attention by members of this House in terms of
whether or not we want to go in this direction as a country.
The minister spoke this morning. He told us that there are a
couple of important reasons for proposing this legislation. I
want to review those very briefly. He said it is important that
we have a federal-provincial tax agency that the provinces and
federal government subscribe to in terms of collecting taxes. He
said that this agency would be more efficient, would save money
and so on. I raise a few concerns about this because of what I
see happening in the country.
On the question of provincial-federal co-operation, if that were
the case it would be an excellent theory. As I read the country
around me, I find there is very adamant opposition to this by the
provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
Right there, two provinces representing around two-thirds of the
population of the country are opposing this bill. Saskatchewan
and British Columbia are certainly not convinced that this is
good legislation.
1135
My understanding is that there is not a single province to date,
unless I am out of touch here, that has officially signed on to
this agency or has even signed a letter of intent. Maybe the
minister will get up and correct that.
That seems to me to be a very bad start when the provinces are
in opposition to a bill that is supposed to be there to collect
taxes for the provinces and the federal government. The
provinces see this as an intrusion into their field of
jurisdiction. I think that is a serious matter in terms of
federal-provincial relations. It is a serious matter of the lack
of co-operative federalism in a country where we need more
co-operative federalism and governments working together in
concert with each other. I know the minister agrees with that
but it has not happened so far.
The minister tells us to be patient. We can be patient but in
the long run we are all dead. How long does he want us to be
patient? He tells us to trust him. Well a lot of people in
politics have said “Trust me and things will work out”. The
minister is a pretty honest and straightforward guy but he cannot
by himself get the Ontario or Quebec governments or any other
province to come onside.
There is also the issue of Quebec. I worry about some of the
national unity consequences of this in terms of the timing. The
Quebec government certainly sees this as an intrusion into
provincial jurisdiction. Quebec is not talking about ceding more
power to a federal agency. In fact most Quebecers, including the
provincial Liberal Party, talk about a greater devolution of
power to the province of Quebec. Whether it is a greater
devolution to all the provinces or asymmetrical federalism, they
would like a greater devolution.
This bill is now coming within months of the writs being dropped
for a provincial election in Quebec. It is a very crucial
election in terms of that province and the future of our country,
which may or may not result in another referendum about the
future of Canada.
Again I worry about the timing of this bill in terms of the
federal-provincial consequences and the consequences in the
province of Quebec. I question the wisdom of this. If we want to
make this country work, we need co-operative federalism.
A long time ago we had leaders in this House of Commons who
talked a lot about co-operative federalism: Lester Pearson when
he was prime minister of the country; Bob Stanfield, the leader
of the Conservative Party; Tommy Douglas, the leader of the New
Democratic Party. This country was making great progress in
terms of national unity, in bringing this country together, in
the sharing of powers and in co-operation.
Now it seems that we have a bill here that is going in the
opposite direction. If there were a federal-provincial agreement
on this and agreement from the provinces, it would be a different
case, but that is not the case in the bill before us today. That
is a major concern I wanted to raise in the House.
I also want to raise the concern about the diminishing power of
government itself. This is really the most major privatization
this government has carried out. It is quasi-privatization. It
is taking away 40,000 public servants from the Department of
National Revenue, which is about 20% of the public servants. It
is slicing away about $2 billion from the estimates of this
country to establish an agency that will be run according to the
business practices that will be arm's length from the Parliament
of Canada and from the minister himself.
The minister assures us that the powers are still there and that
he is still responsible because that is the way the legislation
is written. Even the auditor general was concerned about this in
his report in December 1997. He was concerned about the public
interest and about the arm's length of this agency in terms of
accountability. As was mentioned by a member of the Reform
Party, there is a growing lack of accountability of government
agencies and government bodies.
I am also concerned about the diminishing role of government and
of the public sector which has certainly been expedited since the
Liberal Party took office. The Liberal Party used to complain
when the Brian Mulroney government privatized something or
diminished the role of government, yet that has been expedited
since the 1993 election.
1140
There has been a lot of talk about uniting the right. I think
the right is pretty much united. It sits across the way. It is
the Liberal Government of Canada.
An hon. member: That is a lot of rubbish.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: They say it is rubbish but look what
has happened. There has been privatization of the CNR,
privatization of a lot of companies, the gutting of employment
insurance, the health plan, all of these things. Going back to
EI, there are many people who cannot even qualify because of the
changes to employment insurance which were done not by Brian
Mulroney and the Tories, but by the Liberal government across the
way.
This bill is another example of that drift to the right. That
party over there when in opposition tried to be very progressive
in the way it talked. Now that it is in government it is
extremely conservative. That is the historical position of the
Liberal Party of Canada. I am concerned about that as well.
I also wanted to mention some of the concerns about business
itself. This is supposed to make it more cost efficient and
easier for business to comply with and so on. As has already
been referred to, a study was commissioned by Revenue Canada
itself from the Public Policy Forum. What were the results of
that study? It said 68% of the people who were questioned thought
that there would either be an increase in the costs of compliance
or there would be no impact whatsoever in terms of the costs of
compliance.
Two-thirds of the business community said it would not matter
one way or the other in terms of costs or else their costs would
go up. What is the government's reply to that? This is to be
done to keep down costs, to make things more efficient. The
business community does not seem to agree and the study seems to
verify that so why go ahead with it?
That is my third concern. The first one is the provincial
opposition, the second one the whole idea of privatization that
diminishes the role of the public sector in Canada. The third one
is that the business community itself, small businesses and large
businesses, are concerned that their costs will either remain the
same or increase with this new agency.
The fourth thing I am concerned about is the whole question to
which I already referred, that of accountability. Right now we
have a government department and a minister who is accountable
for Revenue Canada. That has been the practice in this country.
Once we establish a new agency that is at arm's length, that
will have a management board, that will draw up a business plan
and then report that business plan through a CEO to the Minister
of National Revenue, I think there will be less accountability in
terms of the Government of Canada to the people of this country.
We will have more and more people from the private sector sitting
on that board, recommended and nominated by the provinces and so
on. It will be more of a private sector orientation.
I also wonder about this new layer of bureaucracy that will be
established in terms of the management board. What about the
salaries of the CEO and senior executives? Will they reflect the
salaries in private corporations instead of the salaries of
senior government officials? Senior officials have always
received an increase in salaries but their salaries are nowhere
near what the CEOs and senior executives in the private sector
receive.
This agency would employ 40,000 people and would be one of the
largest corporations in the country, a bit smaller than Canada
Post at 50,000, but would still be very, very large, and the
senior management team received compensation comparable to what
we see in the private sector. This will be an additional cost.
I wonder about all these things in terms of accountability. We
are getting less and less accountability in our so-called
democratic parliamentary system as more and more decision making
is taken away. In fact we have had in many ways the
privatization of decision making as more decisions are made
outside parliament.
Accountability has gone away from this place. We have
government backbenchers and MPs all around who have very little
say over the public policy direction of the country. This is now
another example of some power that is being taken away from the
Parliament of Canada.
I am concerned about the size of the agency itself. What we
have here is a vision of a super tax collection agency if it
evolves. It is being given the power to evolve so we should look
at what might happen in 10 or 15 years. It will collect not just
federal taxes but will also collect provincial taxes, the gas
tax, the liquor tax. It may also collect municipal taxes,
property taxes, school taxes and so on. It would be like a mega
tax man, like a Frankenstein.
1145
People are concerned about that. They are concerned about
evolving into the kind of agency that we see in the United States
with the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service, in terms of how that
agency is out of control and is arm's length from the Government
of the United States.
The IRS, by the way, is still a government department in the
United States. The IRS is not an agency in the United States. It
operates in a very independent and aggressive fashion. I do not
know if we want the kind of tax agency they have in the United
States in this country, with the Canadian background and
tradition we have of trying to work things out between the
provinces, the municipalities and the federal government. The
vision of the agency is that of a huge taxation agency which
collects all taxes.
I have another concern. One of the purposes—and the minister
does not talk about it any more—of establishing the agency was
to try to blend the GST with the provincial sales tax, the BST or
the HST, the harmonized sales tax.
I remember very well the campaign in 1993. I remember the
promise made by the prime minister that if the Liberal Party were
elected it would get rid of the GST. Do members remember that
one? There is a member on the backbench hanging his head in
shame; he is crying. At least the member from Hamilton had the
honesty and the integrity to say “yes, that is a promise we
made”; to resign her seat; and to face her people in a
byelection campaign. However the GST is still there. Why has the
GST not disappeared? It is a promise the Liberals made and it is
still there.
One purpose of the agency was to get around that campaign
promise by abolishing the GST, rolling it into the provincial
sales taxes across the country and calling it a harmonized sales
tax. They floated the idea with the provinces and the only
provinces that agreed were the three Liberal provinces in
Atlantic Canada: Mr. Tobin in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia—
An hon. member: And Quebec.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: The sales tax situation in Quebec
changed a long time before the Liberal Party took office. It was
a totally different regime. It was initiated by the Government
of Quebec and a deal was made a long time before the Liberals
took power. The only people that agreed to the harmonized sales
tax were in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
One raison d'être of the agency is to push the idea of
harmonizing sales taxes. I can say from my trips to Atlantic
Canada that the blended sales tax, the HST, is very unpopular. It
almost led to the defeat of the Liberal government in the Nova
Scotia election just a few months ago. It did defeat the
government in Prince Edward Island.
Another concern I have about the bill before the House today is
that once the agency is established the pressure will be there.
They will put pressure on the provinces to agree to harmonize the
tax. Even my friend from Souris—Moose Mountain in Saskatchewan
would not agree with the BST. He would not agree with a blended
sales tax, and he is a member of the Reform Party.
We have a number of reasons for questioning the bill and I want
to summarize them again very briefly. The first is provincial
opposition. The provinces do not like an agency that will
collect federal and provincial taxes. Ontario has said no.
Quebec has said no. The other provinces have not signed on.
Saskatchewan and British Columbia are unlikely to sign on. Why
would we have this agency, which is supposed to be a
federal-provincial agency?
On the question of national unity, with the Quebec election
coming up, this is an agency that is supposed to take power away
from the provinces rather than give power to them. That is a
concern to most members of the House.
Second is the very size of the agency in terms of it developing
into an agency like the Internal Revenue Service in the United
States.
Third is the whole question of privatization, diminishing the
role of government and downsizing the public service. The Reform
Party may agree with that. It does not really like government.
It does not really like the public sector. That is not the
Canadian way. That is not the Canadian tradition. That is one
reason the Reform Party is going nowhere. It is taking a stand
against Canadian tradition that the public sector is extremely
important, a very important part of what makes the country tick.
Another reason I want to mention is the lack of accountability.
Accountability just will not be there once it becomes an arm's
length agency.
1150
Those are our major concerns as a party. I close by saying to
the minister and to government members across the way that if
four opposition parties have concerns about the bill in these
areas, surely to goodness there must be government backbenchers
that have the same concerns. They talk to their constituents.
They listen to the people. They hear from the unions involved
with Revenue Canada and know the opposition of the majority of
the unions such as the Public Service Alliance of Canada. They
hear from the workers who will be affected directly. They talk
to people. Surely to goodness we can have some independent
thinking on the Liberal side of the House. They should get up to
express some concern that the bill does not go in the right
direction.
It is about time we had a parliamentary system that allowed
people to take off the muzzle and speak their minds. Surely to
goodness we cannot have all the government thinking one way and
the opposition thinking another. No wonder people are
questioning the sanity of this place and the relevance of the
Parliament of Canada. Yet the whips will be on to those
backbenchers who talked to me privately. They questioned the
bill and the wisdom of the agency but they will not be allowed to
say so in the House. They will not be able to vote that way. Let
us have a free vote on this issue so that members of the House
can express their feelings and the feelings of their
constituents.
This should not be a confidence vote. There is no reason it
should be a confidence vote. It does not go to the heart of
government policy. It does not go to the heart of a government
budget. If we have a free vote on this issue we can speak our
minds and ensure that we are doing the right thing for the
people. I am glad the Reformers agree with that.
The Liberals have talked about free votes time and time again,
but in their five years in the House they have not delivered on
the promise of a free vote.
I close by making an appeal to the minister across the way. Let
us have a beginning of parliamentary reform, a beginning of a
true democracy in this institution, by allowing a free vote on an
important bill regarding the collection of Canadian taxes.
It is a very important issue. The collection of taxes is a
fundamental issue in democracy. It is the prerogative of the
state. The role of the state is to collect taxes. I do not want
to see it privatized or evolved away to an agency that will be
run according to business practices. I do not want to see it
turned over to an agency that will not be accountable to the
government like it has been in the past. I do not want to see
that happen.
Let us have a free vote. If I could ask the minister whether or
not he would agree with that, I would be glad to sit down to hear
his answer.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the hon.
colleagues from all three parties and want to address a couple of
issues they brought forward.
Canadians have said that they want governments to work together.
Canadians recognize that we are overgoverned. Canadians recognize
that a lot of overlap and duplication exists in the country. We
have listened to Canadians and we responded.
One thing I want to point out is that the provinces have an
option. This does not in any way force the provinces to let us
collect more of their taxes. We already collect a lot of their
taxes. In fact in some provinces we collect 80% of their
revenue; in other provinces we collect 50%. The agency is a
vehicle to create new options and new opportunities for
provinces, territories and Canadians.
The hon. member for the NDP talked about the auditor general's
report. That report was before some of the changes I made to
give full accountability to parliament and full accountability to
the Minister of National Revenue. The comments the auditor
general made were regarding the older model without the changes I
have made.
Small businesses know the paper burden they have to go through.
They know about overlap and duplication.
They are asking the government to respond.
1155
There is only one taxpayer in the country. If we could have one
tax administration, a single window, we would be better off.
Canadians do not want us to build parallel systems in every
province as the member from the Bloc Quebecois wants. His view
is that it is good but the provinces must collect all taxes.
Small business people would respond to that because they do not
want to be dealing with 10 different jurisdictions across the
country. They do not want a different system of tax collection
in every province. They want a single window approach. They
want to reduce paperwork. They want to make sure there is less
burden on the business people. Why? It is because we want them
to do what they do best, which is run their businesses. We want
an organization that can respond to the new needs.
We have electronic commerce now. Someone can sell a good from
Quebec into British Columbia. How are we to respond to that? How
are we to respond to changes? We need a national agency that can
work with all provinces.
The hon. member talked about co-operative federalism. This is
in co-operation with the provinces. The provinces say in some
cases we are collecting 80% of their taxes but in some cases they
do not have any say. This will provide them with a real say by
ensuring they can nominate people to the board of the agency.
They do not have that now. In some provinces are collecting 50%
or more of their taxes. It is really about creating new options.
The hon. member also said this was another way to harmonize.
Absolutely not. We are saying that we can collect taxes for the
provinces which are not harmonized. Recently I had a discussion
with the minister of finance from British Columbia who said
“That is a very good idea. We should look at how we can reduce
the burden to small business”.
I have had meetings with ministers of finance across the
country. We have officials working right now to identify those
areas in which we can work together co-operatively when it is a
benefit to the province, to the business community and to
Canadians. That is what this vehicle is about. It is about
creating options and better service for Canadians. It is about
providing better service to our small business people.
We are a trading nation. We need to ensure that we are
efficient. If we are efficient we can be more competitive in the
new global economy. This is about reaching a new vision. This
is about working together. This is about responding to
Canadians. We will continue to do that as a government.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I reply to the minister
by saying that if the agency is such a great thing for the
provinces, why have the provinces not agreed to come at this
stage? Ontario has said no. Quebec has said no. There is no
agreement in British Columbia and no agreement in Saskatchewan.
If this is such a great thing in terms of co-operative
federalism, why has there not been a provincial-federal agreement
or letters of intent from at least a majority of the provinces
indicating that have signed on at this stage?
I can see why some provinces might not want to agree. It is
difficult to get unanimous consent of all provinces. Ontario and
Quebec alone represent two-thirds of the population. If this is
such a great vehicle of federal-provincial co-operation, why has
that not happened?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, the provinces
particularly in western Canada have asked me for such an agency.
They have been saying they want to play a role in the agency.
When I met with the ministers from Saskatchewan and Manitoba they
asked for such an agency, and we are responding to them.
When the HST was signed in the maritimes one of the requests
those provinces made was to have an agency in which they would
have a say. We are responding to the provinces. Of course we do
not have an agency until we pass the legislation. They want to
see what the final wording is. They want to make sure they know
exactly what they are getting.
I have had very good meetings with ministers of finance across
the country. They have said it is the right direction because
they understand the needs of the business community. They
understand the needs of Canadians. They know we have to respond
to the changes in Canada. We have to respond to the new
realities, and that is what the agency is all about.
1200
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, I
wonder whether the minister can table in the House some letters
from the provinces where they certainly will indicate that in
principle they agree with the agency, some letters of intent.
We have the bill before the House today. We have a fair number
of details. The legislation is there. It has been talked about.
We have the bill here in the House at second reading. My
experience in this place is that if it is a federal-provincial
agency or program, we know exactly where the provinces stand.
I wonder if the minister can table in the House some proof that
the provinces are enthused by this, that they like the principle
of this, that their intention is to sign on, providing the
details live up to their expectations.
This is what he is saying to the House. I wonder if he can
table some information to document that fact.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal: Mr. Speaker, Manitoba
finance minister Eric Stefanson on May 22, 1998, talking about
the agency, said western provinces have long advocated a national
agency. He supports the concept.
Let me also quote Mr. Ed Blanchard, minister of finance for New
Brunswick: “Where there are efficiencies to be gained, I am open
to alternatives. There may be areas that, yes, some of our
current taxes can be collected in an efficient way by this agency
and I have not shut the door on any possibility”.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, these are quotes in the
media and we have all seen the media. We have media scanners and
so on. What I am concerned about is where is the beef. Where are
these letters of intent? Where are the documents that show these
provinces are going to sign on, that they like this principle and
that they will sign on providing all the details and regulations
are okay?
They have seen the bill. They have seen the principles of the
bill. They have seen the details of the law. All that is
missing are the regulations or any amendments that might be made
by the Parliament of Canada.
Even in the constitutional debates we had in the House back in
1980 we knew exactly where the provinces stood in terms of
letters of intent. They would be in communication with us. Prime
Minister Trudeau could get up and say Ontario supports him and
Manitoba does not.
Where is the beef? Where are these letters? Where is all the
support the minister is talking about, outside of press
clippings?
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the time for questions
and comments has expired.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, first
of all I would like to comment on the new entente that seems to
exist on that side of the House. Now that Reformers and New
Democrats are seated together, they seem to be developing a
certain comfort and a certain respect for the principles of each
of their parties. Perhaps in the future we might see a unite the
light movement in this House in the efforts of co-operative
opposition.
It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill C-43.
While the minister speaks of the provinces having greater
opportunities to affect control and to have control over the
levers of this very important agency than they have now with
Revenue Canada, I would posit that the provinces' opposition or
at least their lack of approval and their concern with this new
agency is an indication that they do not believe that greater
power and greater authority will be had by the provinces of the
levers of this new agency, this new, if you will, King John Inc.
the government is proposing today.
The government offloads responsibilities to the provinces by
making draconian cuts to health care, for instance, $7 billion in
the last term. The minister said there is only one taxpayer.
The provinces and the municipalities have been faced with an ever
increasing tax burden as a result of the government's failure to
lead and the government's failure to take responsibility for
national matters, including issues like health care funding.
1205
If the minister is going to be true to his phrase that there is
only one taxpayer, he should recognize the near toxic levels of
hypocrisy of his government in effectively reducing spending and
offloading responsibility to the provinces. You can offload a
lot of things but you cannot really offload leadership. That is
what this government has tried to do.
The government proposal to transform Revenue Canada from a
government department into an agency raises some very serious
questions. Revenue Canada is the largest government department.
At various times of the year it has between 40,000 and 46,000
employees. Revenue Canada has many responsibilities including,
of course, primarily the collecting of federal taxes and various
fees, harmonized sales tax in three provinces, personal income
tax on behalf of nine provinces and corporate taxes on behalf of
seven provinces.
The new agency is to assume all these responsibilities and
the new agency is supposed to be as efficient as the department
was without any increased cost to the taxpayer.
I suggest that unless the provinces buy in, unless the provinces
support this direction and this new agency, any claims by the
government that this agency will lead to greater efficiencies and
save the taxpayer money are specious at best.
The government is saying that we could save between $97 million
and $162 million per year if all the provinces participate. That
is a very big if at this juncture. Currently the provinces have
not demonstrated a significant interest in having Ottawa collect
and have more authority in effect over taxes beyond what Revenue
Canada does currently.
Ontario is looking to attain greater authority over its tax
levers. It cannot simply be said to the provinces that someone
is going to have more authority over their spending without
providing them with more direct authority over tax policies. Some
of the provinces feel this agency may ultimately lead to less. If
the provinces are not interested, obviously the agency will not
save money or lead to greater efficiencies. The board of
management may be yet another bureaucratic layer that will simply
lead to increased costs.
Another issue is privacy. Too much information on individuals
will be concentrated with one agency which will, as a private
agency, be looking to contract out services for auditing and
collection and ultimately the tax system may become less
confidential than it is now.
We believe very strongly in the ability for private agencies
and/or privatization to provide efficiencies but that has to be
balanced against the very important delivery of service,
particularly the confidentiality of this, the most important area
of government in terms of its direct contact with people and the
level of authority that an agency, currently Revenue Canada, has
on people.
I suggest there is also a significant risk in terms of its use
of power for this agency. Currently we have a very direct
ministerial responsibility with Revenue Canada. That is a good
check and balance. This House is a good check and balance on
this government department of Revenue Canada.
There have been studies done on the impact to somebody of
receiving a letter from a tax agency saying they are being
audited. A tax audit letter evokes about the same level of
emotion and fear as—
An hon. member: Gallbladder.
Mr. Scott Brison: I hear a member opposite speaking of a
gallbladder attack. I am not certain whether it has that level
of medical effect but it evokes the same level of emotion that a
letter of a death of a close relative would. That is the level
of impact.
When one receives a letter from Revenue Canada there is the
whole idea that as an individual citizen or as the owner of a
small business they will be taking on this huge omnipotent force
which ultimately has all the levers. It is extremely frightening
to Canadians.
1210
There is a fear that this agency will become Godzilla the tax
collector and that it will have greater force and less political
accountability, which is quite frightening.
As a small business person I received one of those letters a few
years ago. I spent about a year and a half defending myself
against my own government. Ultimately the government said I was
right and it was wrong. However, during that period I spent
thousands of dollars on a tax accountant to defend myself. When
I consider that, the type of situation which exists with
small businesses and individuals across Canada, I fear that this
agency could make it worse because we do not have the political
accountability of members of this House and the minister who can
effectively act as a watchdog over that type of activity and
behaviour.
I would argue that while we are dealing with the agency of
delivery of tax collection in Canada, we should be dealing in a more
holistic way with the whole nature of taxes in Canada. I applaud
the Mintz report on corporate taxation which came out two months
ago and which I think has some very beneficial and constructive
public policy positions that can if implemented help simplify,
ultimately flatten and reduce the bureaucratic nightmare that
Canadian businesses are subject to in dealing with their own
government.
In terms of personal taxes we also need to similarly simplify
and flatten to a certain extent tax policy in Canada because
currently our tax code is too complicated. There is something
fundamentally wrong with the whole concept that Canadians need to
hire a tax accountant or in some cases a tax lawyer to simply
deal with their own government.
I do not see this agency going a long way to achieving any of
these ends. I see it as a symbolic or band-aid approach that
arguably will not accomplish a whole lot. It is based on the
premise that public servants cannot necessarily provide the same
level of competency that a private agency might.
If we create incentives within all our public agencies or
departments, incentives that recognize and reward excellence as
opposed to encouraging mediocrity, i.e. if we introduce market
incentives within the existing agencies, we can achieve economies
without necessarily creating new agencies.
This new agency may be an indication of the government's trying
to pander to this whole public sentiment that the public service
does not do a good job or the public service cannot do a good
job. I think that is very unfortunate.
One of the tragedies or one of the losses that we have seen in
recent years is that politicians have made gratuitous attacks on
public servants without really considering the ramifications of
those attacks. One of the damages sustained by those types of
attacks has been the low level of morale we have within our
public service now. Our public service I suggest is at an all
time low in terms of morale. We simply cannot accept that there
are not people who want to work within government departments and
to succeed, to excel, to be proud of what they do and to provide
the levels of service to their country that are important and
which in the past have been encouraged. We can make many of the
changes necessary within the existing department without creating
this new agency.
The provinces are not really interested in having a new agency.
1215
Ontario is looking at increased powers for collecting its own
taxes.
The board of management will be just another bureaucratic layer
which will add additional costs. We see too much power
concentrated in one agency which will have less accountability to
parliament and to the minister. The power of authority or
information on individual Canadians is going to be extremely
concentrated. Again, this agency will be less accountable to
parliament than a department and the minister will not be
involved in any day to day functioning of the department.
We see current employees who will lose existing rights,
including job security and the right to bargain on staffing
matters. Keep in mind that there will only be a two year job
guarantee and we are effectively dealing with, I understand,
about 25% of the public service.
We have to take a look at whether or not this agency would in
fact not be more flexible than Revenue Canada, but less flexible
in working with other government departments, including the
finance department, and the provinces. Because of the need that
we have in this country for holistic tax reform, perhaps this is
simply not the time we should be creating a separate agency. In
fact we need more federal-provincial co-operation, not just on
tax enforcement, but on overall tax policy. We need more
co-operation between the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada
and the provinces.
To take away the political element of that I think would be a
huge mistake at a time when we have an unprecedented need for
forward thinking tax reform.
Again, I think the government is focusing on reforming tax
enforcement. Yes, there are reforms that are necessary. Those
reforms need to provide greater accountability, not less
accountability. In our opinion, this legislation and this new
agency would provide less accountability. Therefore it may be
arguably a step in the wrong direction.
Secondly, it may actually increase the barriers to co-operation
between the provinces and the federal government and the
Department of Finance to effect change and develop a holistic
approach to tax policy which will result in a fairer, flatter tax
policy which will be more conducive to economic growth and the
success of Canadians in the global market.
It was with great pleasure that I heard my hon. colleague from
the Reform Party today speaking of a declaration of taxpayer
rights or a taxpayer bill of rights. I thought for a moment it
was Trent Lott speaking or Newt Gingrich with darker hair. I
believe that the hon. member is happy with that comparison.
But the hon. member does strike a chord in terms of the
importance of our tax policy in Canada and our tax enforcement
practices being less intrusive and more respectful of Canadians.
I was one of those Canadians who did receive one of those tax
audit letters one day. My only crime at the age of 22 was
operating a small business that employed young Canadians.
Ultimately the government agreed with me, but it took me almost
two years and thousands of dollars to a tax accountant to defend
myself against my own government.
I agree with my hon. colleague from the Reform Party. I would
bring to his attention the declaration of taxpayer rights which
was part of the work done by a former member of this House and
former cabinet minister, Perrin Beatty, who is a forward thinking
member of the Progressive Conservative Party. He also saw the
need and in fact had some results in improving the level of
accountability.
We are talking about issues of privacy and confidentiality,
impartiality, courtesy and consideration, the presumption of
innocence, and impartial hearings before payment; all of those
types of issues.
We have made progress in the past and we have to continue
working to make progress in the future on these types of issues.
1220
I do not see Bill C-43 and this new agency as necessarily being
conducive to this process. We need to ensure that we do not
separate the political will that is necessary to effect change in
this very important matter from a logistical body that enforces
tax policy in Canada. There is a very dangerous separation that
may result in less ability for elected members of the House or
the minister to effect change, to control and to have the ability
to govern things like abuse of power by Revenue Canada agents and
that sort of thing.
It is great to hear the support of members opposite for
consumption taxes. We wish they had been more vocal in their
support of consumption taxes in 1993 when the Conservative
government replaced the counter-productive manufacturers sales
tax with the GST, which ultimately was the right tax at that
time. It has demonstrated to be a fairer tax than many of the
income taxes and other taxes that this government seems
comfortable with.
I should not criticize the government for having adopted sound
Conservative polices. The only thing worse than it having
shamelessly taken those policies from the previous government
would have been if it had implemented its own. The consequences
of those would have been far more egregious and detrimental to
Canadians. I am making a muted criticism of the government for
taking our policies, but I want to commend it on its judgment for
having done so. It took this government longer to learn and
absorb the benefits of sound economic policy. Perhaps it did not
catch on at the time of the 1993 election. However, it has since
accepted those measures, including free trade and the GST.
I ask the minister to work very hard to implement many of the
recommendations of the Mintz report on business taxation. On the
personal tax side we need similar reforms that simplify and
flatten our tax code. I hope we devote our energies to that type
of approach and to those types of very important public policy
initiatives and less time on bureaucratic window dressing changes
that ultimately will result in King John Inc., but will not
necessarily make any difference in the way tax policies are
enforced or implemented, which may result in even larger problems
in the future.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I gather that the Minister of Revenue has decided not to engage
my colleague from Kings—Hants in his comments on the minister's
bill, which is unfortunate.
The hon. member spoke about the need for tax reform. I share
his concern, as I expressed at the conclusion of my remarks, that
this government seems to be more concerned about figuring out how
it can most effectively pluck the goose—that is to say, the
taxpayer—rather than how it can provide real tax reform to
create real incentives for people to work, to save, to invest and
to compete.
Could the hon. member enlighten us as to how he would, in broad
terms, reform the tax code which right now imposes such an
enormous burden on Canadian taxpayers?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, how many hours do I have
for this response?
I thank the hon. member for his question.
1225
I have a problem with a number of the Pavlovian tax policies of
this government; the whole idea that government, by picking
winners and losers, and by encouraging one type of activity and
discouraging others, will in fact make decisions which cause or
channel energies and economic focuses in one direction or
another.
I think, frankly, that individuals participating in a free
market can make those decisions best and that government
intervention in making some activities more profitable, or some
activities less profitable through a tax code, is in fact
evidence of government trying to effectively control populations
and individuals. I do not have an awful lot of faith in
politicians when it comes to economic policies.
I would suggest that we make personal taxes in Canada more
neutral in terms of their treatment of activities, that we treat
the tax code as a means to raise revenue, not as a means to
control Canadians, and that we also look seriously at reducing
the disincentives that exist currently with the tax brackets
which actually punish success.
While we should be trying to encourage success, we actually have
punitive measures built into our tax code to punish success.
That is perverse in a country where we are competing globally.
We should be encouraging our Canadian citizens not only to
compete, but to succeed globally.
We have a tax code in this country that causes people to be less
competitive, less focused on success and, frankly, more
frightened of their own government.
In terms of tax complexity, doing your taxes is the only
do-it-yourself project that exists where if you do it properly
you could still end up in jail. There is an inherent unfairness,
not just on the enforcement side of it, but in terms of the whole
nature of the tax code. I call it the Pavlovian nature of the
tax code.
It is very important to let businesses and individuals make
their own decisions. I think that would be a step in the right
direction. I also believe that consumption taxes are less
destructive.
I just criticized the Pavlovian tax policy, but there are some
public policy initiatives whereby we can ensure that the cost of
some behaviours are accounted for at the time, in terms of
internalizing the externalities of people's behaviour. We can
use a tax code to do that.
There are a number of areas that need to be discussed, but the
Mintz tax report actually does a lot of it. The recommendations
are fairly sound on a business level. If we were to apply some
of those principles to the personal side, I think we would go a
long way to effecting change and to introducing a greater level
of fairness, equity and incentive for success for Canadians in
the Canadian tax code.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is my first speech
since being named parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
National Revenue and it is a pleasure to speak on an issue so
fundamental to improving service and fairness for Canadian
taxpayers.
It is a pleasure to speak on a bill which seeks to uphold
Canadian values while meeting the realities and opportunities of
the modern era.
We live in a world of major economic and technological change.
We live in a world where citizens rightly expect more creativity,
accountability and efficiency from their governments.
In this world, businesses and individuals must constantly strive
to find new ways to make even good things better and so must
governments.
1230
That is the real reason behind the creation of the Canada
customs and revenue agency. We want to preserve the traditions
of the past but we also want to develop an innovative environment
that will allow us to be the best for many years to come.
[Translation]
Taxation, customs and the administration of trade policies
represent complex areas dependent upon a great many people who
do many things and do them well.
[English]
We are going to improve how we do things, even the things we
already do well.
As the minister indicated so clearly in his speech, this bill is
about fairness. It is about partnerships. It is about
accountability. It is about saving money for taxpayers and is
about modernizing our approach to meet the expectations and
aspirations of Canadians.
The Minister of National Revenue will be responsible for the
agency to parliament. He will continue to be responsible for
administering and enforcing program legislation such as the
Income Tax Act and the Customs Act. The minister will have the
authority to inquire into issues raised by members of parliament
on behalf of our constituents.
The minister outlined before this House the structure and duties
of the board of management. Having private sector people
nominated by the provinces and territories will change the system
for the better. It will guarantee even more opportunities for
federal-provincial co-operation. That is what Canadians expect
from governments. That is what Canadians expect from elected
officials.
The true measure of success for the new agency will be in its
operations. We want, as the minister said, an organization with
a state of mind that is state of the art. The real change will
be in our approach to doing business and our approach to serving
Canadians and providing them with tax and trade administration
services that are second to none.
The agency we are proposing is built upon the guiding principles
of service and fairness. Canadians have told us what they want.
They want to deal with a more client oriented tax and customs
administration. They want more personal contact and less passing
the buck. They want consistent answers. They want to deal with
an organization that is flexible, one that can accommodate a
range of human situations.
Canadians want us to make their lives a lot simpler, from
bulletins issued in plain language to business hours dealing with
modern realities of working families. Agency status will allow
us to improve service to Canadians by affording more flexibility
in the way we manage resources.
Our generation is one that often embraces technology as a
panacea for any operational challenge. In truth, technology has
been a great partner in improving the way Revenue Canada does
business. From electronic filing, to virtual customs approvals,
to Canpass, the pre-approved pass for frequent travellers, we
have used technology to improve service and to reduce costs. For
every technological change though, there are far more important
and real human values and principles at work.
[Translation]
The most important of these principles and values are trust and
honesty. It is also important that complete and transparent
information be provided to those we serve.
[English]
Those values and principles require that we show fairness in
application and of course they require that we show consistency,
accuracy and efficiency in every single transaction.
The bottom line is that human resources in the new agency will
determine whether it will be leading edge and world class or just
another shuffle of organizational charts. That is why we have
made the management of human resources a central focus for
modernization and progress.
The minister has consulted widely with Revenue Canada's
employees. Since April 1997 over 10,000 of them have been
actively involved in telling him how to create a new human
resources framework. These hardworking public servants are
decent taxpaying citizens like the rest of us. They have
stressed the need for human resources management based upon
values and principles, not complex rules and processes.
They see the importance of simplicity and flexibility. And they
want their own worth to be recognized, appreciated and respected.
1235
It is no surprise that what our employees want, values,
principles, simplicity, flexibility, recognition and respect, are
what all Canadians want. Acting on these human expectations will
be the true breakthrough for the new agency.
The bill before us proposes that the bulk of the human resources
management functions be assumed by the board of management of the
new agency. Under the legislation before the House today it will
be the board of management of the agency that approves the
negotiating mandates and collective bargaining agreements with
unions, not the federal Treasury Board. It is the agency that
will negotiate directly with its unions.
Why should the agency not negotiate with its unions? Employees
will be able to tell their representatives what they want, what
they think is good for them, their futures and their careers. By
negotiating face to face with employee representatives, the
agency's managers will hear firsthand the wishes and concerns of
their people. They will be able to act firsthand on those wishes
and concerns.
It is also the board of management that will establish agency
staffing procedures, not the Public Service Commission. The
agency will have the flexibility to design a staffing system that
directly meets the needs and rightful expectations of taxpayers
and the needs and rightful expectations of the employees. This
is a vital advance. A simple example will show why.
As many in the House will appreciate, the employment market for
computer systems and data management expertise is highly
competitive. Currently it takes Revenue Canada between six and
12 months to complete a staffing action and make an offer of
employment. Under the agency it will be possible to develop new
staffing systems as well as a classification system and salary
rates that can compete with the private sector for the
professionals we need.
I will point out something else that is very important. Revenue
Canada will not be privatized. The agency will continue to be an
integral part of the Government of Canada's responsibilities.
Employees will continue as public servants. The agency will be
accountable to parliament for how it treats its overall
responsibility to employees.
Five human resources design teams made up of managers, employees
and union participants have completed their work on the details
of important areas of the people part of the new agency:
staffing and classification, recourse, training and development
and employment equity. Each of these important issues is on the
table for discussion. It is still too early to report to the
House on what is essentially a work in progress.
However, as a result of the work of the design teams, I can tell
you what Revenue Canada employees want. They want a staffing
system with fewer rules. They want a gender neutral
classification system. They want fewer occupational groups and
levels. They want the human resource system and the work
environment to encourage diversity and reflect the Canadian
public they serve. They want greater emphasis placed on
transferable skills and past performance. They want a simple,
quick and fair system of recourse.
The agency structure that we propose will allow us to
accommodate these demands. We have to co-ordinate and simplify
our human resources processes so that the right person is in the
right place at the right time. That is not only a matter of
staffing. It is also a matter of training and development, of
improving the way we work, for example, more flexible hours or
flexible places of work, including work at home. It means
finding ways to attract people to the jobs that need doing.
I can assure you that all Revenue Canada employees will be
offered a job in the agency. They will remain public servants
during and after the transition. Collective agreements in force
at the time of the start-up of the agency will be carried over
until they are renegotiated.
[Translation]
I can assure the House that all Revenue Canada employees will
be offered a job in the agency. They will remain public servants
during and after the transition.
1240
[English]
Because my French is not too good I will repeat that in English
because it is very important and a point that has been brought to
me quite often by constituents. Agency employees will retain the
same access to jobs within the public service that they now enjoy
through deployment, appointment and competition.
From a human resources standpoint, the operative word is
opportunity. The Canada customs and revenue agency will create a
whole new set of opportunities, new types of programs and
services, new working relationships and new ways of doing work.
All of this means better jobs for current employees, jobs that
will be more responsive to what our clients want, jobs with
substance, jobs with a future.
This is not an effort to downsize the department. This is not
the intention and has never been the intention. Rather, our aim
is to provide Canadians with better service, the type of service
they should expect from government, the type of service their
hard earned tax dollars give them the right to expect.
The public servants who work at Revenue Canada are very
practical people. They deal with real life situations every day
of their working lives. They know what Canadians want.
They know that Canadians want even more effective and efficient
service. They know Canadians want more co-operation among
governments. They know Canadians want one-stop shopping. They
know Canadians want streamlining of administration. They know
that Canadians want tax compliance to be easier and less costly.
They know that Canadians expect promptness and fairness.
They know that in an era of logarithmic change, governments must
change the way they serve our citizens. They know that the public
interest must always come first. They know governments must
reduce overlap and duplication. And they know that the new
agency will save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
The principles of the bill before the House have been endorsed
by a lot of associations: the Canadian Importers Association,
the Tax Executive Institute, the Canadian Institute of Chartered
Accountants, the Canadian Society of Customs Brokers, the
Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters, l'Association de
planification fiscale et financiére, the Canadian Bar
Association, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
Those groups know that the Canada customs and revenue agency can
be the vehicle for taking a group of highly skilled, highly
motivated people to an even higher level. Those groups know, as
our employees know and as all Canadians know, that governments
must move to provide better service, fairer service and smarter
service to taxpayers.
I urge this House to pass this bill without delay so that all
Canadians can benefit from the opportunities and advantages
presented by this new agency and the strength of its thousands of
hard working employees.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I was interested to hear the hon. member's remarks. She discussed
the notion that Bill C-43 and the adoption of the revenue agency
would provide the government with greater flexibility in the
administration of human resources in Revenue Canada.
During my remarks I presented an opinion from the Library of
Parliament. It indicated that such flexibility in human
resources administration could be achieved without adopting the
agency but simply by making statutory changes to the Public
Service Employment Act and other laws governing the Public
Service Commission.
I would ask the hon. member two questions. If she is so in
favour of such flexibility for the management of Revenue
Canada—and I favour such flexibility and do not support the
burdensome and bureaucratic regulations of the Treasury Board for
employment—does she not support it for all departments? If so,
why does the government not amend the Public Service Employment
Act and other related statutes to give all government departments
and all ministers the same kind of marvellous flexibility in
human resources management of which she speaks in the agency?
1245
Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. critic of
the official opposition. I have a lot of respect for this
member. Although he is one of the youngest members we have in
the House, he is an acknowledged expert on tax. However he is
not the only expert on tax. There are many other experts on tax
who agree with the agency.
It is interesting the question the member asked me has to do
with other departments and not to do with revenue. I am not sure
if that means he has no criticism of the agency and is suggesting
that I talk about other departments.
I would like to make more comments about the bill. This morning
when the hon. critic of the official opposition was speaking, he
suggested, I think somewhat sarcastically, that the minister had
taken several years to put the bill together and to get it before
the House today.
This suggests that maybe the member does not think we should be
consulting Canadians. That several years was time that we took
talking to individual Canadian taxpayers. We talked to
particular groups concerned about taxation, whether it was
accountants or tax collectors, et cetera. We talked to the
provinces about how they felt about it. Some of them are using
the services right now.
I cannot imagine it, but if the Reform Party were to be in power
I am sure it would not just draft a bill, put it out there and
never consult with Canadians. This is why we needed the two
years.
The bill has changed a lot in the last two years. It is because
we listened. The minister has listened. We have changed the
set-up of the bill. This is where we are now more accountable.
The minister will now be accountable to all Canadians. All
members of parliament will still be able to bring their problems
to the minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
hon. colleague opposite said she had spoken to representatives
of all provincial governments. If that is true, why can no
memorandum of agreement between governments or anything of the
sort be produced in the House? Our understanding is that the
Government of Manitoba is the only one to think it might be
worth looking into.
I would like the hon. member to comment on this and to
substantiate the claim that the federal government has entered
into agreements with Ontario, the maritimes, Quebec, and so on.
[English]
Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister
already answered that question today. He mentioned that in a
number of provinces we were collecting over 50% of their taxes
and that in some provinces we are collecting 80%. This practice
is already being used by some provinces.
I think it would be logical to wait until the agency is an
agency. Then I think we would see the different areas that want
good service in collecting their taxes will be coming to the
federal government and asking us to collect their taxes for them.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the member's kind words, qualified that they may
have been. However, I note that she did not really address the
question I asked about why the government had decided to adopt
the agency when it could have achieved the same flexibility
through statutory changes.
1250
The hon. member made two contradictory statements which have
been consistent in the government's promotion of the bill. First,
she said that there would be no job losses, that all 40,000-plus
Revenue Canada employees would be guaranteed a position. She also
spoke at length about efficiencies and cost savings.
Since over 80% of the expenditures of the Department of National
Revenue are in payroll, how will the government achieve cost
savings and efficiencies without reducing the number of
positions?
It could be that I only have experience in the private sector,
but I understand that when we reduce payroll it means there are
fewer positions and if we do not reduce positions we do not
reduce payroll. Perhaps the member could clear that up for me.
The second question I have is with regard to her comment that
Revenue Canada is filled with highly skilled and motivated
people. No doubt they are, such as the highly skilled and
motivated tax collector who decided to drag Janice Collingridge,
the low income, non-verbal quadriplegic, into the tax court to
shake her down for $5,000 in back payroll taxes that she did not
really owe.
How can we be assured that under the structure of the agency
these kinds of outrageous abuses on the part of Revenue Canada
officials will not happen again?
Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman
has worked a long time with special interest groups on taxation.
He may have a limited view of what Canadians are expecting.
There is a lot of flexibility within the agency. We have not
seen it yet because it is not there yet.
The hon. member does not seem to be against the general
principles of the agency: better service, fairness,
accountability, partnership with the provinces and better
management of our resources. Since he is not against the
principles of it, I hope that he will come to committee. A lot of
consultation has been going on across Canada. This does not mean
there are not some little points here or there that do not need
to be corrected. It is at the committee that we will correct
these points.
I hope that the hon. member will be at the committee to help us
get the bill through so it can become operational and the
taxpayers will have the advantage of the flexibility and good
services that will be provided under the agency.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to make some quick
observations on Bill C-43.
We are talking today about Revenue Canada. It is interesting
that we have a minister from British Columbia in charge of
Revenue Canada. Major financial policy is not set by Revenue
Canada but by the Minister of Finance in the larger policy
process.
We have a revenue minister from British Columbia who could not
deliver for British Columbia which is looking for some particular
relief from Revenue Canada, especially in view of the massive
water damage to the structures of homeowners. The minister in
charge, when faced with questions on behalf of homeowners, could
not deliver for British Columbians from the particular agency
that British Columbians are looking forward to for some help and
assistance.
Reformers certainly are committed to streamlining services to
make government less complicated, more efficient and more
productive. Perhaps Bill C-43 is going in the right direction to
create this Canada customs and revenue agency, but we have to ask
whether it is being done well.
We want to be constructive when legislation appears to be moving
in the right direction. However, when the government was on the
opposition benches it just seemed to be opposing for the sake of
opposing. Reformers have always been different, especially in
the case of Bill C-43. We wish to commend and compliment the
government when it appears to be proposing to change the way it
does business, for certainly change is needed.
If the government would only change its practices perhaps in the
larger area of finance policy and maybe justice administration,
to name a couple, we would be greatly pleased.
1255
I remind the Speaker that I will be sharing my time with the
member for Calgary Centre. I underscore the general theme of my
remarks by saying that the Liberal administration is not a good
manager of the public trust.
Revenue Canada serves over 20 million taxpayers. Every Canadian
is quite familiar with that department. We have all heard of the
phrase of the certainty of death and taxes. Taxes especially
from an agency like Revenue Canada is not the temporary measure
once promised to Canadians; it is a certainty.
In the United States revenue is collected by the IRS, the
Internal Revenue Service. The mere mention of the name IRS to
U.S. citizens sends a shiver down their spine. If a citizen of
the U.S. gets a letter from the IRS it usually means bad news. We
have all observed the problems of such an agency that gets out of
control.
Taxpayers should not be afraid of the tax collector. Without
the co-operative taxpayer our country fails as an economic unit.
The taxpayer must have some balance of rights and those rights
should be written down.
My Reform colleague who spoke earlier mentioned the need for a
taxpayer bill of rights as well as an office for taxpayer
protection. Canadians do not want to be bullied around,
especially not by the tax collector. It is essential that
Canadians never be subjected to the type of treatment used by the
IRS on the citizens of the United States. That government went
through a heart-rending process to try to rein in an agency out
of control. Government institutions should not be feared.
The Minister of National Revenue has said at times that he
believes in taxpayers' rights, and I applaud him for that. In
the second progress report on the Canada customs and revenue
agency the minister stated “In proceeding with these changes I
want to reassure Canadians that first and foremost the government
will assure that the basic tenets of revenue administration in
Canada, the encouragement of voluntary compliance, fairness in
the way all taxpayers are treated, prompt, reliable service and
responsible enforcement continue to be respected and observed”.
I believe that is a laudable statement. The problem is does it
ever get delivered.
Clearly the minister thinks of fairness in the way taxpayers are
treated is important. Now all he has to do is put it in black
and white. If the minister wants to put his tax dollars where
his mouth is, he should implement full accountability. This
means accountability on both sides: the taxpayer must respect
tax authorities, obey the law, not cheat. The tax authorities
must respect the taxpayer. In other words there is a social
contract in a fair tax system and we are all part of it.
It is impossible for the minister to assume that accountability
will just happen somehow. We have to design a system that is
self-correcting and that works. Canadians want some guarantee.
If they purchase a product in the store they want the written
promise that they will be taken care of.
Part of the selection process of voting with dollars is what
kind of a guarantee comes with what is purchased. That keeps the
business in operation. However, it does not seem to work that
way with government and the tax agency that takes our money.
Maybe we should apply that kind of standard to the taxpayer. Each
taxpayer contributes thousands of dollars to the government
through Revenue Canada. The taxpayer is essentially purchasing a
service and wants government to be responsible with the tax
dollars taken. The last thing taxpayers want is to be harassed
by Revenue Canada.
There have been instances where the best interest of the public
has not been met. Tax collection represents delegated authority
from Canadians, and it must be delivered in a reasonable and
responsible manner.
On the department's web site I found a section called questions
and answers. One of the answers mentioned that the broader
interests of cabinet and Treasury Board would continue to be
fully protected. What did the document say about taxpayers? It
only said “the government is proposing to create an agency in
order to provide better service to the public, the provinces and
the Canadian business sector”.
1300
There is no mention about fully protecting the taxpayer. This
is the part that worries me. It is great to see that the agency
will likely create some efficiency. It is great that the agency
will reduce costs for business and for taxpayers in general. But
where is the protection and the assurance for balance? Where is
the guarantee? Where are the mechanisms to ensure that the rules
are going to be followed?
Reform is committed to standing up for the taxpayer, the man on
the street. We are committed to fighting for a taxpayer bill of
rights and an office for taxpayer protection. We are committed
to supporting Bill C-43 if, and only if, we can get the
commitment from the revenue minister to move forward with these
measures to protect the taxpayer.
What about the employees of Revenue Canada? Their morale is
likely very low at this point. They do not know what is going to
happen to them. We must speak for them also.
What does the union say? I have this interesting quote:
The Canadian public service is in crisis. The crisis is
many-sided. Taxpayers are increasingly skeptical of the
government's ability, and even motivation, to deliver a
particular program or policy. Recipients of unemployment,
pension and other social benefits wait longer for less. Caught
in the middle are public sector workers.
Deep-rooted structures and present day policies have combined to
deepen the crisis. The public service of the 1990s is hobbled by
administrative practices and legislation largely in place since
the 1960s. In many cases, management is at best ill-prepared for
the role it has been assigned and is, at worst, paternalistic.
The physical plant, equipment, and tools provided to public
sector workers are deteriorating at an alarming rate. Likewise,
while government programs and services grow increasingly more
complex and driven by technological advances, the training
provided many public sector workers is inadequate or
non-existent.
What a quote. I believe it is somewhat accurate. Morale in the
federal public service is at an all-time low. Union negotiations
have broken off. The government says that everything is fine and
negotiations are carrying on. We go to the union site on the
Internet and we get a completely different story.
Service to Canadians is suffering directly as a result of
mishandled downsizing. The present system of staffing and
promotions is being abused by managers. Alliance members are
trying to provide service to veterans, the unemployed and
pensioners, but do not have the necessary resources to carry out
their work.
I could go on and on. I must say that if it is the intent of
the revenue minister to make the agency the IRS of the north,
then we know he is malevolent. If, however, the minister wishes
to create an agency that draws the respect of the Canadian
public, then I am certain the Reform proposal of a taxpayer bill
of rights will properly complement this process.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I commend the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby
for his eloquent remarks.
The minister spoke about the need for a taxpayer bill of rights.
This is something which the official opposition proposed earlier
today, the actual adoption of a formal statute which would
recognize the presumption in favour of taxpayers in the
collection and auditing process.
The government has not responded positively to this initiative.
In his view, why would that be? Why would it be afraid of
ensuring greater accountability in tax collection? It is a hard
question, but I would like him to try to tackle it.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, there is a tradition in
established governments. They have a basic assumption that they
have the divine right to govern. But there is an inherent
arrogance that we know best. Therefore, when particular
mechanisms are put in place for self-correcting accountability
they do not like it.
I bring the example of one very exasperated taxpayer. He
writes: “How can Revenue Canada in good conscience require
under their present rules, put me in a position that they require
that I remit to them an amount greater than my earnings? This
may be a regulation under the tax instalment remittance
requirements, however, being put in this position is grossly
unfair”.
1305
He got a thank you letter from Revenue Canada and a brochure
and was told to go away. Where is this fellow to go?
The bill of rights and the office that we are suggesting be
created is not a new tax court to argue over the content and the
rulings, it is to ensure that the rules are followed, that there
is basic fairness and that a taxpayer is going to be treated with
some basic respect. Also, there will be simplicity in the rules
so that the public can learn to understand the information that
is given to them.
We have listed a number of general areas that would provide a
feedback mechanism for this large bureaucracy to make it
accountable to the average Canadian. That is what the government
needs to follow. It needs to listen to the people and respond to
that agenda.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to preface my comments by saying that I felt compelled to
speak to this particular bill because of some instances that have
happened in my riding.
I felt that it was obligatory to stand and speak in support of
the taxpayer bill of rights, which has been so wisely put forward
by my colleague from Calgary Southeast. I also want to point out
to the House and to those watching the importance of the taxpayer
bill of rights in the context of what we are seeing going on
today with Revenue Canada.
I will begin my remarks with a couple of statements to clarify
where I am coming from.
When I look at the state of Revenue Canada today and what I have
encountered in my short time as a member of parliament with the
people who have come to my constituency office, I realize that
what we have is a bureaucracy that is out of control. As I dug
into some of these cases it bothered me to see the pain this
bureaucracy is bringing to many of my constituents.
It is an interesting admission on behalf of the government that
it is a bureaucracy out of control because it is now setting up a
new entity. Rather than fixing what is there, it is talking
about setting up a new entity. The government feels it might be
easier to create something new rather than to bring efficiencies
to the existing government bureaucracy.
Our party is not against efficiency. Certainly we are all for
it. However, if we cannot bring efficiencies to the bureaucracy,
can we magically bring them to something that is not close to the
government, that is an arm's length operation? I am not sure the
logic follows.
The government is selling this on the grounds of some promised
efficiency gains. As I understand it, some of these economic
gains will only occur if the provinces agree, and yet we have not
had a commitment there. I understand that some of the Atlantic
provinces are pondering whether they want to continue with the
harmonized tax program which the federal government launched.
Are we really going to see these efficiency gains? That is a
good question. I am not saying that the status quo is the
answer. It certainly is not.
I would like to highlight some of the situations that I have
encountered in my short time as a member of parliament. I will
allude to one situation. If members wish more details, I will
provide them, although I know that some individuals involved are
concerned that the details might get out. The taxpayer bill of
rights is needed because of the intimidation factor. These
people feel there might be repercussions if the details are
brought out.
One particular business was an oil contracting and production
business owned by a fairly prominent businessman in my riding.
His company had been through a number of mergers and different
purchases.
1310
His problem related to GST numbers. When a merger takes place,
the old GST number does not die. People are still required to
track on the old one and on the new one. There is a convoluted
set of rules surrounding it. But to cut a long story short, they
tried to maintain the old ones and follow this complicated
tracking procedure.
They submitted all the required information, as they understood
it, to the tax department. Continually, though, they were asked
to re-submit the information because they were told it had not
been received or there was something missing. They continued to
try to hit the mark and satisfy Revenue Canada.
In fact this gentleman related to me that he was talking to
someone at Revenue Canada and offered to fax in what they had
already submitted because there was no record, according to
Revenue Canada, of having received it. He was told “We do not
have a fax number here”. It was not too much later that he was
talking to a different person in the bureaucracy and was given
the fax number for the same department.
I am not casting aspersions on these individuals. What I am
saying is that this is symptomatic of a bureaucracy that is out
of control.
The last time I checked with this individual they were still
attempting to demonstrate that they had followed the rules and
they were looking for some acknowledgement or direction as to
what they missed in trying to meet the mandate. It is not easy.
I feel, and I am sure that many of the members of this House
feel, that our tax code and tax laws are just too convoluted.
The act itself is 600 pages and there are another 600 or 700
pages of special interpretations and guidelines. The Ottawa
phone book does not have as many pages as the tax act. It is no
wonder a business person would find it difficult to meet all the
requirements, even with the best of intentions. When we add to
that some of the inefficiencies in the current bureaucracy it is
really hard to satisfy the demands.
This is all the more reason for a taxpayer bill of rights, some
advocate that a frustrated taxpayer can go to and say “I am
trying to meet the requirements but I am just not making it”.
Let me give another example, closer to home, of an East Indian
couple in my riding who immigrated to Canada. They have worked
hard. They are a very diligent couple. They started a few small
businesses. They tried to adhere to all of our laws and the
requirements of the tax code. Yes, they had some professional
help.
This couple started these small ventures. They thought,
according to everything they had filed, that they had complied
with all the rules. One day they were contacted by the tax
department which advised them they had not. They were in the
middle of the appeal process with the tax department to make
their case when the person they were dealing with felt their case
was not warranted. The next thing they knew the wife's account
was garnisheed, locked up and no money was moving in or out.
We can imagine what this did to this small businessman.
Suppliers were not getting paid. Customer relations were
jeopardized. It was a tragic situation. Interestingly enough,
he continued to appeal to Revenue Canada until he got to a higher
level than the particular person he was dealing with.
At the end of it all, after a separate hearing and looking at
all the facts, the answer was that the junior person had not
really seen the whole picture. Revenue Canada released the
accounts and everything carried on. At this point in time they
are attempting to resolve the situation.
The bottom line is that the account should not have been locked
up. But the damage was done to this gentleman's business and no
apology was offered.
One final example that demonstrates the critical need for a
taxpayer bill of rights, if we are going to have this new agency,
is that of a young family I know. They received a windfall one
day. They were told by the tax department that their child tax
credit had been underpaid. It was great news.
1315
They took this $1,000 and spent it. About two months later they
got another letter from the tax department saying it had made a
mistake and they really should not have had the overpayment. The
next threat was that it was now going to garnishee their wages
unless they instantly paid it back. Here was this family under
great pressure and duress all because of this bureaucratic
inefficiency. To add to that story, they were not the only
ones. In their encounter to find out what happened they found
out there were many other families.
I put forward those illustrations and many more just like them
in our country where taxpayers need and must have a taxpayers
bill of rights before any changes can be made to the bureaucracy
that collects the taxes.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to do a bit of reminiscing but I will try to keep it short.
I think back to when I started paying taxes in 1970 and what the
tax act was like then. It is interesting to make a comparison
between the forms we had to fill out then and the ones we fill
out now. I began working in depth with the tax act in 1977. At
that time the tax act was not too thick. We now have an act that
is literally a stack. It is impossible for anyone to completely
understand it.
The complexity of the act is one thing, but the question I want
to direct to the member for Calgary Centre is regarding the lack
of respect it has shown toward taxpayers. Back in 1977 when I
started working in depth with taxpayers I found many cases where
taxpayers were considered to be guilty by Revenue Canada even
when the evidence was not presented. Just on Revenue Canada's say
so, a letter was sent to a taxpayer saying he or she was guilty
of underpaying and in some cases beyond that.
In about 1984 or 1985 the Conservative government put in tax
fairness legislation which helped and was a good thing. After
that time I noticed that taxpayers were given the benefit of the
doubt. They were treated much more fairly overall. There was
less of them being considered guilty before their case was even
heard.
The GST then came in and the same Conservative government, when
it put the GST in place, did not put the tax fairness legislation
in place to cover the GST. With the GST we see the same type of
treatment of taxpayers that I saw in 1977 as I dealt with
individuals where people were treated very unfairly and harassed
in many cases by the GST people.
I have now been a member of parliament for the last five years
but in the last couple of years I have noticed this trend toward
more harassment even in the income tax area which is of great
concern.
I would like to ask the member if he sees anything in this
legislation that will ensure that fair treatment of taxpayers
will be protected inside this agency.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
This question cuts to the heart of the issue. When an agency is
given unchecked power, no critique, no bottom line as to who it
is accountable to that is a dangerous precedent. I do not see
anything in this legislation that protects taxpayers or gives
them some court of appeal.
I again applaud the initiative of the member for Calgary
Southeast that there must be an office for taxpayer protection
before this legislation can go anywhere. I appeal to all members
to consider that we must have something like this in the bill.
His proposal states: “A chief advocate shall be asked to present
each year a summary of 25 of the most serious problems
encountered by the office and present recommendations as to how
these can be avoided in the future”. That speaks to
accountability. Let us see how the thing is working and make
sure there is some measure of accountability.
1320
To speak directly to the member's question, another component of
taxpayer protection put forward is that the protection office
would act as an advocate of last resort for taxpayers who feel
they are being treated in an unfair, unjust or arbitrary manner.
A court of appeal is just common sense, nothing to be afraid of.
But it is incumbent on us to have it be part of this whole
package if we are really going to serve our constituents.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to pay tribute to all the men and women who work at Revenue
Canada. Unlike my colleagues, I had the opportunity of serving
on both sides of the House, on the opposition benches as well as
on the government side. Throughout the many years I have been
here my office had nothing but very pleasant experiences in
dealing with the staff and the people who work at Revenue Canada
whenever we had an issue dealing with a constituent's concern.
They were prompt and efficient and they got to the bottom of the
matter. They dealt with it in a fair and equitable manner.
This issue of trying to create a new agency will deal with many
of the concerns that some of my colleagues have raised today, but
it also goes beyond that.
[Translation]
The Canada customs and revenue agency is the result of
extensive consultations with the provinces and territories as
well as with our interest groups and employees.
Our government announced its intention to establish a new tax,
customs and trade agency in its February 1996 Speech from the
Throne and March 1996 budget.
We have consulted our interest groups and employees on an
ongoing basis.
We consulted not just once but three times with the provinces,
with tax, customs and trade experts and with business
associations on what the appropriate framework and
organizational structure should be for the new agency.
We also consulted our employees and are continuing to welcome
their input and that of their representatives. In April 1997,
following initial consultations, we released our first progress
report. Then, we conducted a second round of consultations that
led to the establishment of a special advisory committee to seek
comments and views on the new agency's operational framework.
This committee brings together consultants and professionals as
well as officials from large Canadian corporate interests that
have dealings with Revenue Canada.
In January, 1998, we released a second interim report, which
provided for other changes and improvements based, once again,
on consultations. These changes are real changes. They are
also significant. They have enabled us to make an even better
proposal to Canadians for a new agency, which has had
considerable support.
Here are some of the things we have heard from our interest
groups since the release of the second report.
First,
l'Association de planification fiscale et financière wrote the
minister following
the release of the second interim report. In its letter, it
pointed out that, in the context of the initial proposal and for
discussion purposes, the agency would not necessarily have
reported to the minister. It noted that it had opposed this
idea and that it was grateful to the minister for taking its
recommendation into account.
1325
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants also wrote the
minister following the release of the government's second
interim report. In its letter, it said that the proposals
incorporated its suggestion that each province present a list of
designated individuals rather than a single candidate for the
agency's board of management. The institute believes that will
give the government considerable help in setting up a balanced
board of management.
Many groups continue to support the proposed creation of the
agency in the various consultations and have reiterated the key
benefits they see for their members.
By way of example, the Canadian Payroll Association, which
represents over 5,300 member associations and individuals,
mentioned certain benefits, including, first, a reduction in the
number of resource persons employers need to contact for
information; second, the existence of a single auditor in
contact with a business for all revenue audits; third,
simplified administration and less confusion, for example, by
using common definitions; and, finally, the grouping of debt
recovery measures for businesses in financial difficulty.
Paul Cherecwich Jr., international president of the Tax
Executives Institute, which has a lot of Canadian members, also
wrote the minister.
In his letter, he points out that certain new information has
come to his attention that demonstrates the government's deep
commitment not just to the concept of the agency, but also to
the consultation process, which was instrumental in moving the
concept from the idea stage to an achievable plan.
The letter says that the agency has been strengthened because
the obligation of reporting to the minister has been retained,
because administration has been simplified, and because the
links and co-ordination that now exist between the Minister of
Finance and the Minister of National Revenue will be maintained
and improved when the agency is formed.
A study commissioned by the Public Policy Forum served as an
indirect form of consultation. The purpose of this study was to
look at the enforcement and administration savings that a single
body would produce.
The study targeted a group of small business accountants, a
sampling of over 1,500 small and medium-sized businesses, and a
group of non-profit agencies. Their positions and their
estimates can be found in the report, which was published in
December 1997.
The government is listening. The opinions of its employees and
of interest groups throughout the country are very important to
it. Revenue Canada employees were another group that deserved
intensive special consultations.
During the summer of 1997, over 7,000 Revenue Canada employees
were asked for their opinions about a new human resources
management framework. In December 1997, the union and
management signed a memorandum of understanding setting out how
the new human resources management framework would be developed.
Eight design teams were created. They include union and
management representatives, as well as employees from various
sectors of the department.
1330
Five teams produced final reports on important human
resource-related issues, such as staffing, classification, appeal
mechanisms, training and upgrading, and employment equity.
Others are looking at re-engineering, National Joint Council
directives, and senior level staff. These teams are working on
proposals on these aspects, which are part of the agency's human
resources management framework, and have submitted their
proposals to 3,000 other employees for review.
Essentially, consultation consists in listening, learning, and
then acting. We met with thousands of Canadians, singly or in
groups.
We learned what was most important to them, and what their
perceptions of the future of Canadian tax, customs and trade
administration were.
It is now time to act, and to implement the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency. I therefore strongly urge this House,
particularly my colleagues in the opposition parties, to support
this bill, because it is a well-balanced one which responds to
the needs of Canadians, as well as a forward-looking proposal,
one which really gives this agency the opportunity to do better
in serving the people of Canada.
[English]
Let me be unequivocally clear that this agency, if anything,
will improve on the services that we are offering to the public.
I heard my colleagues in the opposition parties raise some
concerns which may I suggest are not within the virtue of the law
as it is proposed before parliament. My colleagues should be
commending the government on this initiative. They should be
supporting the government on this initiative because it is going
to provide the agency with the necessary tools to better serve
the taxpayers of Canada. It will provide the agency with the
flexibility to better carry out its mandate.
Nothing will change when it comes to the responsibility of the
agency vis-à-vis the population and the House of Commons. The
Minister of Revenue will continue to be responsible for the
agency. In fact this has been mentioned many times.
There would be absolutely no difference between the operation of
this agency and many other agencies which are operating very
effectively in our society.
Look at Statistics Canada for example. It is the envy of the
world. It has an extremely efficient operation. It has the
necessary flexibility. It can move ahead. It can provide advice
not only to us as parliamentarians, to taxpayers, to the
provinces, but to anyone throughout the world. It has been
identified as one of the best agencies in the world.
Revenue Canada as an agency on its own can also provide that
kind of service, not only to taxpayers, not only at the
provincial level, not only to territorial governments, but I
would say it can also provide services elsewhere.
The Public Service of Canada and those who work for Revenue
Canada are among the finest public servants anywhere in the
world.
We are giving this agency the flexibility to carry out its
duties. It will have control over its own destiny to a large
extent while at the same time balancing our needs as a
parliament, balancing the needs of our constituents, that is, the
taxpayers of Canada, and serving the interests of the agency
itself when it comes to hiring, when it comes to classification,
when it comes to flexibility in its operation.
1335
All those are extremely important elements. They are important
reasons why we should be endorsing this proposal by passing all
of those small little nitty-gritty things that really are not
within the purview of the act and can be dealt with outside of
the act and outside of the proposal before us today.
We should give a rousing endorsement to what is before us today.
This is a historic moment in the way in which the government is
carrying out its mandate. We are allowing agencies and
organizations to flourish and to provide services that Canadians
want us to offer them efficiently, in a timely manner, in a good
way as we have been doing and will continue to do for years to
come.
This bill makes it a happy day for us today. My colleagues
should stand up and congratulate the Minister of National Revenue
who has done a marvellous job, his staff, the administration as
well as the employees of department who continue to provide
excellent service to Canadians.
I want to conclude by saying—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mac Harb: My colleagues, are clapping on the other
side and they are endorsing the proposal. That is what I hear.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member for
Ottawa Centre. When I listen to him, I realize he lives in
Ottawa, in this august place where parliament is. He should
visit the rest of the country once in a while.
He talks about this being a historic moment. In 1917 this House
had another historic moment. We brought in a temporary income tax
law. Now we have another historic moment where the government is
trying to bring in another bill which is not going to do the
average Canadian any good at all.
The member said it was a great consultative process, that the
government is listening. Why is it after all this time that none
of the provinces have signed on to this project? Why is it that
Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, the majority of
the people in Canada do not like this project? Yet this
government is consulting. Why did it not wait until it at least
got the agreement of the provinces? If this is a country where
the federal government is going to work with the provinces,
surely we should not have legislation in this House before the
provinces or at least the majority of the provinces come to an
agreement. Right now we have zero.
I ask the member why he thinks the government had a consultative
process. Why does he think the government is listening when it
does not have provinces signing on to this project?
He talked about Statistics Canada being the envy of the world.
One would have to live in Ottawa to think that. He should talk
to the people in British Columbia or Nova Scotia about Statistics
Canada and the interference in their private lives if he thinks
it is the envy of the world. Perhaps people outside Canada who
have never been here think it is the envy of the world, but not
the people who live here and pay taxes.
I ask the member, why is this bill so good when not one province
has signed on to it?
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, frankly it is true. I am the
member of all members because the House of Commons happens to be
in my constituency of Ottawa Centre. Most of my colleagues live
in my riding, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, and I am honoured.
It is a heavy responsibility for me to be the MP of all MPs,
including the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Prime
Minister. It is a challenge for me.
I want the House to know that not everything I hear in this
House pleases me. I look at the statement made by my colleague
on the other side in trying to attack Statistics Canada. I am
not the one who said it. I have repeated what others have said,
that Statistics Canada is one of the finest agencies in the
world. I do not know the name of the organization, but
Statistics Canada over and over again has been identified as a
lead agency when it comes to the efficiency of operation, when it
comes to passing on information to the government, to members of
parliament including my colleague on the other side, as well as
to others. I would say that Statistics Canada has done nothing
intrusive.
1340
In response to the member's question, consultations are ongoing.
He wanted my opinion. It is imperative to proceed with what we
have now. Provinces will be onboard. Those who are not onboard
will be onboard sooner or later.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast would like to
advise the hon. member for Ottawa Centre that he can take him off
his mailing list.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre got himself into such a frenzy
stroking the ego of his colleague, the minister of revenue. It
looked as if that was the most pathetic attempt to become
parliamentary secretary I have seen here in a long time.
The hon. member does not think StatsCan is intrusive. Apparently
he thinks it is a model for Revenue Canada. Let me suggest there
is one slight difference. Revenue Canada is vested by this
parliament with police powers, with the monopoly and coercive
power of the government to forcibly extract from people the
fruits of their own labours and to get into their most private
matters, to find out everything about their financial
arrangements, how much they make, where they save it and how they
spend it. Those are extraordinary powers which are all too often
abused.
If the hon. member heard my speech he would have heard me relate
several stories, as have other members, about this kind of
extraordinary abuse. For instance, Janice Collingridge, a low
income quadriplegic from Calgary, was dragged into tax court by
this government's tax cops to pay $5,000 in back payroll taxes
which she should never have had to pay. It was thrown out by the
tax court.
Members know of case upon case of abuse by Revenue Canada
officials. What exists in Bill C-43 to prevent this kind of
abuse of the power we give the tax cops? Why will the minister
and the member not accept a strengthening of accountability
through the adoption of a taxpayer bill of rights which would be
appended to Bill C-43?
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I have never in my life seen
so much lack of understanding in terms of how Revenue Canada
works. The member is complaining about a specific case. I
cannot comment on a specific case.
If the member needs a situation addressed, there are at least
four steps I know of that he can go through in Revenue Canada
before coming to parliament. Revenue Canada has a fairness
committee. If you disagree with your tax assessment you can go
there. And you can go higher and higher within the
administration to the point where if you are not happy, you can
go to the minister or you can go to court in order to find a way
to resolve the problem.
I hope this gentleman is not suggesting to Canadians that they
should not give their revenue information to Revenue Canada, that
they should not tell Revenue Canada about some of their income.
We live in a society where the only mechanism we have to support
our social programs like health care is through our revenues. It
is not an easy job collecting taxes. How would anyone like it?
Tax and debt, everybody wants to run away from them.
It is a fact of life and the gentleman had better get used to
it. We have to pay taxes for as long as we have social programs
to support, for as long as we have to operate the government, for
as long as we need roads to drive on and for as long as we have
to move from one end of the country to the other. We have to
have taxes. I do not like it but that is the way it is and we
have to live with it.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the member for Ottawa Centre that I
have moved out of his riding. I am now in the riding of the
Minister of Industry, but I will stay on his mailing list because
I enjoy his publications. They are well informed and he always
goes into great depth.
The member for Ottawa Centre started out on a personal note as
he talked about people who work in the tax department who are his
constituents. They are people we deal with every day as members
of parliament when we are trying to help people through the maze
of problems they get not just with taxes but with many things. I
have had to deal with the tax department myself and the only good
part of it was that the lady's name was Hope. That was about all
I had.
I want the member to comment further on some of his experiences
with the employees of Revenue Canada and the good work they do
for us as members of parliament.
1345
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, sometimes the public service
is an easy target. These people are like all of us, with one
exception. They are always on the other end of the telephone and
they hear complaints day after day, day in and day out. They go
the extra mile to provide the most efficient and most timely
information to those who call.
My experience, as well as that of my staff and of many
colleagues on both sides of the House, with public servants has
been very positive. I pay tribute to each one of them,
particularly those behind the telephone. They are the ones who
are taking the public calls and hearing the complaints from time
to time.
These people handle millions of tax forms throughout the year,
not only around tax time. They handle them in an efficient and
positive manner. They deal with millions of forms. They are
bound to make mistakes. No one is perfect, including yourself,
Mr. Speaker, and all my colleagues on both sides of the House. I
ask anybody who thinks he is perfect to stand and say so. Nobody
is standing.
My colleague on the other side, the revenue critic, does not
like to pay taxes but he better get used to it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am obliged to
stand but I want to assure everyone I am not suggesting that I am
perfect.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will begin
my speech now and finish it after Oral Question Period.
I am pleased to address Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency. Let me say from the outset that I am
opposed to the creation of this new federal agency, primarily
because of the attitude and actions of this government.
We cannot take a chance and support a bill which only seeks to
centralize the collection of taxes in Canada, reduce the number
of jobs at the Department of National Revenue and, more
importantly, create an agency that will, yet again, interfere
with the Quebec department of revenue.
This bill shows that the Liberal government is finding it
increasingly difficult to fulfil its responsibilities as
administrator and manager of the state. The government is, once
again, about to abdicate its responsibilities.
The new agency could make it possible for the minister to avoid
fulfilling his duty, which is to protect taxpayers against any
abuse of power. We are all familiar with the Liberals' habit of
creating independent agencies and then avoid answering questions
by using the excuse that we must respect the agency's
independence and autonomy, and that the government does not want
to interfere.
My riding of Lotbinière is among the Quebec ridings where sheep
farmers are at odds with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency,
which is following some obscure directives to systematically
destroy sheep that may be infected with scrapie. That agency is
directly accountable to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food. For the past two weeks, the Bloc Quebecois has been
asking the minister to take action and put a stop to this
carnage which imperils the sheep industry in Quebec.
But the minister does not answer our questions. He too hides
behind the agency to shirk his responsibilities. Meanwhile, the
problem persists and our sheep farmers live in fear that an
inspector or a veterinarian from the agency will call to inform
them of the tragic news that some or all of their sheep will
have to be destroyed.
This is an agency which definitely lacks transparency and which
refuses to provide information to Quebec elected officials who
are desperately trying to save an industry that was thriving
before the carnage began, in January 1997, and that has now lost
11,000 sheep.
1350
We have before our eyes an example which shows that the Liberal
approach is not working. Yet, our questions are simple. How many
sheep were identified as being infected with scrapie? Where are
these infected animals? How does the agency diagnose the
disease? What are the criteria used to determine whether or not
the sheep must be destroyed? What is the agency's budget for
research? What stage has the agency reached in its work? We have
no idea. What is currently going on in Quebec is unacceptable.
Do you think that after going through this experience we will
support Bill C-43? No, especially not with a Minister of Finance
who does not even care about the real purpose of the employment
insurance fund.
I would rather not think about having an independent agency
collecting our taxes.
The Minister of Finance ignores accounting principles. He
ignores the repeated warnings of the auditor general, and he
cannot even submit realistic estimates to the public.
There is a 60% difference between the forecasts and the actual
figures. Do you know any business that would keep such an
incompetent accountant? There is only the Prime Minister, the
new dictator of the Canadian economy, who called on the police
to use force against peaceful students who simply wanted to
protest against an international situation.
This government is again trying to show its good will by
proposing the creation of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
However, we see what is behind this legislation: an anti-labour
manoeuvre. In other words, 20% of the employees of Revenue
Canada will no longer be covered by the public service act. The
new agency will therefore have full latitude in two years' time
to raise and lower salaries and hire and fire employees.
In any case, the federal Liberals are increasingly revealing
their lack of social conscience and their lack of compassion.
I return to the example of the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, who remains insensitive to the suffering of lamb
producers in Quebec. The Minister of Finance, whose behaviour
is unspeakable, wants to legalize his misappropriation of funds
from the employment insurance fund, which belongs to workers and
to employers.
In the private sector, this sort of misappropriation would mean
a trip to court.
This government is prepared to do anything to satisfy its need
to centralize. The Liberals consider simplification synonymous
with duplication and harmonization to them means meddling. The
problem is that Quebec can guess what lies behind this new
agency. Ontario is on the lookout as well, and with this new
threat of centralization, is even considering setting up its own
agency.
We agree with the principle of a single collector, but in
Quebec, it should be the Quebec department of revenue that
collects all federal taxes, as it does the GST.
Let us have another look at the officials who would be affected
by the creation of this agency.
A while ago, the President of Treasury Board said the following
about the agency: “Creation of the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency is an essential component of the government's commitment
to modernize the federal public service”.
There is mention of 40,000 public servants, or 20% of the whole
public service, who will from now on be at the mercy of the
agency's board, made up of good little Liberals prepared to
follow the Prime Minister's orders.
And what about the executives of this new agency? Who will they
be? They will be better paid than the senior executives of the
present Department of National Revenue. Who will foot the bill
for this? The support staff, the record processing clerks, in
short all the grassroots employees of the department.
1355
In this connection, I would like to explain how the Revenue
Canada employee union sees the Minister of Revenue's plan. The
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is a federal creation,
inspired by top taxation people in Ottawa, who want to create a
sort of monstrous octopus, the tentacles of which will reach not
only as far as the provincial governments, but right up to the
municipal and local ones.
Their intent is to administer everything, from provincial sales
taxes to gasoline and alcohol taxes. Are we going to take that
risk with a Liberal government, a voracious and centralist
government that respects nothing? No. And whom is this agency
going to be answerable to?
What power will the elected representatives in this House have
for getting any explanations about its administration, its
results, and its mistakes as well?
As we know, in its present structure, Revenue Canada provides
Parliament and the taxpaying public with the necessary
accounting, via the Department of National Revenue. The
government cannot sidestep embarrassing questions like the
family trust scandal and the little perks the Minister of
Finance is giving to his ships.
We fear that the new agency will be subject to a less stringent
parliamentary scrutiny than the one currently imposed on the
Department of Revenue.
I can see it already. The minister will rise and answer a
question about the agency as follows: “Mr. Speaker, we have
asked for an inquiry into this independent agency and as soon as
we have any information, we will communicate it to the House”.
In other words, while the inquiry is going on, we will find a
way to get our party out of this embarrassing situation.
Last week, opposition parties called for explanations of the
Prime Minister's conduct in what is now known as the Peppergate
affair. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the
solicitor general all sought refuge behind the RCMP commission
of inquiry. Imagine an embarrassing question about the
operations of the agency. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime
Minister and the Minister of National Revenue have already got
their script ready.
The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister give the
impression of having spent the summer preparing a series of
30-second cassettes devoid of information. Something is not
right.
It will not be long before the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime
Minister and other ministers will be lip-synching to a soundtrack
of 150 applauding MPs, all bowing before their great leader.
One thing is certain: I hope these cassettes will not be sold to
the public, because the distributor—
The Speaker: As it is now almost 2 p.m., I must interrupt the
hon. member. He will have at least eight and a half minutes to
complete his speech after Oral Question Period. It will be his
turn. We will now proceed to Statements By Members. The hon.
member for Hamilton Mountain.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DYSLEXIA
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the first International Conference on Dyslexia is taking place in
Hull on October 7, 8 and 9. Dyslexia is one of the most common
disabilities in the world. Approximately 23% of the Canadian
population is affected and has difficulty reading and writing.
For these Canadians dyslexia presents an enormous struggle.
Reading the paper, making a grocery list or reading a bedtime
story can be the cause of great frustration. We need to dispel
myths and promote facts regarding dyslexia. Dyslexia can occur
at any level of intellectual ability. It can be alleviated by
specialist teaching and committed learning.
It is an honour for Canada to host the first International
Conference on Dyslexia. This conference will help to dispel some
of the myths about dyslexia, as well as offer some guidance to
those affected and their family. I am sure all members will join
me in wishing the participants of this conference well.
* * *
1400
ONOWAY, ALBERTA
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to congratulate my hometown of Onoway as it
celebrates its 75th anniversary.
Located 30 miles west of Edmonton in the beautiful hill and lake
country of Lac Ste. Anne County, Onoway may not have a long
history but the historic Lac Ste. Anne trail straddles the
community. Onoway does not have the museums and concert halls
that grace Ottawa but then it does not receive billions from
taxpayers. A large population is not a defining feature of this
thriving and friendly town but here is one that is: Lorne Osvik,
the smilingest mayor in western Canada.
Onoway district is just a nice place to live and raise children
and I pay tribute to its settling pioneers, their descendants and
all those people who over the years have made Onoway what it is
today. I ask all members to join me in congratulating Onoway,
the biggest little town in Alberta.
* * *
SENIORS
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to inform the House and all Canadians that today,
October 1, 1998, is international day of older persons. This day
also heralds the coming year, 1999, as the international year of
older persons.
The theme for this celebration is Canada, a society for all
ages. Our goal is to use this special year to enhance
understanding, harmony and mutual support across the generations.
We must also take this opportunity to increase the recognition
of seniors' contributions to society. I know firsthand what a
vital, energetic role seniors play in our communities. They are
front and centre in local volunteer work, always reaching out to
help others and they are the foundation of our families and the
wisdom and knowledge of our time.
Please join me in recognizing this special day and participating
wholeheartedly in the national celebrations during 1999, the
international year of older persons.
* * *
[Translation]
GM PLANT IN BOISBRIAND
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
GM plant in Boisbriand is threatened with closure in 24 months
because the models produced there are not selling.
If the plant were to close down, this would be a disaster not
only for the 1,500 workers and their families, but also for the
entire region, where thousands of indirect jobs depend on the
$100 million a year in wages generated by their work.
Starting tomorrow, 700 GM workers will have to register with the
employment insurance program because the plant will be operating
with only one shift.
Tomorrow, at dawn, these newly unemployed workers, their former
co-workers and other workers showing solidarity, as well as
government officials will gather in front of the plant in
Boisbriand for a peaceful protest.
The Bloc Quebecois sends its brotherly regards and add its voice
in solidarity with these GM workers and former workers. We want
to assure them of our support in their fight to ensure that
their plant, on which the prosperity of the Basses-Laurentides
depends, remains in operation.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENTAL ILLNESS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
marks the first day of national environmental illness awareness
month.
Over 4.5 million Canadians suffer from some degree of illness
caused by the environment in which they work or live. Multiple
chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibramyalgia
are the three most common ailments and have the capacity to cause
disabilities. People suffering from these diseases often
experience debilitating pain and are unable to work or
participate fully in society.
Environmental illness is a real problem. This national campaign
seeks to develop greater public awareness in order to improve the
health, social and medical well-being of those who suffer.
I commend Judith Spence of the Environmental Illness Society of
Canada as well as representatives of the National ME/FM Action
Network, ME Canada and MESH-Ottawa for their hard work. On
behalf of my colleagues, I say to them good luck.
* * *
OPPOSITION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the late Andy Warhol once said that
everyone will enjoy 15 minutes of fame but even Mr. Warhol could
not have painted as pathetic a scene as we have witnessed from
some members in opposition lately.
Desperate for television air time, they are hijacking the
parliamentary agenda instead of supporting Canadians through
positive legislation. They are just putting on a show with no
real substance.
This government wants to deal with real issues like health care,
lower taxes and safeguarding Canada at a time of global economic
uncertainty.
Let us bring debate back to the issues that matter to Canadians.
We must get back to the business of focusing on the concerns of
Canadians.
* * *
1405
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today marks the beginning of breast cancer awareness month. This
year alone over 19,000 Canadian women will be diagnosed with this
disease and tragically almost one-third of them will die. Breast
cancer has become the leading cause of death among women 35 to
55.
Today we wear pink ribbons. The colour of the ribbon symbolizes
hope for a cure. Today we offer our compassion and prayers for
strength to the women and their families who are fighting this
disease. A child losing its mother, a husband losing a wife; the
pain of the loss of a loved one is the deepest kind of pain.
We must continue to work at finding a cure. Let us recognize
and encourage the efforts of our Canadian researchers who are
world leaders in the fight against cancer. Collectively we must
continue to support every effort to better understand the causes
and cures of this deadly disease. The hope for a cure fuels the
search for answers. I know we all look forward to a day when we
can speak about that hope—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE PAULINE JULIEN
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
just heard that renowned Quebec singer Pauline Julien passed
away.
While we knew she was very ill, her death caught us all by
surprise. Pauline Julien was a greatly admired performing
artist. We are saddened by her death, especially on this
International Music Day.
Everyone in Quebec mourns her loss.
She will be remembered as an artist and a woman who loved the
French language and Quebec popular song. Pauline Julien
personified Quebec, as a dynamic, generous woman who shared her
enthusiasm for the development of the francophone and Quebec
culture.
I want to extend our condolences and sympathy to all members of
her family and all her friends. We share their pain and sorrow
over the loss of this great lady.
* * *
[English]
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, no word inflicts more fear in the hearts and minds of
families than cancer. Cancer is one of the leading causes of
death in Canada. Its toll is frightening.
October is breast cancer awareness month. The statistics speak
for themselves. Nearly 20,000 women will be diagnosed with
breast cancer this year and of these women, over 5,000 will die.
Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of death among women
35 to 55 and accounts for 30% of all cancer in women and 18% of
all cancer deaths.
This Sunday, October 4, cities and towns across Canada will host
Run for a Cure. We expect 50,000 people, women and men, to
participate, raising money for breast cancer awareness and
research. We need participation by all Canadians to conquer this
dreaded disease.
With your consideration, Mr. Speaker, for more information on
Run for a Cure and on breast cancer—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN NATIONAL
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in 1996 the Canadian Parliament passed the Canada Transportation
Act. Canadian National had announced an important
rationalization plan for its system. The people in my region
were justifiably concerned about the future of the railway.
The situation concerning the rail line between Ottawa,
Portage-du-Fort and Pembroke, Ontario has just come to a happy
conclusion. I am proud to have been a participant in the
discussions with CN authorities, resource people and Department
of Transport representatives. The sale of this rail line
ensures the people of the Pontiac and surrounding area of access
to transportation for years to come.
Our government brought its usual skills to bear in this
operation, and I am pleased to have been able to serve the best
interests of the people of my riding through my involvement.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF OLDER PERSONS
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
is the International Day of Older Persons. With the
International Year of Older Persons mere months away, it is our
duty to emphasize the necessity of recognizing and protecting
their rights.
Despite the Minister of Finance's statement in late July that
“the proposed seniors benefit reform will not take place”, our
seniors are nevertheless having to cope with the disastrous
consequences of the cuts this government has been championing
for too long already.
If it had not been for the fight put up by seniors, the AFEAS
and other golden age groups in particular, the dignity of our
seniors would have been attacked once again.
It is imperative for the government to assure seniors that the
pension and other social programs will be cost-of-living indexed
so as to guarantee the people who built Canada and Quebec a fair
and reasonable standard of living.
* * *
1410
[English]
WHALING
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today Makah Indians are preparing to slaughter grey whales just
off our west coast.
They claim the hunt is an expression of cultural
self-determination. It is reported that this in fact is a
commercial operation with the Japanese fronting more than $20,000
to promote the hunt and agreeing to purchase the whales at $1
million a piece.
The minister of fisheries has flip-flopped on this hunt four
times in the last two days as he scrambles to appease foreign
governments. RCMP and DFO officials have expressed serious
safety concerns regarding the slaughter of whales in our waters.
Greys are notoriously aggressive when wounded.
We need leadership in DFO. What will it take for the PM to
realize that everything the minister touches turns into an
unmitigated disaster? It is time for change. It is time for
leadership. The PM should have fired the minister, not the
committee chair.
* * *
KOSOVO
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
unanimous resolution of the House yesterday on Kosovo reflects
the sentiments of most Canadians about a human tragedy
reminiscent of Bosnia.
Words are inadequate to describe the treatment and persecution
of innocent civilians in Kosovo. As the world community watches
these events it is increasingly frustrated and believes itself to
be impotent.
The situation in Kosovo reminds us of the excesses of
nationalism, the dangers posed by people when driven by
fanaticism and the extent of barbarism of which the human species
is capable.
There is a role to be played by institutions such as the UN, the
Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe. Any of these could play a fine and
useful role in achieving what the people of Kosovo, Serbs and
Albanians alike, really want, an end to hostilities, persecution
and violence and a return to normality before winter sets in.
In other words, a political solution that will restore peace.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Canadian Transportation Agency ruled that CPR did not
allocate enough rail cars to haul farmers' grain to the west
coast in the winter of 1996-97.
This complaint was filed on behalf of grain producers by the
Canadian Wheat Board and included a complaint against CN rail as
well.
The wheat board estimates that this failure to provide adequate
service cost farmers $50 million and the board is now expected to
sue CP for a portion of those damages. This poor service is a
direct result of the effective monopoly by CN and CP on shipping
western grain. Yet these same railways argue that the system
should now be totally deregulated so that they alone can decide
what to haul, when to haul it and at what tariff.
This would be a disaster for western Canadian farmers.
Yesterday's ruling proves that in order to protect farmers the
federal government must continue to play a key role in regulating
grain transportation in Canada.
* * *
ARCTIC COUNCIL
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the town of Iqaluit for the warm welcome and generous
hospitality given to the delegates and ministers who attended
their first ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council held
September 17 and September 18.
The circumpolar peoples of the Arctic Council are committed to
improving socioeconomic conditions and protecting the environment
and cultures.
The people of Nunavut are very concerned with environmental
issues. My ancestors depended solely on the land and sea for
survival and today we Inuit respect and cherish that bond.
Therefore we were very happy to hear the same concerns expressed
by the international community at the Arctic Council as well as
all the initiatives to protect our joint heritage.
The people of Nunavut are also very aware of the problems faced
by our children and youth in the transition from traditional
Inuit culture to the computer age. The welcome given Canada's
children and youth of the Arctic initiative shows that our
concerns are shared and understood by the international—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE PAULINE JULIEN
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is
a feeling of sadness today in Quebec, as we are mourning the
passing of Pauline Julien.
The Bloc Quebecois extends its condolences to her children
Pascale and Nicolas, to her granddaughter Marie, whom she
adored, and to her friends and family.
Pauline Julien was an actor, a singer and a composer, and she
used her exceptional voice to interpret the songs of the
greatest French and Quebec songwriters. When she came back to
Quebec in the early sixties, she said “It is important for me to
sing my own songs. I had things to say as a woman, a singer and
a Quebecker, things that others could not say on my behalf”.
1415
For many, Pauline Julien is synonymous with political commitment
to Quebec and to the feminist cause. We will remember her
kindness, her compassion for the needy and her anger at seeing
the increasingly wide gap between rich and poor.
It is this woman, this singer, this Quebecker and this champion
of so many social, national and international causes, that
Quebec salutes with respect and pride.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last month the Liberals fired Bernard Dussault, the
Canada pension plan's top actuary. Why? Because he was about to
reveal how the Liberals had mismanaged the plan.
Not once, but twice, Mr. Dussault was told to alter his reports
because otherwise it would “embarrass the Minister of Finance”.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why does he permit
blatant political interference in the running of the Canada
pension plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions today
categorically denied that allegation.
I would like to read from the superintendent's statement
yesterday:
That is Mr. Dussault. It continues:
Not by the Minister of Finance, nor by any other Minister. I am
responsible for OSFI, and this was my decision as the
superintendent.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): You
can bet, Mr. Speaker, that if he had not said that, he would have
been fired today as well.
Bernard Dussault was fired because his report would have
embarrassed the Prime Minister. He was fired because his report
would have shown that the Liberal CPP plan was in deep trouble,
that the premiums being charged were not enough to cover the
miscalculations of the minister.
Will the Prime Minister reinstate Dussault so that he can give
us the honest report that he would have prepared?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the single most important thing in all of this is the
integrity of the Canada pension plan.
Neither the federal Minister of Finance nor the 10 provincial
ministers of finance, all of whom are involved, would be
embarrassed by whatever numbers come out.
Let me again quote from the superintendent's statement of
yesterday:
The team of competent professionals who worked under Mr. Dussault
remains in place. Mr. Hafeman, who is replacing Mr. Dussault is
a competent, experienced actuary—
Then he goes on to say that the superintendent—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it seems that the government will go to any lengths to
protect itself from embarrassment.
Somalia, an embarrassment: shred the documents. Krever, an
embarrassment: take him to court. Students, an embarrassment:
use the pepper spray. EI fund surplus, an embarrassment: steal
it. Now this actuary, an embarrassment: fire him.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is there any ethical
guideline he will not violate in order to protect his government
from embarrassment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very, very proud of the record of my government on
integrity in the last five years.
I am very, very surprised that the Leader of the Reform Party
would get up in the House with so many Reformers at his back.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a very serious matter. The confidence of
Canadians in their pension plan has been seriously shaken because
the independent chief actuary of the Canada pension plan, a man
held in the highest regard in his profession, has stated
categorically that he was asked to fudge the figures about the
plan.
Is the minister simply going to sit here and tell the House that
he will do nothing at all to deal with these serious allegations?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, as I have just mentioned, the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions has categorically denied that allegation.
1420
Second, let us understand what the superintendent has done. Not
only is Mr. Hafeman, who worked under Mr. Dussault, now
completing the report, but I will quote again from the
superintendent “to provide an extra layer of assurance”, along
the lines the member is talking about, “I will be seeking the
help of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. OSFI has been
working with the CIA on an important new initiative, the
development of a system of practised review”.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that Mr. Dussault's report, his five year
review of the CPP that he has been working on, will never see the
light of day. Some other figures, some other calculations, some
other projections will come forward from goodness knows which
sources. Apparently the minister has not even made up his mind
yet. It could be this. It could be that. It could be someone
else.
We need to know what the man who worked on this for seven years
thinks about the plan. Are we going to see that report?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is simply nonsense. First, Mr. Hafeman worked
under Mr. Dussault.
Second, what has happened is that the superintendent has asked
the Canadian Institute of Actuaries to come in and do a practised
review of OSFI's “actuarial services division early in the new
year”. He has asked them to do it with special emphasis on the
report of the CPP. There will not be one report; there will be
two and it will be approved by the Canadian Institute of
Actuaries.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC SITUATION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning the Canadian dollar is in free fall. For the fourth
consecutive month, the economy and all the economic indicators
are declining. The Prime Minister, however, continues to say
all is well.
Does the Prime Minister not think it is high time he acted as a
responsible Prime Minister and took measures to stimulate the
economy, before the country plunges into another recession?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear that we live in a volatile world. The meeting of the
Commonwealth countries has just concluded. We have just seen
the projections of the International Monetary Fund: two-thirds of
the world's economies are in recession. There is no doubt that
Canada will be affected.
That said, Canada, fortunately, has taken precautions in order
to weather these storms. That is what counts most.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
experts are saying, the economists are saying, the opposition is
saying, everybody is saying that there is a problem. For the
fourth consecutive month, the indicators are dropping.
The Prime Minister, however, says everything is fine. The king
is happy.
Is it not time the Prime Minister recognized that the first
responsible step he should take is to return to workers, to the
unemployed and to business the $7 billion he took from their
pockets and to inject this money into the economy? That
represents $500 million a month.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
us look at what the Bloc is asking. If we followed every
suggestion, we would be back in a deficit situation by the end
of the year, and interest rates would be on the rise.
Allow me to quote the president of the Bank of Hong Kong, who
said “Canada is being affected by events largely beyond its
control”. I thank God every day that our financial situation is
better than it was five years ago. Imagine what it would be
like if we still had a deficit, as the Bloc Quebecois would
like.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while
the government pocketed a $7 billion surplus over a four-month
period, experts are increasingly talking about a recession: the
GDP is declining, the dollar is plunging and consumer confidence
is being eroded.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime
Minister—who is stubbornly refusing to take any initiative to
get the economy back on track—not realize that the outrageous
cuts he continues to make in the economy could bring about a
recession within a year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all
the economists unanimously agree that, if there is a problem
with the economy, it is outside our borders. This situation
exists because there is a problem in Russia and Asia.
1425
The best thing we can do to weather the storm is to maintain our
policy, which is based on caution and a balanced approach.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a GDP
on the decline for four consecutive months is not the result of
an international problem, but a domestic one.
For the past two months, the Bloc Quebecois has been warning the
Prime Minister that we are slowly sinking into a recession.
So, I put the question to him: Will he continue to watch the
train go by until next spring's budget, or will he have the
courage to immediately take the actions he can and must take to
get the economy back on track, without running a deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that there are problems outside our borders.
According to the Bloc Quebecois, if the government of Russia
cannot collect taxes, it is Ottawa's fault. According to the
Bloc, if there is a problem with Japanese banks, it is Ottawa's
problem. According to the Bloc, if there are problems with
emerging economies, it is Ottawa's fault. The Bloc's position is
absolutely ludicrous.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is also for the Minister of Finance.
For some time now we have had preached to us the virtues of an
unregulated global economy and getting the fundamentals right
here at home. Yet by the minister's own admission there is a
storm coming. There is an economic downturn. There is a lot of
anxiety in the country.
Could the Minister of Finance tell us today whether he intends
any new measures to deal with the new situation which is that
getting the fundamentals right has not worked?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for a number of years the government has made its
projections we have been told that we have been too prudent, that
we have been too cautious. We have said that eventually there
will be a downturn, that eventually the kind of storm we are
going through in fact will occur.
It is for that reason we have been prudent. It is for that
reason we have put in place a plan that will enable us to take
advantage of the opportunities of an upturn and ride through the
storms when in fact they occur. Thank heaven we have done that.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I say to the Minister of Finance that when there is a
storm coming you generally take some kind of precautions,
especially when you know the storm is coming.
Given the fact that workers are the ones most likely to be hurt
by this coming economic storm, would the minister consider, in
the debate he wants about the EI surplus, whether or not
restoring benefits and eligibility in EI would be one of the
options, given that workers are the ones to be most affected if
the storm is as bad as we think it might be?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government looks forward to a debate certainly on
the EI issue, but in the kind of storm we are looking at we also
happen to believe that lowering taxes for seniors and lowering
taxes for self-employed workers is important.
We also believe there is no excuse not to make sure that the
health care system in the country is in as good shape as it can
possibly be. We believe that debt should be retired. We also
believe that EI premiums should be reduced. We will do all this
within the context of our financial resources.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Veterans Affairs stated regarding fair
compensation for Canada's merchant navy vets “I don't see the
appetite for that in my cabinet”. It is clear that the current
minister has no clout at the cabinet level.
I am very concerned about these merchant navy vets being on
hunger strike, but they remain convinced that hunger strike is
the only way to get fair treatment.
Since the Minister of Veterans Affairs does not have the
appetite to defend these vets, will the Prime Minister step in,
do the right thing and offer merchant navy vets fair compensation
like all other allied countries have?
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, hunger strikes are regrettable.
We are talking about the health and welfare of several Canadian
veterans. I would strongly caution the hon. member not to
inflame the situation with unnecessary rhetoric.
I have spoken to the merchant navy vets, as has the minister,
and we have assured them that with the 1992 legislation merchant
mariners are veterans in every sense of the word, that they are
entitled to all benefits currently available to veterans of the
armed forces, and that the 1992—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Conservative Party.
1430
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
embarrassed to hear such an answer like that from the government
when the poor merchant navy vets are right here.
Let me tell him that they are not equal. That is why the
minister wants to bring in new legislation which he was supposed
to bring in June.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs cares so little that he is on a
little trip in Korea. These men are still on a hunger strike.
The minister does not care for these veterans. All I ask from
the Prime Minister is will he replace him and put someone in who
does care for them?
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is a
distinguished military person and he does care and the member
knows it.
She is quite right. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is taking
a delegation of Canadian veterans of the Korean war back to their
former battle sites to commemorate the 45th anniversary of the
ceasefire in Korea. Let me tell the member that this delegation
is made up of representatives of every—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we know this government fires people who are about to expose the
truth as it has fired the CPP watchdog.
We know this government's failed fish policies, more
specifically foreign overfishing and the mismanagement within the
department have been an unmitigated disaster. We know the
fisheries committee chairman has been removed not only as
chairman but from the entire committee.
Is it the policy of this government to fire every single person
who gets in its way?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I and some of my colleagues had the privilege to talk
with the member for Gander—Grand Falls a few minutes ago. I
asked him why he had asked not to be the chair of the committee.
He said it was for personal reasons.
He asked me to inform the House and the Reform Party that he is
completely happy with the Liberal government. He is very happy
with the Prime Minister of Canada. He is very happy with the
policies of this government and he is—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we know this government has trouble with the truth:
Krever, Somalia, APEC the CPP watchdog and now fish. It is
shameful that this government is trying to hide behind some phony
excuse that it knows is absolutely not the truth.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to withdraw those last
few words.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, my question is—
The Speaker: I asked the hon. member to withdraw those
last few words.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, yes I will withdraw them. I
am sorry, I did not hear you.
The Speaker: The member will go directly to his question.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, we would like to know when
the member for Gander—Grand Falls in Newfoundland has been
promised his Senate seat?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted when the Reform Party tells me that I
have very good members of parliament. I invite Reform to do it on
a daily basis. It can say that for everyone on this side.
The member was a great chairman of the committee. He has done a
great job. He is a great friend of mine. I want him to sit in
the House of Commons because even the Reform Party loves him like
we all do.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
MONTREAL CONVENTION CENTRE
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the secretary of state responsible for regional
development.
The secretary of state is hiding behind the infrastructure
program when it comes to explaining his failure to act on the
Montreal Convention Centre issue. The fact is that priorities in
terms of infrastructure were set by the Quebec Liberals in 1993
but, in 1997, only $20 million was allotted to such projects.
Will the secretary of state act on the consensus that exists in
Montreal, where everyone wants the convention center to be
expanded?
Will Ottawa pay up, and pay up now?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to see that the Quebec government voted yesterday
to go ahead with the expansion of the convention centre, after
missing the boat the first time, with the infrastructure
program.
I must say, however, that I am a little surprised at their
attitude, because I spoke with Minister Perreault on Tuesday
afternoon. They certainly went to great lengths to keep things
quiet.
In any event, I am pleased with the decision made by the
Government of Quebec on behalf of all Montrealers; it will take
a great deal of pressure off us. I do hope that, as a prelude to
further co-operative efforts, this project will lead to a
solution at the national level.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is asleep at the switch on this issue. I want to ask
the real ministers from Montreal: Will they intervene to get
Ottawa to do its part? Will the ministers from Montreal stand up
and pay their share of the bill now?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I sincerely think that, if ever there was a government that has
done a lot for the Province of Quebec and the greater Montreal
area, it is the Liberal government on this side of the House.
Since 1996, we have invested more than $1 billion.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: We also intervened in a number of—
The Speaker: We are having a tough time hearing the answer. The
hon. secretary of state has the floor.
Hon. Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that, if there is
a government that is omnipresent in the Montreal area, it is the
Liberal government on this side of the House.
Since 1996, we have developed a policy to support Montreal in
key sectors, helping Montreal position itself and helping to
maintain or create nearly 26,000 jobs.
However, the lack of co-operation and partnership we saw
yesterday is unfortunate. I find this sad and I hope Quebeckers
will come up with a solution—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. secretary of
state. The hon. member for Edmonton North.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a list of groups who say that the EI overpayment should
go back to the workers and the employers who paid them in the
first place. That group includes small business, labour and now
the province of Ontario has come onside today saying that this
money must go back. But the law says that that money must go
back to those people who paid it.
I would like to ask the finance minister if he is willing today
to do something really new, really brave, really different, and
that is to obey the law.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has obeyed the law, number one. Number
two, we are in a very volatile economic situation. The IMF has
talked about the possibility of much more widespread depression
than even we see now outside of our borders.
It is very important that the opposition and Canadians
understand that we have to keep our powder dry. We have to
proceed with caution. We will reduce EI premiums, as we will
reduce income taxes as we will invest in health care as our
priorities. We must do that taking into account the international
situation. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
talking about being irresponsible in the volatile situation that
we face right now, there are a lot of Canadians inside this
House, both sides included, that say why in the world then would
the finance minister yesterday at a conference lend credence to
that and say that if he cannot keep his hands on all that EI
overpayment, we are going to fall into a recession? That is
volatile and that is irresponsible.
Why does the finance minister have to resort to these scare
tactics? What good is the fear factor?
1440
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member ought to get her facts right. That is
clearly not what I said. The hon. member knows full well that is
not what I said. What I said is that the IMF has said there is a
recession building up outside our borders and we basically have
to make sure that our financial strength is there to withstand
the storm.
The real issue is if the Reform Party wants to do what it is now
saying it wants to do, will it stand up and say that it is
against more money for health care, it is against more money for
small children, it is against broad based tax cuts, it is against
retiring the debt? Is the Reform Party prepared to accept the
consequences of its choices?
* * *
[Translation]
PRATT & WHITNEY
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
On August 28, Pratt & Whitney announced that it was laying off
900 employees, including 500 engineers, in its Longueuil
research and development units because of federal government
underfunding of the Technology Partnerships Canada program.
Does the minister realize that not only are these 900 jobs
strategic ones for Quebec, but that what is at stake is Quebec's
role, and Canada's role as a leader in—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Industry has the floor.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
admit that Pratt & Whitney's decision was a very regrettable
one.
I wish to point out that we created the Technology
Partnerships Canada program in the 1996 budget. It began with
$150 million, and was subsequently increased to $200 million and
then $250 million. Pratt & Whitney has received more than any
other company since the program's inception.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I trust the
minister is on top of this. If he is, he will know that not
just Pratt & Whitney, but the entire aerospace industry supports
these demands, because this is a high-growth sector.
I want to know whether or not the minister is prepared to do
something concrete to prevent yet another economic catastrophe
in the Montreal area?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am proud of our investments in the Montreal area. We have
invested in Pratt & Whitney, Bombardier, CAE and, last week, in
SPAR. We have created a sector in Montreal, in Canada that is
tops in the world. I am very proud of what this government has
done in the Montreal area.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister said that
he does not want to return the employment insurance
over-collection to workers and job creators because he needs the
money to save us all from a recession. He wants to spend it. It
may be news to the minister but British Columbia is already in a
recession and the over-collection that he sucked out of the B.C.
economy did not help.
The minister knows full well that payroll taxes kill jobs. Why
does the minister not do the right thing for B.C. and all
Canadians and just cut the premiums now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt Canadians are very worried about the
situation in British Columbia. It highlights the problems and
the integration we have in the world economy and what is going on
out there.
I am saying that caution and prudence are what have enabled us
to eliminate the deficit. They have seen our productivity
increase substantially and have brought our unemployment rate
down from 11.5% to 8.3%. We want to continue with that approach.
This is not the time to jump ship. It is not the time to panic.
It is the time to stay the course and we intend to do so.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if EI premiums were cut to their break
even point as actuaries now recommend, then workers would have an
extra $2.8 billion and small business would have $4 billion more
to create jobs.
1445
Instead of keeping it for his own political slush fund, why does
the finance minister not just obey the law, help, not hinder, and
return the money to the real job creators in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member does not quite understand something and
that is that the Reform Party, as part of its program, said that
the EI fund should be used to reduce the deficit. That is the
Reform Party's program.
Let them understand that they are now swallowing themselves
whole. Why are they swallowing themselves whole at this point?
They are doing so in order to argue against health care, in order
to argue against broad-based tax cuts, in order to argue against
debt reduction. That is why they are doing it. We do not buy
that.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, these past few weeks, the Prime Minister has
been making all sorts of plans to spend the billions of dollars
accumulated in the employment insurance fund.
However, in reply to a letter I sent him, the auditor general
said that “it would not be legal to use contributions or take
money out of the fund for purposes other than those prescribed
in the act”.
What does the Prime Minister have to say about the auditor
general's statement, which confirms what the Bloc has told him
repeatedly all week?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that our
government has always complied with the act. We are complying
with the Employment Insurance Act.
It is absolutely unbelievable that one would keep insinuating
that the government is not complying with the act. We do comply
with the Employment Insurance Act.
* * *
[English]
WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Once again
the Ontario government has been approached by the Nova Group to
get a permit to export large volumes of water from the Great
Lakes.
Will the minister assure this House that he will put a stop to
this massive export of our water?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for that question.
Water is of prime importance to this country. Canada stands
opposed to bulk water exports. We are in the process of
completing consultations with every province and we should have
that done very soon. We will be laying out a comprehensive
strategy on the issue this fall.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, thanks to
this federal health minister we have two classes of hepatitis C
victims in Canada. We have his kind, half of which are left out
in the cold, and then we have the kind in Ontario where every
single individual will be looked after.
Why does the health minister not admit to everyone today that
the only way his kind will get proper treatment is if they pack
up and move to Ontario?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is obvious listening to this member that we take very
different approaches. This member is someone who looks at the
sick and thinks they should get cash. We look at those who are
sick and think they should get care.
The hon. member insists on payment and we insist on treatment.
When will this member understand that those who have hepatitis C
do not want him to write them a cheque, they want to be written a
prescription? Let me give an example.
In Ontario we cannot get Interferon, the only drug that is of
any use, without paying $10,000, depending on your financial
circumstances, and getting permission from the Minister of
Health. We say that should—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
fascinating to listen to this story, but what the minister
forgets is the individual left without anything, without a
mortgage, without any life insurance, without access to this
medication. This individual does not want this health minister.
In fact he wants the Ontario health minister who has shown
compassion, who has not given care or cash, but a proper
compensation program. That is what he wants.
Why does he not do that?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
while this member and the Ontario minister of health pontificate
politically about payment, people in Ontario cannot get
Interferon which they need to treat their hepatitis C.
Not long ago two women from Windsor appeared before the Ontario
legislature begging for access to Interferon. They have to wait
weeks for the Ontario minister of health to give permission that
it be furnished and then they have to pay up to $10,000 to get
the drug.
1450
I say that is wrong. That is why we on this side of the House
want treatment. We want care, not cash. He is wrong and he
knows it.
* * *
BANK MERGERS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. As the
minister knows now, even the banker-friendly Senate banking
committee has said that the question of the mergers of banks is
not a question of life and death to the banks involved.
In light of that and in light of the growing opposition amongst
the public to the question of the mergers of the big four banks
in this country, I want to know from the Minister of Finance
whether he will let parliament make a decision on whether the
mergers should go ahead and not make the decision by himself.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the House of Commons finance
committee is now holding hearings on the MacKay report. As he
also knows, the government has stated that following the reports
of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the
Competition Bureau the government will make a decision.
If that decision were to consider proceeding, there would be
full public hearings—Commons and Senate public hearings.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I think the time has come for a direct answer. We all
know that a decision must be made sooner or later on the question
of mergers, a yes or no decision.
I want to know whether that decision will rest in the hands of
one man, the Minister of Finance, or whether parliament will have
a chance to vote and make a decision on whether these mergers
should proceed.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already answered the question. There will be
full public hearings. The opposition I am sure can have
opposition days. The opposition will be able to participate if
it chooses.
In these national hearings there will be full opportunity for
Canadians and every member of this House to express their views
on the mergers.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, we know
the facts about the firing of Bernard Dussault. Mr. Dussault
complained of being muzzled by the finance minister's information
police. He was asked twice by John Palmer to change numbers in
the CPP report because they would embarrass the minister. He
complained of being stripped of his Dynacan computer program
which was necessary to make accurate projections about the CPP.
I ask the Prime Minister: Was Bernard Dussault fired simply
because he would not manipulate information for the political
purposes of the finance minister?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to be very
clear on this question. The answer to the member's question is
no.
I would like to correct the member with respect to the program
he mentioned. It was a program that was requested by my
department, human resources. It has nothing to do with the
Department of Finance. We asked for that program. We wanted to
compare his findings. It has nothing to do with the Department
of Finance.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Bernard Dussault has been very clear in terms of his response to
this issue. The fact is that it was the minister's department,
along with the finance department, that put a case review
committee in place to muzzle Bernard Dussault. The Department of
Finance was robbing Bernard Dussault of his objective ability to
complete his job and make independent assessments of the CPP.
Dussault objected and he was fired. What was this government
trying to cover up about the Canada pension plan and why was John
Palmer so concerned about CPP projections that he wanted to
change the information so as not to embarrass the minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Palmer has denied those allegations categorically.
I will quote again from his statement: “—there have been no
differences regarding the professional work of his
Division—which is to calculate the actuarial liabilities of
public pension plans”.
What he said was that there was a list of differences between
Mr. Dussault and other members of OSFI management. He has
further gone on to say that he regards his own independence, that
of the Superintendent—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Durham.
* * *
INFORMATION HIGHWAY
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the industry minister. More and more Canadians
are accessing their business using the information highway. Many
of these people fear that their personal information will be
misused.
What is the minister doing to protect these citizens of Canada?
1455
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have today laid before parliament an important
additional building block in the government's strategy for
promoting electronic commerce. We have today tabled legislation
which will protect the privacy of personal information which is
retained in digital or electronic form. We are one of the first
countries to do so.
I believe this legislation will give consumers the confidence
they should have that the kinds of information they often
disclose to banks and to businesses in the private sector will be
fully protected.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thought we
held our press conferences outside.
The experiences that we have had this past week and particularly
this morning regarding APEC are just disgusting. We have seen
the Prime Minister's lawyers stonewalling. We have seen cabinet
ministers covering up. We have seen government MPs whipped into
submission in committees.
Democracy in this country is truly in trouble. I wonder what is
so wrong with this Prime Minister simply telling—
The Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Public Complaints Commission has dealt with
thousands of cases over the last 10 years. We have never heard
from the opposition before on this. It is quite a spectacle to
see members of the opposition falling all over themselves trying
to take political advantage of a very serious situation that the
Public Complaints Commission will be dealing with starting
Monday. I wish they would let it do its job and put their
political ambitions behind.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Starting December 21, the Canadian Coast Guard will be charging
a new icebreaking fee in eastern Canada. By imposing this
service charge on the whole region, the government is putting
Quebec in the same boat as the Atlantic provinces.
Considering that 80% of marine traffic is on the St. Lawrence
River, does the minister realize that Quebec will end up paying
most of the icebreaking fees for the maritime provinces and
Newfoundland?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the system that will be put in place for
the recovery of less than 20% of the costs of providing the
ice-breaking service will be based on the region.
It may be of interest to the hon. member that to get to the
Quebec ports and to the St. Lawrence River one sometimes has to
go through ice which is around Newfoundland. The result is that
some of the costs affecting the ships going to the St. Lawrence
ports are sometimes borne by ice-breakers in the Newfoundland
region.
We cannot simply break the ice on the river and ignore the
approaches to the river which he seems to believe we should do.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
Canada is launching its participation in the International Year
of Older Persons. Yet following 14 years of battle, more than
50,000 retired public service workers, most of whom are women
receiving pensions based on the lowest salaries, are still
fighting for pay equity. Twenty of these women are in parliament
today.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the government
honour these older women by paying them retroactive pay equity
and recalculating their pensions as ordered by the human rights
tribunal?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the judgment of the tribunal on human rights has been appealed.
It has been appealed for a very clear reason, for the reason of
equity.
There was a previous judgment by the federal court concerning
about 20,000 women and Bell Canada which used a certain
methodology to determine what the payment should be. The
tribunal has used a totally different methodology which our legal
experts say is incorrect.
Are we going to use two different standards to pay two groups of
women, one for the private sector and one for the public sector?
Obviously that would be inequitable and that is why we asked the
court to address the question.
* * *
1500
AIRBUS INVESTIGATION
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, there is mounting evidence of political interference
from the Prime Minister's office and the RCMP security at APEC.
Allegations have also surfaced which implicate the Prime
Minister's office in the RCMP's Airbus investigation. Canadians
want to know that their national police force is independent and
not subject to political interference.
Did the Prime Minister have any knowledge of the RCMP Airbus
investigation prior to November 18, 1995? What role did he play
in this entire affair?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in January of that year when there was a settlement, Mr.
Mulroney and his lawyers said that the parties accept that the
RCMP, on its own initiative, initiated the Airbus investigation,
that the minister of justice was not involved in the decision to
initiate the investigation and that before November 4, 1994, the
minister of justice was not aware of the request for assistance
in the RCMP investigation.
“The parties accepted that RCMP and the Department of Justice
in sending the request for assistance to Switzerland acted within
their legitimate responsibility in this matter”. That was
signed by Mr. Mulroney.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I point out to all viewers and to this House that you
were not being insensitive when I was cut off before getting out
the breast cancer research information number.
Under Standing Order 31, time restraint is very important and I
simply ran out of time. That number is 1-800-387-9816.
The Speaker: That was not a point of order, but there it
is.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
some days you give a little more leeway than others. Given the
nature of the economy in this country and the concerns people
will have, I wonder if the government House leader might apprise
the House of the nature of the business coming up for the
remainder of this week and for the week following.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given the nature of the economy
and the question just asked, I am pleased to answer that this
afternoon we shall continue debate on Bill C-43 respecting the
revenue agency. That is surely very important for the economy.
The back-up bills are Bill C-53, the small business bill for the
amelioration of the economy, and Bill C-51, the Criminal Code
amendments.
On Friday we will begin with those bills, Bill C-53 coming
first.
1505
Next Monday shall be an allotted day. On Tuesday we will deal
with the test ban bill, Bill C-52, after which we will attempt to
clean up any uncompleted bills such as Bill C-53, Bill C-51, Bill
C-43 and Bill C-42 in that general order. We will continue with
this list on Wednesday and Thursday. If this is finished we will
then begin Bill C-40, the extradition legislation, Bill C-44
respecting administrative tribunals and, time permitting, Bill
C-49 respecting first nation lands.
A week from Friday we will then call Bill C-50, the civil law
harmonization bill.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an
act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to
amend and repeal other acts as a consequence, be read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Lotbinière had eight and a half minutes remaining in his speech.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will do
my best not to go over eight and a half minutes.
Allow me to backtrack a little, because my speech was
interrupted for oral questions, and say it is my pleasure to
rise in this House today to speak on Bill C-43, to establish the
Canada customs and revenue agency.
I was telling the House that I oppose this bill, mainly on
account of the actions and behaviour of this government. We have
no intention of taking any chances by passing a bill whose sole
purpose is to centralize the collection of taxes across the
country, to downsize Revenue Canada and, above all, to establish
an agency that will clash with the Quebec Ministry of Revenue.
This agency, which, in my opinion, is a real governmental tax
collection monster, will have powers vested in it that will give
it access to all sorts of information on our private lives.
What will this agency do with this huge amount of personal
information concentrated in its hands? I would rather not think
about it.
The agency is a relative of Big Brother, the computer that could
run and rule the world.
At any rate, this new bill is doomed to fail. The rationale for
establishing the Canada customs and revenue agency is to have a
single agency in charge of collecting all the money and to
convince the provinces to get on board.
The minister had not even signed a single agreement when he
introduced Bill C-43. That shows how ridiculous this whole idea
is. Quebec and Ontario categorically refused to consider using
the agency. The initial support from several western provinces
has all but died down in the past few weeks, and even Prince
Edward Island has expressed concerns about the establishment of
this new agency.
Who are the ones who will pay the way for this agency? The
users, but at what cost?
Initially, the federal agency will attempt to demonstrate the
savings its establishment will bring about, but before long it
will be raising the charges to satisfy the greediness of the
Liberals.
As far as the millennium bug is concerned, will all the changes
which are being announced at this time and which Revenue Canada
employees will have to face make it any easier for them to
prepare for this transition in informatics, which is already
demanding much energy? What stage has Revenue Canada reached in
its preparations for the year 2000? No one knows.
I would now like to focus the House's attention on some of the
clauses of Bill C-43, clauses 6 and 8 to be specific.
1510
The agency is placed under the responsibility of the Minister of
National Revenue, yet clause 8 stipulates:
8.(1) The Minister may authorize the Commissioner or any other
person employed or engaged by the Agency—to exercise or
perform on the Minister's behalf any power, duty or function of
the Minister under any act of Parliament—
In other words, the agency could fall into the hands of a
super-bureaucrat, possibly a good Liberal, who is neither elected
nor accountable.
Now I would like to summarize the reasons why I am proposing
that Bill C-43 be withdrawn: the centralizing obsession of the
Liberal government; the danger this agency represents for the
Quebec Department of Revenue; the anti-union attitude of the
government in this bill as it affects Revenue employees; the
intrusion on the privacy of our fellow citizens.
I need not remind the House of the performance of the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency in its current handling of the scrapie
crisis with Quebec sheep, where there is such an administrative
muddle that the minister and the agency cannot even figure out
where they are at. Do you think we are going to give this
government another chance to create an agency? No.
I am saying no to the Liberals' plans, I am saying no to this
bill and I am calling for its immediate withdrawal, in
accordance with the amendment moved this morning.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
one of the most important features of the bill to establish the
Canada customs and revenue agency is without a doubt the
increased participation of the provinces and territories. The
framework for their participation is an important part of the
proposal to create the agency.
Revenue Canada is already providing them with a number of
services and has taken steps to further increase co-ordination of
fiscal administration. By creating appropriate conditions for
improved co-ordination, the agency will be able to serve national
and provincial interests.
In addition, the new agency will make it possible to reduce
duplication and overlap in the administration of federal and
provincial revenue. There is only one taxpayer.
Why, therefore, is there not just one tax collection agency?
This approach will enable government to reduce its
administrative costs and lower enforcement costs.
We feel it is important to mention that the new agency will not
be taking over provincial or territorial powers. No action will
be taken until the provinces and territories agree that it is
cost-effective for the agency to provide a particular service.
We also wish to point out that this fundamental attitude is not
new in Canada. Right now, Revenue Canada collects individual
income taxes for nine provinces and corporate taxes for seven.
Revenue Canada administers social benefit programs for British
Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, the Northwest
Territories and Nova Scotia. It also collects sales taxes and
taxes on alcohol and tobacco products for many provinces at
border points. Revenue Canada also administers the national
child benefit.
There is therefore no lack of precedents for this co-ordination
and pooling of services. The proposed agency's structure could
lead to even greater co-operation and, at the same time,
increased provincial participation in fiscal administration.
For their part, the provinces and territories will be able to
submit lists of candidates from the private sector for 11 of the
15 director positions on the board of management, which will be
responsible for planning the agency's activities.
These directors will not represent the interests of their own
province; they will instead help the agency take into account
the special characteristics of provinces and regions in its
management activities.
1515
The agency will have fairly broad powers to enable it to
conclude agreements on the provision of services with each
province, such as on the collection of an unharmonized
provincial tax.
To date, Revenue Canada has administered only those provincial
taxes that were harmonized with federal taxes. Thus the number
of programs Revenue Canada could administer was limited. Under
Bill C-43, the agency will have the power to administer taxes
that are not harmonized, such as a provincial sales tax that is
not harmonized. There are, nevertheless, economies of scale to
be achieved with a single administration, even with an
unharmonized tax.
The agency will conclude an agreement with a province to
administer a tax, but all agreements reached will be governed by
the guidelines established by the ministers of finance of the
federal and provincial governments.
These guidelines will ensure that all taxes collected by the
agency for the provinces and territories will first be legally
valid, will not interfere with the self-assessment system, will
not result in double taxation, will be fair and, finally, will
be collected in the context of contractual agreements acceptable
to all parties.
This last criterion reflects an important aspect of these
agreements. They are service contracts. The agency will
provide a service to a province or a territory according to the
specific terms of a contract between the two parties.
This means that the province or territory will continue to enjoy
full powers to apply the tax and will be accountable to its
taxpayers in this regard. The agency will have to consolidate
its obligation to report to the provinces with respect to the
administration of programs on their behalf, so that they in turn
may provide an accounting to their own taxpayers.
Once a year, the agency commissioner will have to report to the
provincial and territorial ministers on the programs and
services administered on their behalf. In addition, he will
offer to meet the ministers annually as well in order to obtain
their feedback on the agency's performance with respect to their
programs and services.
This reinforcement of the obligation of accountability and of
performance guarantees between the agency and the provinces and
territories will make it possible to ensure that programs and
services remain innovative, client-focused and, above all,
cost-effective.
A study by the Public Policy Forum estimates that Revenue Canada
could administer current provincial taxes at a saving of between
$97 and $162 million over what it costs today. This represents
an overall drop of 6% over today's costs, if all provinces
participate.
Initially, a good number of the provinces adopted a wait-and-see
attitude. They wanted to see the agency fully operational
before giving unconditional support. This attitude changed as
the information about the agency became clearer and the
consultation process advanced.
In fact, the attitude of several of the provinces was very
positive and they are now prepared to give serious consideration
to handing some of their activities over to the agency.
At the present time, we are undertaking joint studies with
certain provinces in order to examine specific possibilities.
The more provinces and territories participate, the more savings
there will be for individuals, businesses and governments. It
is, therefore, in the interest of all Canadians to have as much
provincial and territorial participation as possible.
The position of New Brunswick Minister of Finance Edmond
Blanchard is a typical example of this. In a recent Canadian
Press article dated March 20, 1998, he expressed his agreement
for the agency to handle more of New Brunswick's taxation
operations. According to Mr. Blanchard, “If efficiency can be
enhanced, I am prepared to look at the options”.
Bill C-43 will put the Canada customs and revenue agency into
concrete form. This agency will be structured and positioned in
such a way as to obtain the support of the provinces and
territories. All provinces and territories, as well as the
federal government, have worked hard to put their finances in
order. The Canada customs and revenue agency now represents an
opportunity to reduce costly duplication and overlap between the
various levels of government still further.
When we speak of provincial participation in this new agency,
there is one particular question that crops up once again: How
can a true national agency be set up without the participation
of Quebec?
1520
The success of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is not
dependent on the participation of all provinces and territories.
In fact, participation in the agency's activities is optional.
The purpose of the agency is to provide a platform that would
help the provinces. The agency will not appropriate provincial
powers.
We have consulted Quebec, and the other provinces, since the
beginning of the process. Quebec told us that, while it does not
want the new agency to administer its programs, it wants to be
kept informed of the agency's progress.
The legislation establishing the agency proposes a framework
based on closer co-operation.
The provinces, including Quebec, do not have to give to the
agency the responsibility of administering a larger number of
programs on their behalf. That decision is made by each
individual province.
It should be noted that Quebec's participation would increase
the benefits of having a single tax agency. However, even if
Quebec does not participate, Canadian businesses will benefit
from annual savings of $116 million to $193 million. Moreover,
annual savings of between $37 million and $62 million will be
achieved in terms of the administrative costs for all
governments.
Any new program administered by the agency will have been
subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. This will apply to Quebec,
as well as to other provinces.
I should point out that even if Quebec decides not to have the
agency administer one of its programs, it could still be
represented on the board of management.
In conclusion, there are many issues on which the parties and
regions may disagree. However, if we want all Canadians to
achieve substantial savings, regardless of their province or
origin, all of us in this House must remember that we represent
one person, the taxpayer, and that we must do our utmost to make
that person save money. I do hope that all members will support
this initiative.
[English]
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to be in the House today to speak on
the bill before us.
Many Canadians have expressed the basic fear of the
concentration of too much power in one place. In developing the
Canada customs and revenue agency, we have been sensitive to this
concern as well. Tax, customs and trade administration affect
the lives and livelihood of all Canadians. They want to be sure
they are dealt with fairly and that their rights are protected.
It is our intention to create a super agency, one with unlimited
power and unlimited scope. In fact, in the design of the new
agency we have maintained the essential checks and balances that
govern the activities and ensure the accountability of Revenue
Canada.
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 if there is a complaint, the minister will be
fully accountable to parliament and the public for the
administration and enforcement of this specific legislation.
As well, the minister will have the authority, as the case is
now, to answer questions in the House and to ensure that the
agency is acting properly in its dealings with the Canadian
public.
The confidentiality of taxpayers' personal information will be
protected under this new agency, just as it is currently
protected with Revenue Canada. The authorities governing
confidentiality are clearly set out in the legislation and they
will not be changed or compromised by this bill.
Revenue Canada has decades of experience in handling highly
confidential information for millions of individuals and
organizations. There is absolutely no reason to believe that
this commitment to confidentiality would change under the
departmental agency status.
Furthermore, the legislation before this House will specifically
restrict the board of management of the new agency from directing
the commissioner or any agency employee to exercise authorities
under programs legislation of provincial statute. This will
effectively ensure that the board will not have access to
confidential tax, customs or trade information for individual
Canadians or businesses.
From an overall operational standpoint, the agency will have to
develop a corporate business plan every year. This plan will
have to be submitted to the minister who will in turn recommend
its approval by the Treasury Board. A summary of this plan will
also be tabled in parliament. So any new or unusual plans by the
agency that would unreasonably extend its powers would be nipped
in the bud.
1525
The commissioner of the agency will have to offer to meet with
provincial and territorial representatives annually to report on
how programs have been delivered on their behalf. This will
provide yet another check on the power of the new agency. The
raison d'être of the Canadian customs and revenue agency is not
to create a larger entity. Revenue Canada already employs
between 40,000 and 46,000 permanent and temporary employees.
Instead, the rationale is to expand the efficiency of the
programs and services, to reduce overlap and duplication and to
provide greater saving to Canadians. Doing something better is
not necessarily an expansion of power but an extension of
service, service to Canadians, service to businesses and services
to the provinces and territories.
The intention of Bill C-43 is not to create a super agency.
Rather, it is to establish a framework with all the checks and
balances for a super agency.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, my question pertains to privatization. In
Saskatchewan where I come from we have experienced privatization
in spades. Every time something was privatized it resulted in
larger debt for taxpayers, fewer jobs for people living in that
province and the jobs that were left were lower paying jobs. It
also resulted in reduced services, higher costs for those
services and in many cases reduced services with a higher cost
attached. Wherever you go in Saskatchewan when people say we are
going to privatize something, it is like a four letter word.
People spit that word out. Every single time something has been
privatized they have screwed up the service, the utility or the
product they have been marketing.
Can the member opposite explain to Saskatchewan people how
privatization of our taxation collection system is going to be
any better for them? Given the bad vibes and the bad results of
privatization in Saskatchewan, and the member telling us that
they will have all this confidential information for Canadians,
what assurances can he give us that this privatization will not
be like all the others that have happened in Saskatchewan and
that there will be some sense of security for those people filing
their income taxes, paying their taxes?
Mr. David Iftody: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question but I believe he is wrong. This is not a bill
about privatization. I know the minister of revenue has been in
consultation with all finance ministers of the provinces and
territories. He has had detailed discussions with the minister of
finance from the member's home province as he has had with the
minister from my province of Manitoba. Those discussions have
gone very well. The provinces recognize properly that in forming
this new agency we are going to save Canadian taxpayers some
money. Instead of two sets of books, two auditors and two
processes, we can do it one time through this agency. We have
the database and we are capable of doing this.
There is nothing inherent in this bill that would suggest it is
going to be privatized, that information will be divulged to
people who ought not to have it. I just finished saying that
this is one of the guarantees that will be worked out in the bill
with the participants in this province. There may be even more
jobs created so I do not accept the hon. member's premise that
there is some deep dark luring process in here that will send
Canadian taxation and revenue employees scrambling to the streets
looking for jobs.
1530
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague.
First of all he mentioned the streamlining of this agency. It
seems as though the provinces are not onboard with this super
agency which he referred to therefore reducing the probability
that there will be cost savings if there are in fact to be two
agencies collecting taxes.
The hon. member also mentioned the handling of highly
confidential information. I am wondering if the member can
explain how the current system is able to give information. In a
case that was mentioned in a speech earlier today by my hon.
colleague, information from a person within his own province of
Manitoba was given to an insurance agency. It was highly
confidential information and ended up in the wrong hands.
How is it that this super agency with unlimited power can ensure
that there is going to be any confidentiality? What specifics in
this bill point to the fact that Canadians can be assured that
information regarding their taxes will not be shared with others
who are not privy to that information? How can that be so?
Mr. David Iftody: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
the question.
One of the principles and the pillar of this new agency will be
that it will be fully accountable to the minister and therefore
to parliament. That linkage, that trust relationship, that
fiduciary relationship between the Canadian taxpayer and
parliament will not be broken.
I would like to mention for the record that the Minister of
Finance from Manitoba as reported in the Winnipeg Free
Press has supported this agency and I believe is eager to be
part of that.
In response to the member's question, it is a legitimate one but
I think we have the necessary checks and balances to make sure
that does not occur.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on behalf
of the NDP caucus on Bill C-43. I would like to say at the
outset that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle outlined very well
why members of the NDP are opposed to this bill.
This is a very significant bill that the House is debating
today. It deals with the importance of the national collection of
taxes and revenue in Canada. Certainly from the government
perspective, from the House of Commons perspective, this is
probably the fundamental purpose we are here, to ensure there is
a fair and equitable collection system as well as a process and
formula whereby we do collect taxes from the Canadian people.
From the public point of view this is also a very significant
issue. If we talk to Canadians about the taxation system, people
obviously do not like paying taxes but I think Canadians
understand that the process of doing that is something that must
be transparent. It is something that must have a measure of
accountability because it really is the most fundamental purpose
and issue of why we are here in this House. From that point of
view this bill is very important.
The issue arises then as to whether or not this bill is good
public policy or whether it takes us in another direction. Having
examined the bill and having looked at the various commentaries
about this bill, I and my colleagues have come to the conclusion
that this bill represents bad public policy. I would like to
give a number of reasons why we have come to this conclusion.
First of all the bill is premised on the fact that bigger is
better. When we look at the provisions that are contained in
Bill C-43, it is quite alarming and scary to think that this
bill, if it is approved by this House, will put into motion a
mega tax collection agency in Canada that will go from the
national to the provincial and even the municipal levels.
This agency could be in a position where it ends up collecting
provincial sales taxes, gasoline taxes, liquor taxes, municipal
property taxes and on and on. It raises the question of do we
want this mega tax agency to be involved with such concentration
in collecting taxes across the country?
I come from a municipal background.
I understand as do other municipal representatives that the
people of Canada, whether they are voting at the municipal,
provincial or federal levels, believe very much in the old adage
of no taxation without representation.
1535
I know at the municipal level when decisions are made about
municipal taxes, and the same is true at the provincial and
federal levels, that there is an expectation that elected
representatives are accountable for the decisions they make. That
is not only decisions in terms of process and where taxes are
spent, but also how taxes are collected.
One of the very alarming measures and proposals in this bill is
it creates this mega tax agency and we will lose the sense of
accountability at other levels of government in terms of tax
collection. This is something we should be seriously concerned
about.
The NDP believes very strongly in a strong federal government.
In terms of national unity, in terms of what it is that holds
Canada together, we believe there have to be national standards.
It may seem contradictory that on this issue we are arguing
against some kind of national agency that collects taxes from
even other levels of government. I think the difference here is
that because taxation is something that is involved in different
levels of government, it is really important that those levels of
government be responsible not just for the decisions they make
but also for their tax collection and the accountability for
that.
From that point of view we are very concerned about the
rationale put forward in this bill that bigger is better. It
leaves us open to all kinds of abuses. It leaves us open to a
distance in terms of decisions that are made and the
accountability that needs to be held.
Dealing with the issue of accountability, as a member of
parliament, like other MPs, a lot of my case work in my
constituency involves Revenue Canada. We get queries and
complaints from constituents who feel lost in the maze of Revenue
Canada. One of the fundamental concerns I have about this bill
and I hope that other members of the House would have about this
bill is that we lose the sense of accountability.
At the end of the day it is we as members of this House who have
to provide the role of watchdog and monitor what happens in
Revenue Canada or any other federal government department. I hold
that responsibility for my constituents. I try to do the best I
can when they raise complaints and concerns about Revenue Canada
or any other department. That is a hard enough job, but it is a
role we hold in this House and I believe that members take that
role seriously.
What concerns me about Bill C-43 is that the government is
poised to create a super agency that will now have a greater
distance in terms of the relationship of the minister. It sets
up sort of a private sector board and no doubt there will be
Liberal appointees on it. It takes us one step further from the
accountability that comes from this House of Commons and the
members who are here in terms of providing that role of
monitoring Revenue Canada.
For those reasons alone we should be speaking out against the
creation of this super agency. We want to have departments and
operations of the government that are fully accountable to the
Parliament of Canada. I think there is enough in this bill to
cause us concern that that will not be the case if this bill is
approved.
There are also some very serious concerns around issues to do
with personal privacy. When I talk to my constituents in the
riding, one of the issues that comes up continually is people's
concern about the loss of privacy involving government
operations. This is something that comes up in dealing with
departments and government operations, such as Revenue Canada. I
know that others as well have raised this as a concern.
The bill is creating this super agency of tax collection and
concentrating the powers in a massive bureaucracy. It will have
such wide sweeping powers for collection, potentially at every
level of government. That is what the aim is of this bill and of
the mandate that is being put before us. What will be eroded is
an individual's right to privacy and confidentiality as people
find themselves dealing with a huge bureaucracy where
information, perhaps inadvertently or through whatever process,
may end up in the wrong hands.
That is another reason why we should be very concerned about the
creation of this agency.
1540
A little while ago in the debate we heard one of the government
members give some of the reasons that the government believes
this tax collection agency is a good thing. One of the reasons
cited was that there would be greater savings. We were told that
there will be less overlap. We were told there is one taxpayer
so why not one agency. We were told that there will be increased
participation by the provinces.
When one looks at this bill and at the dangers that are inherent
in the creation of this super agency, I think the alleged
benefits that are created become very suspect. I doubt that
there will be greater savings. Even the work that has been done
so far has created costs but the creation of new layers of
bureaucracy in terms of this super agency is something that is
costing us money. However, if there are greater savings, then I
think we have to ask at what cost. At what cost in terms of the
privacy loss that may be involved and in terms of the lack and
lessening of accountability that will accrue as we move into this
one agency.
Those are very serious issues that we have to debate in this
House and challenge the government to answer. So far it has not
provided answers to the questions that have been raised.
In terms of overlap and duplication, I would again like to
express the concerns that we on this side of the House have about
this mega agency becoming all-encompassing. We will lose the
sense of accountability.
We have also been told that provincial governments are very much
in favour of the potential cost savings and in handing over the
collection to this mega agency. When we look at the record, as
my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle outlined, we can see that
there are two major provinces with major populations that are
opposed to this agency. Now there are other provinces
particularly in western Canada that are expressing concerns.
There is a lot of doubt that there will be any sign on as
envisioned by the government.
The proposition is being put forward that this is a sold thing
and that it is well on its way, but from day one this proposal
has been in trouble. I think a lot of doubt has been created and
some of it has come from the provinces.
Another issue that should cause us concern is the prospect that
this agency will have the ability to levy user fees. This is
something that has not come out very much and something which is
not well understood. It is very important for us to understand
that if this bill is approved and this agency is set up, it would
have the potential to bring in user fees for certain client
services.
We have to examine that very carefully and see the warning
signals of what that means. We look at that kind of measure
along the lines of privatization. Privatization and user fees go
hand in hand.
This brings me to my next concern, the massive privatization of
Revenue Canada. Something like 40,000 workers are involved. Most
of the unions that are involved in Revenue Canada have been very
opposed to this proposal. It is easy for the government or other
opposition parties to discount the comments of the workers at
Revenue Canada or any other government department and say “Well,
they just have a vested interest and we should not consider
seriously what they have to say”.
1545
Over the years I have learned that people who work on the front
line, who understand the operation intimately of any department,
whether Revenue Canada, the pension plan, EI or whatever, have
very valid legitimate things to say. They have the real
experience of what makes a department work.
When we hear from the representation of workers in Revenue
Canada that they have serious concerns about the privatization of
this agency it sounds a warning bell to members of the House of
Commons to take serious note. We should consider their
arguments. We are not in favour of privatization. The NDP
believes strongly that these core government services should
remain as departments of the government. They should be
accountable to the House of Commons. Look at Canada Post and the
relationship that has deteriorated between the people of Canada,
the customers, and the corporation. One need only look at other
privatized services to see the sense of distrust that develops.
Again this becomes a very strong reason why we should reject
this bill and say that this is taking us down the wrong road. We
do not want to go down the road of privatization. We want to
ensure that this department remains within government services,
that it is clearly mandated, that there is accountability to the
House so that we do not end up in a scenario of user fees where
this agency is used to pressure, for example, the harmonized
sales tax.
We know from day one that one of the purposes of this agency was
to promote that kind of idea. The fact is that idea fell flat.
It was a resounding failure in the maritimes. With the creation
of this agency under Bill C-43 the potential exists that there
will be pressure from this agency to move ahead with the
harmonized sales tax which Canadians are increasingly rejecting.
Within the financial community there has been debate about this
bill. People have looked at the proposal and have tried to
decide whether there actually is a public benefit, whether there
are economic reasons for moving ahead at this, whether there are
public policy reasons for moving ahead with this, whether this is
in the interests of Canadian taxpayers.
It has been very clear that even the auditor general has
expressed concerns about this proposal. This was raised in the
auditor general's report of December 1997. He asked how
Canadians and parliamentarians will have assurances that the
public interest is protected. That is a very good question. How
will we be provided with that assurance? The government has not
given us any indication or substantial answer that the creation
of this super agency will protect the public interest, that
Canadians will be better off under this proposal.
We also have comments from other people. For example, Professor
Vern Krishna from the University of Ottawa's CGA taxation
research centre asked what really are the benefits. He clearly
raised a number of doubts about the real public benefits of
moving ahead with this.
This is the kind of bill that is not on the front pages of the
newspapers. It is not on the national news at night.
Nevertheless, it is a significant proposal. It has been a long
time in the works. It is a proposal that has gone wrong. It is a
proposal that does not serve the public interest. It is a
proposal that raises serious questions about accountability of
what is a core function of the federal government and other
governments.
1550
At the end of the day I and other members of my caucus believe
that when it comes to taxes and revenue collection we have to
ensure there is a clear line of responsibility and
accountability.
For us that means saying no to privatization. It means saying
no to user fees and it means saying we believe in a system that
ensures a responsibility and an involvement of local governments.
That means saying no to a mega organization, a mega new
bureaucracy that will be more distant from this House, more
distant from members of parliament, more distant from the
Canadian public. For those reasons we are opposed to Bill C-43.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Madam Chair, I can only conclude that the member
unfortunately has not read the material and is not aware of some
of the points. Perhaps I can correct her.
First of all, moving to the agency is creating a vehicle for
options. I do not know why the member is against creating new
options so that we can work with the provinces, so that we can
sit down and say let us see what the benefits are, let us see how
we can work together. It is about creating new options for
Canadians as well.
Let me give the hon. member a good example. In the last tax
return we asked Canadians if they would like to be on the
electoral list. We asked them to checkmark the electoral list.
Eighty-one per cent of Canadians chose to be on the electoral
list. That means for Canadians we are going to save $30 million
for every election because we do not have to do an enumeration.
That is about working together for the benefit of Canadians.
Let me give the hon. member another example, the child tax
benefit. When the Government of British Columbia wanted to carry
out a child tax benefit, it came to Revenue Canada and said can
you perform this service for us. Because we have the computer
system, the data, we were able to provide the service, to deliver
a very important benefit for the Government of British Columbia
at millions of dollars less than if it had to build a parallel
system to deliver that program. We worked with British Columbia.
Creating the agency is about creating a vehicle for choices. It
does not force the provinces to do anything. In fact, it
includes them.
The member has mistakenly said that we can put anybody on the
board. Clearly the legislation says that each province will be
able to nominate. The NDP government in British Columbia will be
able to nominate people to sit on the board of management to make
sure there is accountability.
The bill surely talks about accountability. I know many members
have quoted the auditor general. The auditor general's quote was
referring to the old model. I have made the changes because of
the consultation I have done over the last year to make sure we
have full accountability.
My final point is that in the last finance minister's meeting,
one of the items on the agenda was the agency. In fact, all the
finance ministers agreed to the guidelines regarding what the
agencies could collect.
Mr. Petter, the former finance minister of British Columbia, at
that time said this is the right direction, it is about reducing
overlap, about reducing duplication, about making sure we reduce
the compliance cost to business and about giving better service.
The ministers agreed.
The member talked about user fees. It is simply not true. That
is totally erroneous.
In terms of harmonized sales tax, the agency says you do not
have to harmonize. Let us sit together and see if there is
opportunity to work together on collecting non-harmonized taxes.
If you want to talk about harmonization that is something that
the finance people do. We are in the business of tax
administration. We have said part of this is to be able to
collect non-harmonized taxes.
In terms of the quote from Mr. Krishna, he was referring to the
former model. Mr. Krishna is a member of an advisory committee
to me as Minister of National Revenue. I have discussed this
matter and he was referring to the original model which we have
changed to create greater political accountability.
Really what we are talking about are choices. What we are
talking about is opportunity. What we are talking about is
bringing the federal and provincial governments together.
Canadians want us to work in co-operation. They want to make
sure we get rid of overlap and duplication to simplify and
streamline.
1555
That is what the agency is all about. It is creating a new
vehicle for us to work together in co-operation.
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comments. I am surprised when we are told that this is
simply a vehicle for creating options and that it is a pretty
soft approach and we should not worry about it.
I think there has to be an acknowledgement that there have been
serious concerns raised about this proposal. If it is simply a
vehicle for creating options and choices then where are the
provinces lined up all raring for this to go? That does not
appear to be evident. It is quite the contrary. There is
opposition. There are serious doubts about whether this, as the
minister has said, would simplify and streamline the system.
What does that mean?
What is the downside of that, what are the costs of creating a
massive new bureaucracy that allegedly will simplify and
streamline the collection of these revenues?
I reiterate that there are questions of accountability raised by
the provinces and by experts in the field who are still saying to
the government that there needs to be further review and there
needs to further work before this proposal is moved on.
I do not think the minister can escape the reality that the
provinces are not lining up at the door to move ahead with this
proposal. On the contrary, they are casting doubt and they have
many questions and concerns about this proposal which I think
should cause the government to go back to square one, back to its
advisory committees or whatever processes are in place to look at
the fundamentals of this bill and look at where it went wrong.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the remarks of my hon. colleague, who
raised some very important issues.
When any bill is introduced, we must first consider how it will
affect individuals and their privacy. Does the bill affect
privacy? Does it affect individuals?
My colleague mentioned she was from a rural riding; so am I. It
is well known that, in rural ridings in particular, services
provided to the public are extremely important.
I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Finance saying the Minister of Finance has said this and the
Minister of Finance had said that. The minister says many
things; on the subject of the employment insurance, he has said
some pretty incredible things, so this may not be the best
yardstick. In my opinion, the yardstick is our constituents,
individuals. We also heard that savings would be made. But on
whose backs will these savings be made?
I would ask my colleague to elaborate a little on how this could
interfere with someone's privacy.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his very thoughtful comments and questions. I agree that
there are very serious concerns about the impact of this proposal
on the individual.
We heard from the minister that this is about streamlining,
about simplifying. Even if we take that at face value that may
be good for governments in terms of huge bureaucracies but there
are very real questions about how that does affect individual
Canadians who then have to find their way through an increasing
maze of a massive bureaucracy, to try to retrieve information, to
find out what happened to their income tax return or any other
matter that may be before the agency.
From the individual's point of view, from the taxpayer's point
of view, there has not been a thorough examination to really
answer whether this is in the public's interest, which is not
necessarily the same as the government's interest in terms of the
bureaucracy.
1600
The question here is the public interest and I think for
individual Canadians that question has not been answered. In
fact, there are serious concerns that it is not in the public
interest and, therefore, it should not go ahead.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to follow the previous speaker. The prepared text that I
had has disappeared because of the many issues raised in her
speech and throughout the day and I think it is necessary to
debunk some of these myths.
Where is the piece in the proposed legislation which takes away
the privacy conditions of the Income Tax Act? It is just not
there. The sections of the Income Tax Act will be the same.
They prevent people from getting personal taxpayer information.
Canada has the best revenue collection in the world. We have
over 97% voluntary compliance. People sitting in the gallery and
watching on TV know that every year they sit down, gather their
information, calculate, self-assess, send in the information to
the government and, in large part, do it correctly. They get a
refund or they submit their taxes. Nobody comes pounding on the
door. People in this country are responsible. It is the
responsible citizens of this country who will be best served by
this piece of legislation.
Under this legislation we are not in a transition to some
private company. Private companies do not have cabinet ministers
answerable to parliament. The citizens demand accountability and
citizens across this country, no matter whether they are in one
province or another province across the land, are taxpayers.
They pay taxes to different levels of government.
Unfortunately, these citizens have not had the best service
because they have had to answer to different auditors at
different levels of government, and not only individuals but
businesses as well. The small businesses that drive the engine
of our economy could have a provincial tax auditor come in one
day, a federal auditor the next and an income tax auditor the
next.
What we are talking about is the potential for better service to
Canadians and the potential for new partnerships with Canadians,
new partnerships between levels of government.
I would like to know if any government, any finance minister,
any province has definitively slammed the door and said “We do
not even want to listen to what you are talking about”.
The finance ministers, as the minister just told us, got
together and came up with guidelines on what is potentially
available. There would be a range of services and options
available both at the provincial and federal levels. For
instance, the Atlantic region was promised a range at the time of
harmonization. It is another step, another potential choice.
There has to be accountability. In the speech we talked about
representation and accountability if you have representation in
your population. What better method of accountability to the
different levels of jurisdiction, that is, provincial, federal
and territorial, than allowing those levels of government—in
fact, we do work with many of them right now—to have input and to
give to the federal government nominees to fill the positions on
the board that will form a new body of management?
They will be approved at the federal level. That is in the
bill.
It will be a new approach to public service management. Are we
unique? Are we the only people in the world who have dreamed up
this scheme? No.
I have had the privilege over the last couple of years of
serving as the parliamentary secretary and I have worked with the
men and women in this department. I am very pleased that we have
a new parliamentary secretary in the department of revenue, but I
still believe firmly that the employees and the public are well
served.
1605
We have looked at some of the models that are out there in the
world, models such as those in the United Kingdom, Australia and
New Zealand which have similar mechanisms.
It is important to understand that some of the things we have
heard today are things that would concern Canadians. They would
concern me as a taxpayer if they were true.
We are debating this legislation at second reading. It will go
to a committee. There will be hearings and it will come back to
the House for another debate. It will go through the normal
process of the House. It will go through the scrutiny and there
will be further input. To pretend that there has been no process
or consultation is erroneous. There has been a process.
I will spend a bit of time debunking some of the myths I have
heard today and try to place before the House and the Canadian
public some of what I believe are the facts.
I have heard and seen material that says the agency is being
developed behind a closed door and that there have not been any
public consultations. That is just not true. Revenue Canada,
the Minister of National Revenue and the officials from the
department have consulted on this proposal. In fact the proposal
has changed over time. There have been two progress reports, one
in April of 1997 and one in January of 1998, on the development
of the proposal. These reports were published and distributed.
Views were sought by the minister from all the people who were
concerned and interested, from a wide spectrum of the public,
including the provincial and territorial governments, private
sector stakeholders and various members of parliament who let us
know their feelings and those of their constituents.
I attended some of the meetings. I was there last summer when
the minister went across the country and met with certain finance
ministers, when he went to editorial boardrooms, when he appeared
on TV and radio talk shows to answer questions. I was there when
he spoke to different members of our own employee groups.
Maybe we have to look for further advice. There is the private
sector advisory committee. It has and will continue to give
advice, and we will listen.
It is also important to talk about what has gone on with our own
employees and the unions involved with Revenue Canada. There
have been good attempts at broad consultation with both unions
and employees. The unions have been provided with all the
information that has been used for the consultation purposes.
They have received private briefings on the details of the
proposal on an ongoing basis from the very beginning.
In the summer of 1997 the department created working groups to
include employees, managers and unions to obtain suggestions,
ideas and considerations in the development of a new human
resources framework for the agency. More than 7,000 of our
employees were heard during that particular consultation process.
In December of 1997 the deputy minister of Revenue Canada
committed to a process of working with the unions and employees
to develop the requirements for a new human resources regime.
The union for taxation employees, the customs and excise union,
Douanes et Accises, the Professional Institute of the Public
Service of Canada and the Association of Public Service Financial
Administrators signed a document of intent to participate in a
design team process using the working group report as the
starting point.
Two of these unions have subsequently withdrawn from the design
team process, but the door always remains open for their
participation in further development work. I think that is an
important point, especially for our employees.
Five of the design teams have completed their work now and their
recommendations are under review.
1610
One of the fears I have heard, especially within the employee
group, which is a very large group, is that the agency creation
means job losses for Revenue Canada employees. There is the
feeling that there is some hidden agenda that maybe management
does not want to talk about.
Let us be clear once and for all. The agency is not about
downsizing. There is no hidden agenda. It is about service.
Every member of the department will be transferred to the agency.
I fail to comprehend how one organizational structure, which
will become a super organizational structure, will be unequal in
size. That is part of the myth.
In fact, all the work that has come to the department over the
last couple of years, on a cost-recovery basis, from some of the
provinces which have given us non-traditional tasks to do has
actually increased the workforce because there has been more
work.
The agency is clearly about improving service to clients:
Canadians, businesses, the provinces. It is not about laying off
employees. We want to build a new human resources framework with
the full participation of employees and their unions.
It represents a new start. It is a change. People resist
change. It is natural. But Revenue Canada needs change because
the world is changing. That is a fact.
Imagine yourself in a global economy trying to do business with
us. We have a number of provinces spread out over a large
geographical area and they each have their own tax rules. They
each have their own auditors. They are not the same from one
province to another. It is not like dealing with one Canada, it
is like dealing with different levels, different people,
different systems.
There is the potential to simplify it. Are we forcing it?
Absolutely not. Is this another way to get at harmonization
through the back door? Absolutely not. However, it will allow
us to collect non-harmonized taxes, something we could not do
before for the provinces.
That option will not be forced on anybody and not on any level
of government. It will be a choice. Are there user fees? Not
in any section of the legislation I have read, and I have read
every section.
Is cost recovery available if a province uses some of our
systems? Certainly. Cost recovery is not a user fee. They are
two different things.
Let us think about some of the other myths I have heard today.
This will benefit management at the expense of the employees. I
do not think so. In fact I know that is not true.
This is enabling legislation and it represents a significant
improvement over the current framework for both employees and
management at Revenue Canada. Management I hope will benefit by
having a system that is much easier to manage.
For instance, the staffing, the classification and the
administrative systems being developed will be more responsive.
They will concentrate less on process and more on results.
The system will also benefit employees in a number of ways.
There will be direct negotiations between agency management and
the unions which will lead to in-house solutions, inside the
revenue agency, designed by persons who understand the agency's
business and are committed to the agency's success.
What is wrong with that? A simplified classification system, a
group structure for the agency would respond and in fact give a
focus to the employees' suggestions for broader jobs and career
opportunities for employees.
It is very difficult time-wise to get a person sitting in the
department doing one job that really does not need doing any more
over to this job that desperately needs doing because of the maze
that we have to go through.
1615
We have qualified people who want more opportunity and it takes
us far too long to put them in the positions to do the jobs they
want to do and which we need doing. A more streamlined
classification and staffing system would result in employees
being placed in jobs faster. We believe this.
A new approach to recourse would focus on alternate dispute
resolution mechanisms such as fact finding and mediation, yet
incorporate access to independent third party review. The
possibility of additional provincial workloads would mean
increased stability of employment.
With the agency, the big winner is always the person most
important to the government, the Canadian public. Canadians will
benefit when any process is more efficient, responsive and
accountable, whether it is customs administration or revenue
administration. That is the goal.
There are some that have argued today in this House that the
agency will reduce accountability to the public we serve in this
parliament where we sit today. In fact, the full ministerial
accountability for program legislation and overall government
control of the agency has to be maintained and will be
maintained. The federal government will remain firmly in control.
Furthermore, there will be no change in the ability of the
members who sit in this House, the federal members of parliament
who are accountable to their constituents when they come to them
with problems. There will be access in exactly the same manner
that we have today. With the consent of the individual
constituent, the member can deal with the problem for the people
the member represents. That is far different than open. Consent
forms are needed. Nobody in Revenue Canada is going to give the
member one iota of information unless the member has the full and
informed consent of the constituent.
The Minister of National Revenue will retain all current
authorities he has under the act. There are multiple references
to different authorities under the various acts that he
administers, whether it is the Customs Act, the Income Tax Act,
or many others.
The broader interest of the cabinet will continue to be fully
protected. The bill provides that Treasury Board must approve
the agency's corporate business plan, including its strategies
regarding human resources. The minister will also have the
authority to direct the agency on matters that are within the
management authority of the board and that affect public policy
or could materially affect public finances.
So where is this idea of privatization? It certainly does not
go hand in hand with what I have just stated. It cannot.
The minister will have the ability to investigate any matter
brought to his or her attention. Furthermore, the minister will
continue to be responsible for providing answers to those MPs who
make queries on behalf of their constituents.
Where is the personal privacy issue being jeopardized? Personal
privacy will not, should not, and will never be privatized
knowingly. Accidents are possible, but accidents are rare and
they are not intentional. The law of Canada has the fundamental
principle that the taxpayer information of Canadians is
sacrosanct. It is private. It is not communicated. The
barriers are there.
We have rules governing confidentiality of information. We have
rules governing access of private information. We have rules
governing fairness. We have the declaration of taxpayers' rights
and that will apply the day after the legislation is passed, as
it does today.
The enforcement powers will not change through the creation of
the agency. These powers are limited by the authority given in
the tax and customs legislation. The opposition likes to use the
new label of super agency, but that does not give it new super
powers. The powers that are there and the definite checks and
balances in the system will remain.
The system is in its evolution. We have a framework on which we
can build. We have a system that may in time create a less
complex environment. We have a system that we believe will be
better for our own employees and will give them the challenges
and rewards they deserve.
1620
It is not easy to be an employee in this department. Nobody
ever comes to an employee of Revenue Canada because they have a
good news story to tell. It is because people need help and we
try to help.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, my question for the member opposite concerns a point I
made when I spoke on behalf of my party this morning.
I said that there is a lot of opposition right now in the
provinces. Ontario has said definitely no. Quebec has said
definitely no. Certainly Saskatchewan and British Columbia are
leaning that way. No other province I know of has signed a
letter of intent to join the plan.
I thought we lived in a federation. Here we have something that
deals with both federal and provincial jurisdictions. I believe
very strongly in co-operative federalism. I noticed that the
member did not comment on that although it is a very important
aspect of this.
We are getting to the time when the Quebec election writ will be
dropped very shortly. That gets into the question of national
unity and perceptions in the province of Quebec about this super
agency.
I would like the member opposite to comment on whether or not
she is satisfied with the enthusiasm, or lack thereof, of the
provinces. None have joined this and the two biggest provinces
which represent about two-thirds of the population have said
that they will not be part of this agency.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond
to the question of the hon. member opposite. It is a fair
question.
It is very difficult to join something that has not yet been
created. That is the bottom line. But the structure is there. I
will give an example by quoting directly from a statement made by
the minister of finance for New Brunswick, the hon. Mr.
Blanchard: “Where there are efficiencies to be gained, I am
open to alternatives. There may be areas that yes, some of our
current taxes can be collected in an efficient way by this
agency. I have not shut the door on any possibility”. He is
one.
The situation is such that if we went across the country and
looked at how collections are made and the current functions of
Revenue Canada, some provinces were already up in the high 80% of
collecting revenues. That is already status quo. We are doing
some things, like the child tax benefit in British Columbia.
There are many things Revenue Canada is currently doing under
different agreements where the provinces do not have a direct
input in the board situation that we are offering. This will
provide for that input. When people have some input into board
management, I am sure over time they will sign on.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's
question in the same area. In her speech the member said that
this is not about downsizing. We can all agree with that. There
is nothing the past two governments have done in this country
over the last 15 years that has been downsizing. Everything they
have done has created more jobs for people in the bureaucracy so
I am not too concerned about that area.
The member said that it is not harmonizing through the back
door, that it is not being forced and that it is a choice. She
quoted a minister from one of our smaller provinces who said that
where efficiencies were to be gained they would look at it.
This government has been looking at it with the provinces for
over 18 months. It does not have the definite agreement of
Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta, which is the
overwhelming majority of this country. The government will not
get those agreements even once the act is in place.
As my colleague said in his question, with the election coming
up in Quebec, this is another little thing we can throw in the
fire to show that this country is not working in the way the
people and the provinces want it to work. They do not want a
bigger federal government with bigger federal government
agencies. The provinces want to run their own business. They do
not want these kinds of agencies and they have told the
government that.
The government has had a consultative process. The government
says that it is listening.
When the majority of provinces are saying they do not want this,
why is the government proceeding with a bill that is going to
change the face of this thing, probably create a lot more jobs in
the federal bureaucracy, but not solve any problems for Canadians
and the provinces? It will not give any more power to the
provinces which is what the provinces want.
1625
This is not consultation. This is big brother telling the rest
of us what we should be doing in the provinces.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member
was sitting in his seat and listening attentively a couple of
minutes ago when the minister emphasized that at the finance
ministers meeting there was an agreement on the outline of those
taxes that could be covered under this legislation.
I would ask to be shown anywhere where they emphatically say
“We do not want to have discussion. We want this process to
stop. We are not engaged”.
The reality is even though the Government of Quebec has a
different system than the rest of Canada in its revenue
collection, there is day to day co-operation. There is day to
day co-operation, consultation and communication between the
systems of tax and revenue collection. That is why we do work
together and will continue to work together and seek more
co-operation. We will not halt the potential for more
co-operation because that would not be in the best interests of
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
have three brief comments to make.
The bill says the headquarters of the agency must be in Ottawa,
but, as we know, the financial community is concentrated in
Toronto and Montreal, but not necessarily in Ottawa. So what is
the advantage?
The agency will be responsible for contracting with the
provinces or for implementing agreements between the federal
government and the provinces. How many of these tax agreements
does the government intend to ask the agency to look after?
None, so what is the point?
The Minister of National Revenue will be responsible for the
agency.
But the minister may delegate his powers, except the power to
make regulations. So a non-elected person who is not accountable
to this House could be acting on his behalf. The minister would
actually be going through this person. I would like the hon.
member to comment on this.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to
thank the hon. member for his question. It is a good question.
[English]
I believe that the federal and provincial finance ministers have
agreed to standards for administering provincial taxes. In other
words if there is an agreement on standards, there could be an
agreement in the different collections.
With regard to the point which is a political one I understand
about the location of a head office per se, to my understanding
the minister and the department location will not change. The
minister works here in the capital of the country. I have every
expectation that will remain. I certainly have not seen or heard
anything different. I think the hon. member should be more
concerned about the co-operation as opposed to the geographic
location of this agency.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments and know that
she as the parliamentary secretary spent a great deal of time on
this bill and was very dedicated.
As the parliamentary secretary knows, while the vast majority of
Revenue Canada agents are hardworking and treat taxpayers fairly,
from time to time we see some really extraordinary abuses of
their power, as I have outlined in various interventions today.
What is in this bill that would strengthen accountability to
preclude the possibility of these types of abuses of power and to
treat taxpayers as innocent until they are proven guilty by the
tax system?
1630
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer
the question.
At Revenue Canada we have what is called the fairness principle
and as the hon. member knows there is a taxpayers' bill of rights
in place. Those things would continue, but we need to have the
culture of fairness understood by Canadians citizens. I believe
our workers already understand the principle. They have the
training in the principle and they work every day in this
principle. It is a system of due process.
I know I do not have the time to go into the details, but I
would like to direct the member to one of the speeches I gave
specifically on this point which I think was at least 10 or 15
minutes in length. It was in the last session of parliament. It
goes through the different processes available to the Canadian
taxpayer. If the member approaches me I can get that to him at a
later date.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the
hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia, APEC summit.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am glad to speak to Bill C-43, the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency Act, an act that affects all Canadians and is extremely
important to the House as taxation is the primary reason for the
existence of government.
I would like to change the direction of the debate a little to
how the legislation itself will be considered. It is being
debated in the lower House and will probably be passed by the
Liberal majority. After it goes through second reading, it
leaves the House and goes to the other place, a place of unbiased
sober second thought which is not in any sense subject to
partisan consideration. We do not really believe that. We know
the only piece of equipment required over there is the rubber
stamp that is issued without any delay when a senator is
appointed and not elected to that place.
While it may seem an aside in the discussion of Bill C-43, I
would like members of the House to consider that for the last two
federal elections there has not been a single Progressive
Conservative elected west of the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border.
Yet the Prime Minister recently appointed a senator for Alberta
who was not from the Reform Party, which has the bulk of support
in Alberta, and not from the Liberal Party which has marginal
support but from the PC Party which has no support.
Does anyone believe that a place of sober second thought will
represent the so-called regions, the regions being the provinces?
Several provinces have already indicated they do not support the
legislation. How are their concerns to be heard in that place?
What do they have at the present time? They have members of
parliament, the bulk of whom are Liberals, who will vote for the
legislation, probably denying any proposed amendments set out by
any of the opposition parties. They have premiers who have moral
suasion but do not have legislative power.
Parliament needs a triple-E Senate that has the power which
flows from elections, the people's choice, effected senators able
to act independent of the Prime Minister and equal in that each
province has its own senators who will represent the province's
point of view in debates like this one and others. They will
represent their provinces in parliament. They will not represent
the governing party in the House of Commons. That is some of the
background I wanted to set. As we consider this matter we know
the provinces will not be heard in this place.
1635
Turning to consideration of the actual bill, we understand that
debate is important in that various perspectives on tax
collection policy are at issue. The balance is between increased
efficiency in the collection of taxes owed to the government and
the potential for abuse by the government of the centralized tax
collection power.
Few people would admit to being happy to pay taxes. The
dissatisfaction with paying taxes is largely due to perceived
government waste and the inefficiencies in the use of the tax
dollars collected. In a civilized society no one would
acknowledge that a world without taxes is possible since taxes
are used to provide services of benefit to all as well as
services that benefit those particularly in need.
Dissatisfaction with paying taxes should lead. though, to
actions to lower tax levels and to make the government more
accountable for the use of tax dollars. Dissatisfaction with
paying taxes cannot justify the evasion of taxes properly owed.
Dissatisfaction with paying taxes should also not lead to
unreasonable delays in paying taxes properly owed.
The position of the official opposition on Bill C-43 is
essentially that there should be greater safeguards for citizens
with respect to the centralized tax collection power of
government. It must acknowledge that concerns about the tax
collection practices of government assumed public prominence in
the early 1980s.
Some in the House will remember that the Conservatives then in
opposition conducted public hearings into the fairness of tax
collection policies. The parliamentarian conducting those
hearings, Mr. Perrin Beatty, later became the Minister of
National Revenue during the Conservatives' term of government.
At that time comparisons were made between tax collection
policies in the United States and Canada. I believe it is fair
to state that tax collection policies in the United States,
notably through the actions of the IRS, have always been regarded
as significantly more aggressive than they are in Canada, perhaps
due to national differences in perspective as much as to the
benevolence of government.
In the United States the government and its citizenry often
assume adversarial roles whereas in Canada the consensus appears
to be that citizens are less inclined to regard government as the
enemy. We must be very cautious with respect to any criticism of
initiatives to make tax collection more efficient. After all, it
is well known that those least able to avoid paying taxes are the
salaried employees throughout Canada. Those most able to avoid
paying taxes are self-employed persons and businesses.
Everyone should pay taxes justly owed. The requirement for
instalment tax payments on the part of business and the
self-employed is to avoid unwelcome tax liabilities and
collection difficulties.
There is a further difficulty that the government faces in
collecting taxes and that is the elimination of its priority
under the Bankruptcy Act.
For better or for worse it was determined that the government
did not merit the status of preferred creditor under the
Bankruptcy Act, meaning that for many people the easiest answer
to tax collection problems is simply to go bankrupt. Given this
trend some might argue that it is in the larger public interest
that tax debts survive a bankruptcy, not unlike family support
obligations.
Why this is important can be seen in the experiences of
countries where there is widespread public contempt for tax
collection, which is usually tied to great public lack of
confidence in government. Our most recent example is that of
Russia where the outgoing head of tax collection has predicted
this week that his successor will soon fail, given that the
government is bankrupt and likely to fall within weeks.
These types of attitudes cannot gain a strong foothold in Canada
lest it be to widespread resistance to paying taxes justly owed.
The appropriate response in a civilized society is political
action to change dimensions of the tax system considered to be
objectionable.
I might add again that political action should involve creating
a House of Commons and a Senate that are workable. The proposals
of my colleague from Calgary Southeast, who is also the official
opposition critic for national revenue, appear to be aimed at
balancing the need for the efficient collection of taxes justly
owed with protections to curb the potential for abuse of the
collection power.
This balancing of interests would occur through the legislative
enactment of a taxpayers' bill of rights combined with the
creation of an office for taxpayer protection. This office for
taxpayer protection would involve an independent taxpayer
advocate who would report to parliament in a similar fashion to
that of the auditor general.
We have recently seen why the need for independence in reporting
is important in terms of the assertions now made by the recently
dismissed chief actuary of Canada.
1640
Some may ask why a taxpayer's bill of rights. We know that the
tax department collection policies are generally asserted to be
far more considerate of taxpayer concerns than in years
previously. There is a similar bill of rights approach
communicated by the tax department to taxpayers. However, with
the centralized collection power of the new agency the position
of the official opposition is that Canadians should never be
subjected to the abuses of power and summary treatment that has
made the internal revenue service the most feared institution in
the United States.
What is a primary constraint on the abuse of a centralized tax
collection power? As proposed by my colleague from Calgary
Southeast, the office for taxpayer protection represented by a
chief advocate would have the power to issue taxpayer protection
orders to protect taxpayers from arbitrary treatment or treatment
that could lead to undue financial hardship. The office of
taxpayer protection would also have an ombudsman-like role with
respect to assisting taxpayers in resolving disputes with the
Canada customs and revenue agency.
To those who are concerned that this proposal would increase
costs without any demonstrated benefit in terms of increased
efficiencies in tax collection, I wish to point out that there is
no intention to create another government bureaucracy in the
office for taxpayer protection. Rather, this office would be
funded primarily from an appropriation to general revenues from
Revenue Canada's current budget.
In terms of the taxpayer rights that are being referenced in the
proposed taxpayer's bill of rights some of the more important
dimensions concern circumstances where a taxpayer acted in good
faith and without the intention to evade taxes, which are more or
less synonymous terms. Another circumstance is where a taxpayer
relied upon incorrect advice provided by a Revenue Canada
official or an official of the Canada customs and revenue agency.
In these circumstances penalties and interest otherwise payable
must be waived.
In addition, in cases where penalties and interest may cause
severe financial hardship or in cases where reassessments can be
proven to cause severe financial hardship, the Canada customs and
revenue agency must make alternative payment arrangements. This
could be by way of negotiated repayment schedules or in certain
cases abatements of amounts owed.
Many will argue that current tax practice incorporates these
elements in any event. So what is the problem? The fact that
tax collection practices in Canada are not regarded with great
disfavour does not minimize the potential for future abuse. By
formalizing a good practice as a taxpayer right one is ensuring
that a social good will be preserved, notwithstanding changes in
governments or government debt positions.
One area involving a particular compassion relates to the
effects of the seizure of assets on employees or family members
not involved with a particular tax transgression. We know the
actions of wrongdoers frequently have negative consequences far
beyond their own persons. Families can be destroyed by wrongful
acts over which they have little or no control. The sensitivity
of the tax department in this area is a matter of discretion on
the part of particular officials.
What is proposed under the taxpayer's bill of rights is that the
office of taxpayer protection can advocate fairness in seizure
practices, making a protection order, for example, in cases where
undue hardship is caused to third parties. In a general sense
the office of taxpayer protection acts as an intervener and
moderator with respect to government seizure practices.
I emphasize that the official opposition's concerns primarily
relate to the protection of individual taxpayer rights. No one,
absolutely no one, can be seen to be an advocate of letting those
who justly owe taxes to the government avoid their obligations to
pay such tax.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate the hon. member for Prince Albert on his remarks.
The hon. member spoke about the need for greater accountability.
Has he, in his now 14 months as a member of this place, received
any case files or complaints from constituents that would lead
him to believe there is a need for greater accountability of
Revenue Canada? Or, do his constituents believe that everything
is just hunky-dory over there and that we can just plough along
with the status quo with a mega-tax collection bureaucracy that
has really no presumption of innocence for taxpayers and which
tends to shoot first and then ask questions?
1645
I just wanted to ask what his experience is as a member and the
thoughts of his constituents with respect to the accountability
of Revenue Canada and whether it does indeed overreach its very
considerable police powers in occasionally harassing law-abiding
and well intentioned taxpaying citizens.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I have had bad
experiences. Some have had better experiences and some have not,
which illustrates the need for taxpayer protection provision in
the new act.
Because these responsibilities are going to be transferred to an
arm's length agency, we are certain to see cases increasing where
arbitrary decisions are going to happen. Rather than having some
on and some off, we should have legislation in place that allows
the individual taxpayer to know what his or her rights are and to
know that there is an ombudsman like person there to interpret
his rights and to make sure they are fairly and evenly applied
across the board.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was in the House earlier today and heard the Minister
of National Revenue talk about Canadians gladly and voluntarily
complying with the tax forms they have to fill out and the wise
management of the taxes collected by the government.
I would like to quickly ask my colleague whether he would agree
with the Minister of National Revenue that the government is
currently managing the tax dollars taken from Canadians in a wise
way? Would this lead us to believe that this super agency with
extensive powers being contemplated would in any way be a wiser
way to manage Canadian hard earned tax dollars that the
government continues to take?
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party puts out
a frequent publication called “The Waste Report” which talks
about how our tax dollars are handled. I bring to the attention
of every member of this House that it is available from our
revenue critic. Members can supply them to all their
constituencies. Liberal members are also welcome to have them.
The collection of tax dollars is one thing which really
frustrates people when the get “The Waste Report” or reports
from the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation outlining how their tax
dollars are frequently abused.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest all day to members talking on
this bill. It was a little humourous to hear some members
talking about how Canadians cheerfully pay their taxes.
I was thinking about my last trip home when somebody opened a
letter from Revenue Canada at the post office. They owed
something like an addition $600. I assure members they did not
say “goody, I owe the government another $600”.
I want to address this point in particular to the member for
Ottawa West who spoke earlier. She said we need better service.
I believe she used the word service about eight times while she
was speaking.
Service has a connotation of servant. The IRS in the United
States had to look at its whole department and say it has to
become more humane in dealing with people. If there is one
lesson that human resources needs, even if this bill goes
through, it is to treat the taxpayers of this country with a
great deal more respect than it does at the present time.
It is a fallacy beyond comparison for members of the government
to say they handle people and it is cheerfully done.
1650
I have caseload after caseload of widows and elderly people who
get letters that are a disgrace. I have yet to see a letter from
Revenue Canada that offered an apology to any of my clients
dealing with that department.
Would the member for Prince Albert not agree that they need to
take a lesson in public relations?
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague. I do not think it is up to the government to be
delivering lectures to its people on arrogance when we see the
arrogance of the Liberal government at the top. It flows down.
It does not come up. It comes down. Leadership starts at the
top in that chair over there. We can see it in what I said
earlier about the appointment of a Progressive Conservative from
a province that does not know what a federal Progressive
Conservative looks like. They have forgotten their faces and
names.
We see a member in the other house who had nothing to do with
the people of Alberta's selection. Talk about arrogance of
servanthood. Servanthood is something that is demonstrated at
the top. As it is practised by the leadership, it will be
practised by those who see it practised.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for my Reform Party colleague.
Does he think that this agency would create another level of
bureaucracy that the federal government would naturally be
unable to control?
And, as a supplementary, would creating a board of management as
described in the bill not create positions for friends of the
party? I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on
this.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for the question about democratic control.
Again, this is why we are suggesting that these amendments be
made to the bill calling for a taxpayer protection agency,
something we can work with that will ensure government has some
control even in setting the terms of reference for how that
person will work.
As to political friends, we all know the record of this
government. One would not be surprised to see that most members
of any boards or commissions would probably have Liberal
connections.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to lend my support to Bill C-43, an act to establish
the Canada customs and revenue agency and to amend and repeal
other acts as a consequence.
I asked to speak on this because I want to talk a little about
the finance and administration aspects of the proposal to create
this agency.
The Canada customs and revenue agency, while acquiring many new
powers and responsibilities in areas such as human resources
management, will still be a department from a standpoint of
financial management. That is a very important aspect. What is
happening is that a government department is becoming a
government agency. Yet the controls and the many other aspects
of it are identical to what was in place as a department.
It will operate under the authority of the Financial
Administration Act. It will be governed by the policies and
procedures of the Treasury Board and the receiver general with
respect to matters of financial management and the treatment of
public money. The agency's financial statements will also be
prepared in accordance with standard government accounting
practices.
The budget of the Canada customs and revenue agency will still
have to be approved by part of the government's overall
expenditures management system. It will be subject to the normal
Treasury Board approval process and will be subsequently approved
by parliament. That is very important for Canadians to
understand.
1655
Parliament will continue to receive the same level of detail
from this agency as it does from Revenue Canada and although the
board of management of the agency will be responsible for
determining terms and conditions of employment at the agency, the
overall human resource cost will still have to remain within
Treasury Board approved financial levels.
To repeat, although the human resources component will be
centred within the agency, the same scrutiny and criteria will be
applied.
The obvious question about the new agency is what about the new
sources of revenue such as user fees? I think it is an area of
concern to Canadians whenever they hear user fees.
The simple answer is there will be no change in the way user
fees will be prescribed and administered. I think Canadians
should be assured by the fact that there will be no new user fees
as a result of this change, that the fundamental reasons for this
change are directed at efficiency, productivity and cost
effectiveness.
Overall, user fees that are charged now represent less than 1%
of the department's overall budget and the new agency will
continue to charge these user fees. It is not the intention of
the agency to convert into one that is totally or even
considerably reliant on this form of income.
The idea is not to take more money out of the pockets of
Canadians but rather to return it to them in the form of lower
costs for compliance and through other forms of savings. The
agency will be funded in a way that Revenue Canada is funded
today, namely by parliamentary appropriation.
One possible new source of income for the agency could be some
form of financial arrangement with a province or territory to
administer a particular program or to institute a new process or
procedure.
This is where the composition and skill of the board of
management which is proposed under the act will come into play in
terms of negotiating appropriate financial arrangements for new
programs and services.
Provinces and territories will obviously invest their money
where they can achieve real savings from central administration
of a program. Program results will have to be monitored,
including, most important to Canadians, levels of service.
The new one time costs of moving the agency status will be
included in the overall cost structure of the agency so that
Canadians should be assured that there is no significant
additional cost in establishing this agency and that it will be
done within the overall cost structure being proposed for the
agency.
Finally, it is anticipated that these costs will be minimal
relative to the overall operating budget of the existing
department and will be offset with planned savings of the new
organization.
We are dealing with transferring a function from a department of
government to an agency of government. We are dealing with the
concepts of accessibility, responsiveness, reliability of
service, efficiency and effectiveness.
The two main points are that this agency will more effectively
co-ordinate federal and provincial revenue collection programs,
reduce overlap and duplication and therefore reduce costs and
reduce taxpayer costs of complying with the tax laws.
The second theme is that it will modernize its internal
management to be more responsive to the needs and requirements of
Canadians. This board of management will ensure a client
oriented approach and still maintain accountability to
parliament.
In brief, I believe this fairly and accurately reflects the
intent and the effect of Bill C-43 with regard to this new
agency. I hope all hon. members will support conceptually the
principles being offered here.
I really would like to make some comments with regard to the
previous speaker's statements about the Senate of Canada,
certainly an area which has been under much scrutiny for many
years. I would like to pose for him some facts I have thought
about quite a bit, about what happens if we did move to an
elected Senate.
I think it is interesting that although the Senate is an
integral part of parliament, the concern about whether it is an
elected body and whether it is able to discharge its
responsibilities continues to come up. It is a subject of
debate. I would pose this as a rhetorical question.
1700
If there was an election, as there was previously in Alberta and
which I understand cost the Alberta taxpayers $2 million, there
would be a significant cost of conducting the election which
would be borne ostensibly by the taxpayers through taxpayers
dollars.
As all hon. members know, senators do not have constituency
offices across the country. They do have offices here. If they
were elected and had a constituency, would we have to provide
constituency offices for them as well as the support staff and
all the other costs associated with it?
Another question I have is how we would differentiate between
the responsibilities of members of parliament and senators if
they are elected from within the same geographic area. Since
there are 301 members of parliament and just over 100 senators,
it means a senator's geographic area or population coverage would
be three times that of an MP. Would that mean that the senator
would have to handle three times the workload that we handle
right now? I am not sure whether it is really possible. Those
are some of my thoughts.
I know it is an important aspect but I think at this point with
regard to Bill C-43, the important thing is that we do have a
parliamentary system and we do have a committee that is going to
deal with this. All members will have an opportunity to debate
again at report stage and third reading as well as to have input
on other aspects through the committee process.
To dwell on the possibility that the Senate is somehow going to
act in some particular way, this is our system of parliament. One
way to deal with it is to complain about it. The other way is
perhaps to do something about it.
I am going to end my comments because I have a feeling there may
be a question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will go now to
questions and comments. Just before we do, I would like to take
a moment to point out that we are talking about the Revenue
Canada bill. Although there has been a fair amount of latitude
in this debate, let us try to keep our comments about the Senate
to an absolute minimum. We are talking about this bill. I
appreciate the fact that it was not the member for Mississauga
South that introduced it.
Without any further adieu we will go now to the member for
Calgary Southeast and then to the Bloc.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I will take your words of caution with respect to relevance
advisedly as you did of course allow the hon. member to pose
certain rhetorical questions.
I would simply say that the member suggests that rather than
talking about parliamentary reform, one ought to do something
about it. This is precisely what the people of Alberta are doing
in the process of selecting their next senator. With respect to
the cost objection that the member raises, yes democracy does
cost something. I know the people of Alberta, 92% of them, are
prepared to incur some small cost to be able to hold their
representative accountable.
The reason they want their representatives accountable in the
Senate and in this place is precisely because we have enormous
powers, powers such as the power to tax which is really the power
to destroy. Too often it is a power that is abused. Too often
the tax collection agents at Revenue Canada treat taxpayers as
though they are guilty until proven innocent.
Would the hon. member not support a statute which would more
clearly define the rights under due process of taxpayers to be
given the presumption of innocence in the collection and
assessment process? Would the member not think it would be a
worthwhile complement to this bill for such a taxpayer bill of
rights to be passed, essentially to enshrine in law the current
declaration of taxpayers' rights which is really a statement of
good intentions? Does the member not think this would be a
worthwhile proposition to support?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting point.
We do have laws in Canada, tax laws and other laws. What we
expect of our various departments which are responsible for the
administration and enforcement of those laws is that the laws are
respected.
Most members know that when a case comes to our office, it is
not people who have filed clean returns or who have done
something in accordance with the tax provisions, it is usually
people who have been assessed for legitimate reasons.
I think the most important job we do is to ensure that they are
put in the position that they should have been in, had all things
been done the way they should be done.
1705
Taxpayers have implicit broad rights by virtue of the fact that
the laws are clearly articulated and that they are not there for
interpretation at the whim of some Revenue Canada employee.
Rather the laws are there and articulated in a way in which all
Canadians know what their responsibilities are so that everyone
pays their fair share, no more, no less.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised
to hear government members describing Bill C-43 as a change of
very little consequence overall. We are told that it merely
involves transferring certain applications to collection and
certain functions from a department to an agency, with no real
impact on individual members of the public, on workers and
public servants.
In late August, I was fortunate to be able to meet with tax
collection employees in Shawinigan, Quebec, to talk about a
completely different area in which the government has outdone
itself with its incompetence, namely pay equity. The public
servants described the position in which they found themselves.
Some employees came to see me and reminded me of the upcoming
Bill C-43 and how they were counting on the Bloc Quebecois to
intervene.
I would like to know if the member opposite is aware that 20% of
public servants will no longer be covered by the Public Service
Employment Act, meaning that, in two years, the agency will have
carte blanche to raise or lower salaries, to hire or fire
employees.
I would like to know if this is not the real reason that the
government created the agency. Does the government prefer
strong-arm tactics that will ultimately crush employees'
collective demands? That is my question.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the pay
equity component, that is not a fair reflection of the government
position. In fact, the government not only has offered some
moneys but also has already paid additional moneys into the pay
equity settlement. The issue right now is the final amount and
whether or not it is equitable relative to private sector
settlements.
With regard to the human resources component of the new agency,
I do not share the member's cynicism. This is a joint program
between the federal government and the provinces. We are working
together, co-operating and collaborating so that we can achieve a
number of things, not only efficiency in the whole system but
more importantly, to provide more cost effective service, at
lower cost to Canadians with regard to Revenue Canada.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons for
moving to a departmental agency, none more important than the
demands of our clients, the constituents of our country.
Streamlined and more responsive tax, customs and trade
administration services will provide more effectiveness with this
new agency. Few Canadians appreciate that in a time of economic
expansion the demand for tax, customs and trade services also
increases. A million new jobs in Canada since 1993 mean many
more tax filers and hopefully more in the future. An 8.6%
increase in real exports in 1997 coupled with a 13.4% increase in
real imports means a substantial increase in the demand for trade
administration and customs and border services.
Resources at Revenue Canada have remained relatively stable
during this period of economic expansion and steep increases in
business volumes. Much of the new demand has been accommodated by
internal operating efficiencies. But as everybody knows,
everything has a limit. Hence the new framework for this agency.
The agency model we are proposing for 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 people.
1710
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. This would expand the
potential for single window tax collection with considerable
savings for businesses and individual Canadians. Greater
co-ordination between the federal, provincial and territorial
governments will simplify tax administration for Canadians and
reduce the overlap and duplication.
To ensure the various needs of Canadians are given full
consideration, a board of management of the agency will direct
its management activities and oversee its business planning. The
board will include 10 directors nominated by the provinces and
one director nominated by the territories, all from the private
sector.
Another major change that would allow the new agency to adopt a
more client oriented approach is increased operational
flexibility in the management of internal resources. The new
legislation will allow the proposed agency to tailor its human
resources and administrative functions to meet the changing needs
of the client as well as those of its employees.
For example, under the current status as a department, Treasury
Board negotiates collective agreements and determines
classifications for personnel. The Public Service Commission is
responsible for the staffing process. Under departmental agency
status, the Canada customs and revenue agency will assume
responsibility for these critical functions.
This change will offer the agency more flexibility in attracting
certain in demand skills such as auditors and computer systems
experts, training, retraining and keeping these experts. It will
significantly reduce hiring times and allow the agency to match
resources to work demands whether created by policy or by program
changes, seasonal factors or general economic conditions. All of
this means improved service to the provinces and territories, to
businesses and to individual Canadians. An improved service means
savings in time and money, savings in compliance costs for
businesses and savings in administrative costs for the government
itself.
In creating the Canada customs and revenue agency, we are
encouraged by the experience of many other countries such as the
United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia. Organizations that
have been given greater managerial autonomy and operational
flexibility provide improved service to the public even while
retaining accountability to the public and its elected
representatives.
We live in a world that is competitive at many levels. We live
in a world that is changing. Businesses and individuals need
their governments to support their activities rather than to set
up roadblocks. The Canada customs and revenue agency is an
important step in the process of providing the best tax, customs
and trade administration services in the world. This will mean
more business and more benefits for all Canadians and looking to
the future, to make it even better.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): This afternoon,
we heard all the members opposite including the minister of
revenue, who finally joined us. They said they consulted people
across Canada and that everyone supported the new agency.
However, this same minister, who is sitting in front of me,
called for a report by the Public Policy Forum. This report
revealed that Canadian business has serious reservations about
the creation of the agency.
In the same report, 68% of businesses felt that a single agency
would increase their compliance costs and would have no impact.
I would like the last government spokesperson to comment on the
report on this agency.
1715
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Madam Speaker, I can understand where
the member is coming from with respect to the various reports
that were compiled during the consultation periods. That is one
of the reasons this government has taken excessive consultation
time to meet and review with people and to hear what people are
saying about the reports. When we have a chance to present
legislation we take all of these items into account.
I want to remind the member opposite that a number of people,
whether they are chartered accountants or people involved in tax
areas, have said over and over that this type of legislative
framework will provide more efficiencies and stronger management.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said: “If we
combine all these functions under one umbrella, the business
community would breathe a big sigh of relief”.
When the time comes and this bill is in committee, the
stakeholders will again have a chance to understand exactly what
is in the legislation, what is intended, and their viewpoints
will be heard again.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment and put a question
to the hon. member.
Would the hon. member not agree that in the length of time it
has taken to consult on this bill that perhaps they have not done
a good job of selling the proposals? Today, with the bill in
its current form, the majority of the provinces have not
definitely said whether they will be on board. We have not heard
from the largest provinces as to whether they will be coming on
board.
Would the member not agree that perhaps what we have to do is
call in some super salesmen to sell it to the provinces now,
before the legislation is put in place, to avoid each province
having to negotiate changes within the act to suit it?
Mr. Walt Lastewka: Madam Speaker, I understand where the
member is coming from.
I would remind this House that provincial ministers of finance
were a part of the consultation process. Many provinces have
provided input. The member opposite will be able to provide
input. There is always room to make improvements. That is why
we are here debating the bill. We are here to look at the
legislation as well as other things. It is not a one way street.
One cannot just sit over there and oppose everything. One has
to be constructive from time to time. That is what committees
are for.
This legislation will come back to the House and hon. members
will again have the chance to debate it and make it even better
than it is. I hope there is more constructive criticism from
members opposite.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-43 to create the new
Canada customs and revenue agency.
Before I start, I know I will probably not have enough time to
finish my remarks. I hope to have the opportunity to continue
when we next examine this bill.
I would begin by congratulating my colleague, the member for
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, for his good work. I heard his speech this
morning, in which he presented a whole series of arguments. I
felt the agency served some purpose, but was not relevant
because a department of revenue already exists. My colleague's
arguments were well founded.
1720
Once again, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles has shown how
attuned he is to his constituents and to the groups concerned by
these issues.
First, let us talk of the government's objectives in the 1996
throne speech. The first objective was to provide programs and
services more effectively and cost efficiently through greater
autonomy and flexibility. I want to focus on the words “more
effectively and cost efficiently”. I think everyone agrees on
“cost efficiently”. The more it brings in, the more it is in
the public interest.
However, I have a few questions about the “more effectively”.
The understanding is more effectively than at present.
At the present time, those responsible for tax collection are
employees of Revenue and Customs, in other words public
servants. I am told there are about 18,000. There is a message
in this. Is it being implied that the 18,000 people assigned to
taxation are not efficient and are not doing their job properly
so that it will be cost-effective? The government has presented
this as its first objective.
This is not surprising, when one realizes that the tendency
within this government is a desire to privatize. This is
something to be considered per se, but what is involved is a
service that is already provided. It is not a new service, but
one already being provided. The agency will not be totally
privatized, but it will not be covered by the legislation which
governs, and will continue to govern, all other public servants
at the federal level.
I do not wish to worry people needlessly. I do not even need to
do so, anyway, because I have seen a letter to the hon. member
for Rivière-des-Milles-Îles by the taxation employees' union. They
are all worried about this. They wonder what might happen to
them. Behind it all lies the fear of being shunted aside.
Perhaps a number of them may be hired again by the new agency,
but they do need reassurance.
The second was to improve services—and who could be against
that—and to reduce the cost of administering revenue and
compliance by working in conjunction with the provinces in order
to eliminate duplication and overlap. The key words in this are
“working in conjunction with the provinces”. The concept of
“co-operation” is understood. Generally, the purpose is
harmonization.
“Working in co-operation” is all very fine-sounding and is a good
objective as far as it goes. But what is actually happening?
When we check with each of the provinces, not just Quebec, they
say they are not in agreement and that, before they sign on,
they will want to give it some thought because they are not at
all sure this is a good thing. How can the government get away
with saying in the throne speech that it will be done in
co-operation with the provinces, when the provinces are not in
fact interested in working together in this context, since they
are apparently going to lose their powers, especially Quebec,
because Quebec has its own revenue ministry. Moreover, it is
the only province that does, having had one for a very long
time. In this regard, Quebec wants to keep its powers and its
responsibilities.
A third objective was mentioned, which we no longer hear
anything about today, but which was in the throne speech:
“Strengthen the federation's effectiveness and enhance national
unity by making the agency an organization responsible for
providing Canadians with federal and provincial services”.
1725
When this was first announced, it obviously resulted in some
discussion here in the House and elsewhere. We in the Bloc
Quebecois, and Quebeckers in general, reacted back then, and we
feel no differently now. Except that we notice that the
government members no longer mention this objective. But once
bitten, twice shy. Just because the government no longer
mentions this third objective from the throne speech does not
mean it is no longer guided by it. These were statements of
principle, the government's intentions and policies until the
next throne speech.
This objective no doubt remains. In my opinion, it is part of
the current Liberal government's plan A, because, while it is a
gentle approach and not a stick, it remains a tendency of the
current federal government, which tries to meddle in provincial
matters and increasingly expand its control over them.
But with the creation of this agency, it is not doing so
directly, but indirectly, rather as it did with the millennium
scholarships. Members remember the famous millennium
scholarship fund. The federal government could not do it
directly, so it set up a private foundation, an agency of sorts,
to do indirectly what it could not do directly.
I am no lawyer, but I know the public is discouraged from
indirectly contravening legal provisions. The same is not true
for the government. It sets up agencies, it takes an indirect
and convoluted approach to achieve its ends.
Even though it is no longer raising the issue of so called
national unity, the federal government, in the end, wants to
collect taxes and take over the mechanisms that bring in new
revenues with an independent agency.
I am a sovereignist. I do not hide the fact. Neither do the
member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles or the members of the Bloc.
However, we are still in the federal system. The people in the
other parties, whom I respect, have another opinion. They are
federalists and want to stay within the federal system. They
often consult the Constitution. I too have read it. We know
about the Constitution.
I also know its history and the facts surrounding it. In 1867,
when Canada's Constitution was drafted and passed, those who
have studied it will recall that the federal government did not
collect taxes from either individuals or companies. The
provincial governments did.
It was during the two world wars—the 1914-18 one and the 1939-45
one—that the federal government asked the provincial
governments, in the light of the exceptional circumstances, to
allow it to collect income tax.
Subsequently, having tasted the pleasure of collecting taxes,
the government wanted to continue. Ontario finally agreed, but
Mr. Duplessis, who was then Premier of Quebec, created his own
department of revenue. That is the history of the two tax
returns: one for the federal government and one for Quebec.
They go back to that time. However, I will have the opportunity—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must unfortunately
interrupt the hon. member and tell him that he will have some
nine minutes when we next resume consideration of the bill.
It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
The House resumed from June 1 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Prince George—Peace River has six minutes remaining.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, how did I manage that? I have never spoken to this
bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would ask the hon.
member to start the debate right away. In the meantime the clerk
will check the records for the last session.
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to
rise this afternoon and briefly address Motion No. 318 placed
before the House by my colleague from Fraser Valley.
Motion No. 318 states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring
in legislation making the tax deduction for contributions to
charitable organizations no less than the tax deduction for
contributions to political parties.
If we were to flip that motion around and stand it on its head,
it would really state that gifts to political parties should not
be given more favourable treatment than donations to charities.
That is how we need to look at this motion. The intent is clear.
It is to level the playing field between donations to political
parties and those which accrued to charities.
I compare this motion to the Reform blue book policy that deals
with political donations. There has been some concern expressed
about that and why my esteemed colleague would bring forward a
motion that on the surface would seem to be contrary to Reform's
blue book policy.
Reform policy in the blue book under the heading of electoral
reform states: “The Reform Party opposes any assistance to
political parties and political lobbies from public funds
including—” and it lists a number of things. In that list is
tax credits for contributions to federal political parties. That
is the policy of the Reform Party. Certainly it is a policy that
my Reform colleague adheres to, as do I. If we were ever to
become government, or when we become government, we will enact
that as well as a number of other policies.
In the meantime, it has become painfully clear to charities that
this government does not intend to address the inequity between
the donations to political parties and those to charities by
removing the tax incentive to donate to political parties, as the
Reform Party would do.
Therefore my colleague took it on himself to bring forward
Motion No. 318 which would level the playing field between the
two and treat them the same. Unfortunately we see that in some
cases people who are looking at making a donation might be
encouraged to make a donation to political party rather than to
the charity of their choice. It is very unfortunate that they
might tempted to do that because the tax incentive is so much
greater.
How unfair is the present system? It was noted in the debate
last spring that for a $100 dollar contribution to a political
party a donor will receive a $75 federal tax credit. For a $100
donation we have a 75% tax credit. For a $100 gift to a charity
the donor will receive a $17 federal charitable donation tax
credit. That is $17 versus $75.
1735
To receive a tax credit of $500 for a donation to a federal
political party an individual would have to give $1,150, and to
receive that same $500 tax credit a donation to a registered
charity would have to be in the amount of $1,807.90. Clearly a
gross inequity exists. My colleague is attempting to address
that by putting forward Motion No. 318.
I think it would interest the viewing public at this point in
the debate to ask what are we talking about here. How many
charities are we talking about? There are roughly 80,000
registered charities in Canada and in 1996, 5,451,860 donors gave
approximately $4 billion. We are talking about a substantial
industry, as it were, in the sense of charitable organizations.
They employ a lot of people and they certainly do lots of good
work.
I see the Chair is telling me I have one minute left. I must
have spoken on this issue previously. I thank the Chair for the
correction.
On such an important motion I could go on at great length but I
will sum up by stating the obvious. This motion is votable. It
is not too often that members of this place have a great
opportunity to right an injustice.
When we come to vote on Motion No. 318 we can seize the
opportunity and vote to level the playing field and treat both
these things the same. I urge all members of the House to do
exactly that.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this motion put
forward by my hon. colleague.
The motion provides us with an opportunity to make a number of
appropriate comments around the whole issue of charities. As the
previous speaker indicated, we are talking about 80,000
organizations which have been identified as legitimate charities
in this country.
The definition of a charity needs some work. I think the
definition we use goes back many decades and I suspect that the
nature of charity and charity work in Canada has changed
significantly from the 1920s and 1930s.
One thing we can say is the recent years of government deficit
fighting efforts have really hit charities hard. Charities in
Canada now unfortunately have to designate an inappropriate
amount work by volunteers simply pursuing fundraising activities.
I think we all appreciate that those who volunteer and those who
work for charities are really those people who weave the social
fabric of which we are so proud in our country. These are the
people who donate their time, effort, energy, talents and in many
cases money to enable these charities to provide the services
that hitherto governments often provided. Because of the
reduction in government services, because of the downsizing of
government, because of the trimming of government budgets, we now
are looking toward charity organizations to pick up that void and
to provide more services than ever before.
It is a bit disappointing to read the information that has been
provided in terms of charitable donations. They are at a virtual
standstill. The growth simply is not there. The Canadian Centre
for Philanthropy says that we have to find ways and means to
encourage more Canadians to participate in the development of the
social and supportive caring fabric of our country through
charity giving.
1740
Recently the Standing Committee on Finance made the following
recommendation: “Government should consider enhancing the
charitable tax credit for donations to charities currently funded
by government to make it as generous as the current political tax
credit for small donations to political parties”.
Let us acknowledge the fact that in our effort as a country,
which I support enthusiastically and which I endorse, we
encourage people to participate in the democratic process. There
is no question that for a democracy to work effectively, people
have to participate as directly as possible. Therefore, as we
all know, for a $100 contribution to a political party in Canada
the donor will receive a $75 tax credit. That is a real
incentive for average men and women across the country to make
donations to the political party of their choice. We endorse
that.
As a result, I think it is fair to say that when we look at the
political contributions to at least some of the political
parties, a massive number of Canadians participate in supporting
the political party of their choice as a result of this rather
encouraging tax write-off.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring
in legislation making the tax deduction for contributions to
charitable organizations no less than the tax deduction for
contributions to political parties.
I support that principle. As other speakers have indicated,
Motion No. 318 does not specifically recommend that the
government increase the tax credit for donations to charities
from 17% as it is now to 75%, although this is an option.
Rather, it allows the government to use its discretion to choose
the optimal tax credit rates, making sure the charity tax credit
is no less than the political tax credit.
I want to flag a concern at this point. I know this is votable.
I want to indicate an area that I think deserves consideration.
Representing the voices of the New Democratic Party, we are not
suggesting that the level of political contribution should be
reduced, but we are saying that the deduction for giving to
charities should be increased to that same level.
We are talking about those that are the weavers of our social
fabric and now we look more and more to those in the charity
sector and the volunteer sector to provide that level of service.
We think it is appropriate to re-examine this whole issue. I
think all of us would say that 17% is simply inadequate, that it
does not reflect the reality of our country.
Is it appropriate that people who donate their energies to the
charity of their choice spend such an inappropriate amount of
time raising funds? I do not think an evening goes past now when
in our places of residence here in the nation's capital or back
in our own constituencies there is not a knock at the door from
someone raising money. Sometimes three or four times in the
evening there is a knock on the door and somebody is asking for a
donation to a particularly worthy cause or a worthy initiative or
a worthy endeavour.
You make the contributions because you realize that if you do
not, that person will not be able to carry out the charitable
work they wish to do. But it troubles me that that person has to
spend that evening going door to door raising funds and not out
providing the service or doing the charitable work that person is
actually interested in. They do not join these organizations to
go on fundraising activities.
I think this is a step forward. I think it is a step in the
right direction. That is why I say on behalf of those of us in
the New Democratic Party that we are pleased to support this
initiative by my colleague for Fraser Valley.
We are not suggesting that we reduce the tax deductions
available for political contributions but that we enhance those
associated with charitable giving.
1745
I want to talk a bit about the simplicity of the matter. We
have to acknowledge that there are two sets of rules: one for
charities and one for political parties. Therefore, if the tax
system treated political parties and charities equally the system
would be simpler to explain, certainly a lot simpler to write and
a lot simpler to understand.
There is one thing we should strive for as parliamentarians
during these complex and changing times. We look at tax forms
and shudder and dread the day we have to sit down at a table to
try to figure them out, fill them out, or dread the day we have
to hire an accountant to do that on our behalf. We have to
struggle to make such forms simpler.
The motion would move us in the direction of simplifying the tax
return and making it equivalent in terms of whether one is making
a political contribution or a contribution to one of Canada's
worthy charities.
It is a big business. It is a $4 billion business annually. We
are talking about a considerable amount of money relatively
speaking. We have to acknowledge that this unfortunately is a
growing trend, that more and more the realities of our fiscal
programs suggest that charities will be providing those necessary
and crucial services in the future.
We have always relied on charities, but changing times make them
even more important today. It is with enthusiasm that we support
the motion. We are looking forward to the vote and we are
looking forward to seeing legislation move through this House and
subsequently on to the other place, and the sooner the better.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate
on Motion No. 318. I will begin by taking a few minutes to
respond on behalf of the government to the motion put forward by
the member for Fraser Valley.
Let us be clear. The government recognizes the motivation for
the hon. member's motion and fully supports the principle of
offering generous tax assistance to charitable giving. The
purpose of the present tax regime with respect to charitable
giving is to encourage larger donations. The current tax regime
was put into place in consultation with the charity industry.
Through the work and assistance of the Standing Committee on
Finance stemming over a period of four years of prebudget
hearings, the tax treatment of charitable donations has evolved
to the point where we are now beginning to see a stronger and
more vibrant charity industry. That is a good thing.
In fact the government has provided additional incentives to
charitable giving in four of the last five federal budgets.
Measures have been included and adopted. The first is lowering
the threshold for eligibility for the 29% level of the tax credit
to $200 from $150. The second is raising the annual income limit
for the use of charitable donations to most charities from 20%
when the government took office to 75%. The third is reducing
the income inclusion rate for capital gains arising from the
donation of appreciated publicly traded securities to 37.5%.
These measures are very important. The hon. member should
recognize that the differences in the treatment of political
contributions and charitable donations reflect the different
policy intentions of the two measures. The design of the federal
political contributions tax credit reflects the desire to
encourage greater grassroots involvement by all Canadians in the
political process.
For this reason generous tax assistance is given to small
political contributions. This tax assistance is reduced by
incremental amounts to the point that federal tax assistance is
eliminated for amounts contributed to federal political parties
in excess of $1,150 per contributor per year.
In contrast, tax assistance for charitable donations is greater
for amounts in excess of $200 in order to encourage larger
donations to charities. This type of larger scale giving allows
for a greater measure of stability and predictability for those
charities.
Indeed in the case of very large donations tax credits may be
claimed for donations up to 75% of the taxpayer's income in any
given year. Tax credits then may be carried forward to future
years should the 75% limit be exceeded.
Recently we have witnessed the important role the present tax
regime has played in charitable giving.
The charitable industry has reported seeing more large scale
donations from individuals than ever before. In particular, it
has witnessed this trend following the implementation of the 1997
budget which contained provisions allowing for reduced taxation
of capital gains on publicly traded shares given to registered
charities.
1750
I was interested recently in reading in the Globe and Mail
that they called this tax change, which effectively cut in half
the capital gains tax that donors pay on such gifts, a bonanza
for the charity industry. The University of Toronto, for
example, has received more than 70 individual contributions of $1
million or greater during its current fundraising drive.
Gorden Floyd, director of public affairs at the Canadian Centre
for Philanthropy, recently stated that the charities have “all
seen a real surge in major gifts or stock since the legislation
change. It is important to see that take place.
Meg Beckel, executive director of the Royal Ontario Museum
Foundation, has also noted an increase in tax driven gifts to
charities, particularly from new beneficiaries. He states:
Since 1997 we have received gifts from individuals in the form of
shares that we would not have otherwise received. It has made a
real difference.
The incentives for large scale giving also have borne fruit in
terms of a new community foundation movement which is a
collection of endowment funds committed to local projects. A
coalition of leaders heading up this movement recently announced
in Calgary that its collective assets are now worth more than $1
billion. This announcement is clearly good news for communities.
I think that is something with which all of us in the House can
agree.
These foundations tend to fill a unique need in that they are
funded locally in their base projects in the community and in the
country in almost every province. Gifts to such foundations can
be allocated in many ways including a general community fund or a
specific cause.
A little more than a week ago members of a youth advisory
committee from the Calgary Foundation announced a series of
grants that they were being awarded including $1,000 to a high
school program that helps with the integration of immigrants and
$500 to a Hispanic youth centre.
This type of community action by these foundations is very
encouraging, helping to reinforce in our collective notion the
relevance and importance of community in an increased and ever
globalized world.
We can see from these examples the tax regime that has been put
into place has been working to maximize the benefits of
charitable giving both for individuals and for charities in the
important work that they carry out. Charities have mushroomed
into an $88 billion affair spreading through 76,000 organizations
ranging from hospitals to houses of worship, to social services.
There are another 100,000 not for profit agencies as well.
By any measurement that we might choose this industry has been
growing more important and stronger every year under the present
tax structure. While we have seen that large scale giving has
been greatly affected by tax incentives, we have also found that
the donation of small amounts to charities has not been strongly
motivated by the availability of tax assistance.
Consequently the greatest effect of this proposal before the
House would be to increase the fiscal cost of tax assistance
according to donations that would in all likelihood have been
made in any case.
There is one further and important note: the level of tax
assistance accorded most charitable donations results in a
roughly 50:50 partnership between government and the private
sector in support of charities. That is important to note.
This is consistent with the principle that although charities
promote the public good they have direct control over their
activities in these areas and their priorities will not generally
be identical to those of government. Increasingly tax assistance
for small donations would not have been in accordance with this
principle.
The government cannot support the motion for the following
central reason. The current design of the current charitable
donations tax credit acts to encourage larger donations while
recognizing the value of smaller donations. The greatest impact
of the motion would be to increase tax assistance accorded to
donations that would have been made in any case.
In conclusion, I want to simply say that tax assistance accorded
charitable donations as we have seen by the growth of the
industry is already very generous.
1755
I thank the hon. member opposite for bringing forward the motion
for debate. We are all reminded of the importance of charitable
giving and the worthy causes that are pursued through such work.
In that we all benefit.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam,
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise on behalf of my party to
speak to Motion No. 318.
Under the current Liberal government in power personal income
taxes are among the highest in the industrialized world. Quite
frankly Canadian people are being taxed to death. Even on such
things as individual charitable donations the Canadian public is
not given a break. In the meantime the government has been
cutting and slashing social investment grants and funding to
charitable institutions to the extent that many have difficulty
keeping their heads above water.
The wording of the motion before us is worth looking at. The
motion calls for the government to bring in legislation making
the tax deduction for contributions to charitable organization no
less than the tax deduction for contributions to political
parties. Presently, as has been stated by others this evening,
if a donor contributes $100 to a political party he or she would
receive a $75 federal tax credit. The same individual who
contributes $100 to the cancer society would only receive a $17
federal tax credit. That is the problem that the motion is
attempting to address.
The motion is cleverly worded, for the lack of a better
expression. Motion No. 318 does not specifically recommend that
the government should increase the tax credit for donations to
charities from 17% to 75% although this would be an option.
Rather, it allows the government to use its discretion to choose
optimal tax credit rates.
This is a bit of a cop-out in terms of the motion before us. The
motion is laudable and worth consideration, but it is obviously
putting the onus back on the government. Any motion should
clearly define exactly what it is going to do, for obvious
reasons.
It is fashionable and almost honourable given the political
atmosphere out there to attack politicians and political parties.
We have a pretty good system of tax relief and tax credits for
individuals who want to contribute to political parties. The
$100 donation winds up giving a $75 tax credit. There is a lot
of good in that.
Another side of the argument says that could be and possibly
should be reduced. We do not want to fall into the same kind of
political financing as has happened in the United States of
America where $1 million campaigns are the order of the day and
there is basically no limit on political financing. In this
country it is possible for ordinary Canadians to get elected and
to contribute to political parties. There is complete
transparency in the process. I do not want to see that
diminished in any way and that is part of the consideration this
evening.
A speaker from my party debated this issue a few months back.
However, one component we do not want to overlook in this
equation is the clambering for special tax status if this change
ever came about.
1800
I think my Quebec colleague would agree with me. How many of us
in this House of Commons regardless of political party have been
approached by groups that want special tax status as a charitable
donation. They want to be recognized as a charitable
organization. The line up would be endless if we changed the
system significantly. There would be so much clambering it would
be unmanageable for the government.
There is a danger in a wholesale change of the system. That
leads into the argument, and of course this was on debate today
as well, about the Canadian tax system and the complexity of the
Canadian tax code. If the Canadian tax code were laid here next
to me, it would dwarf me. It is much taller than my six foot two
inches.
Our Canadian tax code is overly complex. I do not think there
is any one of us in this House that does not use the services of
a professional accountant to do our income taxes at the end of
the year. I certainly have been using one for years. Most of us
do because of the complexity of it. It is one of those things we
no longer want to do ourselves for obvious reasons. It goes
right back to the word complexity.
This is interesting and quite humourous. It is an interesting
reflection on the complexity of our tax code and why we are
forced into hiring professionals to compile our taxes. I lent
this line to the member for Kings—Hants who used it today in the
House but I am taking credit for it as if I invented it. The
complexity of the tax code forces us to use professionals to
compile our taxes for us. They say that compiling our own tax
returns is the only do it yourself project that could land us in
jail if it is not done to perfection.
I do not think we want any more complexity in the tax code. I
think we would like to see a levelling of the playing field in
the sense of charitable donations versus political donations, but
it has to be thought through.
The efforts of the member have to be commended. This goes
beyond partisan politics. I do not think there is a member on
either side of this House who thinks government can be the be all
and end all, the sort of blanket approach to curing all the ills
of society. We have to leave part of it up to charitable
organizations in our hometowns, our churches, all the various
organizations that do good across Canada each and every day. We
do not want to see that end. We want to see that enhanced.
The value in this member's motion is that if charitable
associations were given better tax treatment, the resources and
the money these organizations would have to help our friends,
neighbours and often ourselves through those charitable donations
would most likely increase. That would be a good thing. It would
take some of the onus off the government to do the very things
that governments today are doing.
Some of the programs governments are engaged in from time to
time in that blanket approach, and this government is no
different, sometimes do not work. What is good for Newfoundland
sometimes is not good for British Columbia. That is on any given
day of the week. That happens. Quebec, Ontario or the rest of
the country.
The organizations that deliver services best are usually the
ones in our backyards. We have to do everything possible to
enhance that type of giving and that type of ownership of our
hometowns.
We commend the member. He is on the right track. I would like
to see this idea carried forward and the government come up with
legislation that would address this inequity in our tax system.
We are prepared to support the motion. The onus then goes back
on the government to take this motion seriously and introduce tax
law that would change the status quo.
1805
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate in the second
hour of our consideration of Motion No. M-318 introduced by the
hon. member for Fraser Valley. I remind the House of the motion
we are debating, that in the opinion of this House the government
should bring in legislation for making the tax deduction for
contributions to charitable organizations no less than the tax
deduction for contributions to political parties.
I have been a part of the charitable sector of our country for a
lot longer than I have been a part of the political sector, so I
speak to this motion with a degree of personal conviction and I
support it.
I am reminded of the history of our country and the large part
charitable organizations have played in that history, for
example, in the growth of hospitals and schools. The community
charity sector and the churches provided relief and assistance to
those who were beyond their own means to look after themselves.
We are all well aware of the enormous benefits all of our
country derives from the generous contributions and the generous
efforts of various charities and the people who support them. To
say these are not important is nonsense. We cannot diminish it.
For example, St. Paul's hospital in Vancouver is a hospital that
belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. I am sure the church does
not wish to do this but if it did it could remove those services.
Here is an organization that has provided hospital care and
educational facilities like schools for the full duration of our
country's history.
To give a snapshot of charities in Canada, in 1996 nearly five
and a half million people gave about $4 billion to the nearly
80,000 registered charities in this country. That is a lot of
money. Charitable organizations are major employers in Canada as
well as major contributors. They employ approximately a million
people. We are not talking about an insignificant sector of our
country.
I cannot fail to mention what it meant to charities when the
government decided to cut back on the value of contributions by
limiting the tax deductions available. Speakers have mentioned a
number of times that you get $75 out of $100 on your tax receipt
for political purposes and a $17 receipt for a $100 contribution
to a charity.
I am not speaking against political parties and the need for
people to participate in the political life of our country. This
is important. I do believe the Canadian people put a lot more
emphasis upon the need for people to participate voluntarily in
the lives of our communities. Tonight we are discussing an issue
of participation, the avenues of participating and the
willingness of the government to facilitate that participation
through gifts and activities.
I am reminded that charities may be around knocking on doors for
the money they need. Often the money they use is simply to
operate the machinery that provides an avenue for other people to
contribute their time in large numbers of hours in a whole
variety of ways.
Charities support a wide range of activities and provide a wide
range of services, everything from health and welfare to
athletics. Their contribution to the quality of life of
individuals and the community is greatly appreciated and proven.
1810
What would it be without those services that are given freely
and generously by Canadians? This is even more the case in
today's world as most of us have had to tighten our belts. We
have seen this not only in our individual lives but governments
in particular have had to change the way they spend public funds.
When I was a minister looking after a church and the needs of
people in Vancouver, I was well aware of the consequences of the
government's decision to take people out of the mental health
institutions and move them supposedly to community based care.
However, there was no community based care. We found large
numbers of people walking on the sidewalks unable to care for
themselves. And who but people like the volunteers, the Canadian
Mental Health Association, the hospitals and the churches were
able to look after these people.
I am aware that more people can give more money to charities. It
has been mentioned that 75% of a person's income can be
contributed to a charitable organization for a tax credit.
However, how many people have it in their ability to contribute
75% of their income?
There are some who can, but these are not the people who get up
in the morning and go to work every day. These are not the people
who need to have all that they have to care for their children
and families, to pay the mortgage and to look after their own
immediate needs and if they are lucky, have a little bit left
over to contribute to their favourite charity. Many people
because they cannot contribute money, contribute time, but the
time and the money go together.
I think it is a red herring to suggest that the government has
provided opportunities for people to contribute more and more
generously, when in fact the government has limited these
opportunities and provided opportunities for people who are
wealthy and can do this. In fact, the wealthier one is, the more
one can contribute and the more benefits one can get for
contributing. However, this does not speak to the needs of the
average man and woman, their families and their desire to
participate freely and voluntarily in contributing their time and
money.
Charities have to work harder to ensure that people do not fall
through the cracks. With the lack of adequate funds, it is
becoming increasingly difficult for them to do this. This is why
we see charities resorting to bingos and lotteries. As well they
send vehicles from door to door to pick recyclable items and use
this as a means of income.
It is estimated that for every 1% the government cuts from
social service programs it takes an increase in donations to
charities of nearly 6% to maintain the level of services. This
increase is not happening. The charities are not getting this
kind of increase. As a result, those who most require these
services are not getting the assistance they need.
Individuals who donate to specific charities also want to have a
say in where their money is going. This is not the same as when
we hand over our money to the income tax department. It takes it
with very long teeth and with the threat that if we do not do it,
we may go to jail or it may raid our bank accounts. However, by
giving to a specific charity we are supporting a self-approved
activity and supporting a cause personally.
On the other hand, governments must identify needs to allocate
the necessary resources to meet those needs. We know that needs
to happen. We also know that political parties need to have
money for their members to participate in the political process.
The reason we are asking this House to approve this motion is
that this type of participation is just as important in the
charitable sector as it is in the political sector.
I would encourage hon. members in the House to vote for this
motion, particularly those members of the government party who
are thinking that they should vote against it because it is going
to cut back on government resources for their programs.
1815
We have enough government. Our government is massive and big.
We need to provide opportunities for individual Canadians to
participate more and more on a personal basis with their time and
with their means.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, at
first blush my constituents are probably sitting in their living
rooms right now saying “This is a heck of a good idea”. I was
sitting in the lobby and thinking, at first blush, “This is a
really good idea. Let us give those charitable donations more of
a tax break than they currently get”.
Then I looked at the proposal. The proposal is being put
forward by the member for Fraser Valley, a member of the Reform
Party. The bells started going off. I began to think “What is
it they want to do?” At first blush my constituents would say
to me “What they want to do is make the tax credit for
charitable donations at least as generous as the credit accorded
political contributions. That is exactly what they want to do”.
Why do we not look at the mirror image of what they are
proposing? The Reform Party's selective use of the facts in any
particular issue is what any opposition party relies on. They
rely on only telling so much. If they tell more it makes things
very difficult and they do not get the support they need on a
particular bill.
Let us look at the whole story, the whole situation when it
comes to a tax credit, whether it is political or charitable. I
will tell this to my constituents because it is important. Let
us say that Stan Keyes received a $100,000 donation to his
political campaign. That is very generous. I would appreciate
it. But the only tax relief they would receive on that $100,000,
to a maximum, would be $1,150. That is it.
That same constituent could say that it was not enough to give
money to Stan, that they would also like to give $100,000 to the
St. Joseph's Hospital Foundation in my riding. The Reform Party
will not tell us that the tax credit they would receive on that
donation would be far greater than they would receive giving the
$100,000 to me. That is right. Even the members of the Reform
Party are puzzled by this. It is true. A political donation of
$100,000 gets a maximum tax credit of $1,150. A $100,000
donation to a charitable organization gets a far greater tax
credit.
Why is that? It is because we encourage grassroots Canadians to
donate money to their political parties on a much broader
spectrum. Let us get more people donating to political
parties and friends in smaller amounts. Let us ensure that
people who are generous toward charitable organizations, like the
St. Joseph's Hospital Foundation in my riding, are encouraged to
give larger amounts so they also get a larger tax credit for
doing that. Does that not make sense?
Now the alarm bells go off in my head. Why do we suppose that a
party like Reform, which claims to be grassroots—and the Bloc
can be lumped into this as well—said from the beginning that
they wanted a lot of small donations? They want those $10, $20
and $30 donations from their grassroots supporters.
Now we have a motion from the Reform Party that proposes to make
the tax credits for charitable donations as least as generous as
political tax credits.
Let us look at that mirror image I spoke of. Now we see that
the Reform Party is really after some equality with charitable
donations in those bigger amounts of cash coming into its
political coffers. Now we get the picture.
1820
This is not talking about “Let us help out those people”. We
are only talking about donations of up to $200. That is all they
are talking about. That is suspicious.
What is the mirror effect of this? The mirror effect is, if
they are looking to have equality and simplify the tax system,
they are looking for, dare I say on behalf of the Reform, larger
political donations. No, I would not want to say that, but let
us have a look at exactly what this is all about.
The Minister of Finance has always been supportive of enhancing
tax assistance to the charitable sector. He has always been
there for them. Consequently, the assistance given to the
charitable sector has been enhanced. I tell that to the hon.
member from the Reform Party who has nothing better to do than
stand in the House and yell at me. During his speech I was
quiet, but he has chosen to be very agitated about this. I
understand why.
If I were out there asking the public to increase the amount of
money they were going to give to me, and for that they would get
a bigger tax break at the end of the day, I would be kind of
embarrassed too. I would be yelling at members opposite for
pointing that out to my constituents who are watching tonight.
What has the minister done? The Minister of Finance has
enhanced and assisted the charitable sector in every budget: in
the 1994 budget, in the 1995 budget, right up until this year's
budget in 1998. The relationship between government and the
private sector in support of charities can be described as a
50:50 partnership, although the level for tax assistance to
donations by individuals is generally somewhat larger than 50%
for cash donations, again I say above $200.
Quite frankly, I think many taxpaying Canadians out there would
say that is very generous support.
My constituents are saying the tax assistance provided through a
federal tax credit of 17% on donations up to $200 and 29% on
amounts in excess of $200 is generous. They are quite satisfied.
The application of the credit reduces basic federal tax, which in
turn reduces a donor's provincial tax liabilities.
When we look at the proposal being put forward by the member for
Fraser Valley, I say it looks very level headed and it looks as
though they really care.
I have heard some terrific speeches in the House tonight during
Private Members' Business. Those members are absolutely correct.
Those charitable organizations out there doing the good work in
our communities are most valued. There is no question of that.
Everything this government can do to help those charitable
donors it will do. We are going to give them every assistance
that we can possibly give them.
An hon. member: Make the tax credit the same.
Mr. Stan Keyes: The member opposite from the Reform Party
says to make the tax credit the same. He just did not get it,
did he?
Unlike the Reform Party, the government on this side of the
House is trying to ensure that there is a balance.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Stan Keyes: He laughs because he does not understand.
I can understand that. The Income Tax Act is a very complicated
thing and the hon. member opposite is only going to look at this
thing on the surface. All he wants to see is a tax credit for
everybody, whether it is a political or a charitable donation, et
cetera.
I ask members of this House to look a little deeper. Look a
little deeper at exactly what this bill proposes and look at the
ramifications it would have if it were to be implemented, not at
the up to $250, $300 or $500 range that the hon. members opposite
are proposing, but at the larger end where the Reform really
wants the big money, tax credited, coming into their pockets.
1825
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to make a couple of remarks that will be appropriate
for the previous speaker, the member for Hamilton West. He said
we will help them. Yet I read in the Globe and Mail of
February 6, 1996 that grants and other support from governments
have been sharply reduced and sometimes eliminated entirely. We
will help them all right. That is some help. That was the Liberal
government.
The House of Commons finance committee which tabled its
prebudget report last month endorsed the viewpoint that growth in
charitable donations is at a virtual standstill and new
incentives are needed. The finance committee which is chaired by
a Liberal asked that the government consider enhancing the
charitable tax credit for donations to charities currently funded
by governments to make them as generous as the current political
tax credit for small donations to political parties. We see that
the Liberals' own committees are against what the previous
speaker had to say.
The Liberals are the biggest beneficiaries of the current
system, but I can assure members of one thing. In my riding the
Liberals will be the big losers under any system as they
supported Bill C-68 in the last election.
The question now is who do we want to help in this country, the
political system or the charitable system? I have worked with
charities. I have worked in government, as now, and I am not
entirely convinced that we are doing the good that many of the
charities do. One thing is for certain. I hear a lot of
complaints about MP paycheques and other perks available to them
but I do not hear anyone complaining about what charities get and
do. That says a lot to me.
Canadians are voting with their pocketbooks. They are voting to
support charities at an extremely high level. Why should
charities be subject to discriminatory tax treatment? Should
this country not have one law for those who support volunteers?
Three out of fifty-two awards for caring Canadians were made to
people from the riding of Prince Albert. That left only 49 for
the entire rest of Canada.
The changes requested in the motion would do a lot of good in a
constituency like mine which is a rather low income constituency
but very generous in giving to support fellow Canadians.
Caring costs money. The government should not be hindering. It
should be helping charities to get ahead. I am sure those who
make the large donations appreciate the large tax credits on
donations. But many Canadians give smaller donations because it
is all they have left after the government has finished taxing
them out of existence. Many charities, in particular pro-family
charities, need help and they are key to Canada's way of life in
the 20th century. As we go through redefinitions of family and
the family is under attack, those pro-family groups need to have
their charitable status.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that I
must interrupt the hon. member, since it is 6.30 p.m. The hon.
member will have approximately six minutes left when this motion
is brought back to the House.
[Translation]
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
APEC SUMMIT
1830
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the case of Peppergate is becoming more and more complex as we
have the solicitor general continuing his cover-up for the Prime
Minister by using a body that was never designed for this
purpose.
There are many people in Canada who make a very good living at
building two or three or four houses a year. They are
contractors, very reputable people who build those homes.
However, I would never ever use any of those contractors to build
a 60 storey skyscraper because they lack experience. They are
totally lacking in expertise. They just simply do not have the
ability to get the job done.
I make a comparison between the Public Complaints Commission of
the RCMP and a small contractor. The purpose of the Public
Complaints Commission is clearly set out in section 45.35(1) of
the RCMP Act:
Any member of the public having a complaint concerning the
conduct, in the performance of any duty or function under this
act of any member or other person appointed or employed under the
authority of this act, may, whether or not that member of the
public is affected by the subject matter of the complaint make a
complaint.
This is to get to the bottom of any alleged misdeeds by the
RCMP. What we are talking about here very clearly and
specifically is alleged misdeeds of the prime minister, of the
foreign affairs minister and of this government.
Furthermore, any evidence taken under this act will be taken
under section 37(1) of the Canada Evidence Act which reads:
A minister of the crown or other person interested may object to
the disclosure of information on the grounds of the specified
public interest.
In other words, this board, this commission, is not an inquiry.
It is a Public Complaints Commission capable of building houses,
not skyscrapers, and truly we have a skyscraper.
To underscore the point that this body does not have the
expertise, I am not questioning any of the board members or their
integrity. That is not the issue. The issue is their expertise
and their ability to get the job done.
I point to the finding of Justice Reed on the matter of whether
the board should have called for the funding of the students. In
that he came up with two reasons, and I quote:
The board said that the commission's duty of impartiality would
be compromised by advocating for a benefit in favour of only one
of the parties before it.
That is the complainant. She continues:
Submissions by the commission of the federal government for the
funding requested would intrude on the exclusive power of
parliament to legislate the entitlement which is sought.
This is not me speaking; this is the judge speaking. She says
with respect to the first ground on which the commission based
its decision “the conclusion is inaccurate”. Also she says
with respect to the assertion that the recommendations would
intrude on parliament's executive power to legislate “that is
also incorrect”.
This is the key. She says that the commission was operating on
misunderstandings of the law. This is the board that is supposed
to be looking into whether the foreign affairs minister and the
prime minister were indeed involved in this matter.
I suggest—as a matter of fact I charge—that this board is
being used as a cover-up for the prime minister and for the
misdeeds of he and his foreign minister with respect to APEC.
That is my assertion and I say this on the basis of the fact
that the board unfortunately in the judgment of Justice Reed is
incompetent.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I should repeat the mandate of
this board, for the benefit of Canadians. It would appear that
my colleague across the way has great difficulty grasping it, so
I am going to read it word for word from the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Act. I will read from the English text.
[English]
The Commission has, in relation to the complaint before it, the
powers conferred on a board of inquiry, in relation to the matter
before it, by paragraphs 24.1(3)(a), (b) and (c).
[Translation]
What do paragraphs 24.1(3)(a), (b) and (c) say? First of all:
[English]
—A board of inquiry has, in relation to the matter before it,
power
(a) to summon any person before the board and to require that
person to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce
such documents and things under that person's control as the
board deems requisite to the full investigation and consideration
of that matter;
(b) to administer oaths;
(c) to receive and accept on oath or by affidavit such evidence
and other information as the board sees fit—
1835
[Translation]
Despite his protestations to the contrary, my colleague across
the floor is casting doubt on the very credibility of the
organization. The specific purpose of creating this board was
for it to hear citizen complaints against the RCMP.
This board was informed of the complaint on the initiative of
the students themselves. I find it regrettable that an attempt
is being made to use this as a pretext to discredit that body.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)