Evidence of meeting #141 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cra.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
Mr. Villemure, you now have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being with us, Mr. Lareau. Your reputation precedes you.
I'm going to keep the ball rolling, as you did earlier.
What we can gather from the testimony that the minister gave before the committee last week is that the burden of proof is always on the taxpayer. The department essentially assumes no responsibility.
You said there was a charter that isn't legislative, which makes it somewhat useless. A person has a right to complain to the ombudsperson's office, but you say that's an empty right.
I'd like you to tell us more about that.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
The Taxpayer Bill of Rights grants taxpayers 16 rights. However, the taxpayers' ombudsperson does not have the authority to investigate specific issues in relation to all 16 rights. There are only six rights in respect of which the ombudsperson may investigate.
In particular, the taxpayers' ombudsperson has no authority to investigate cases respecting right number 3, which is the right to privacy. That right therefore may not be subject to an ombudsperson's investigation or to judicial review.
No court would be able to investigate or find in favour of a taxpayer whose privacy had been violated or not respected. Courts may not investigate that because the charter is empty.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
This is quite a strange situation.
There are several ombudspersons. There is one at Radio-Canada and at several other places. Those ombudspersons may generally investigate with respect to all granted rights.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
You're absolutely right.
In the case before us, when the bill was created some 25 years ago and the position of ombudsperson was established, the ombudsperson could investigate with respect to more rights. Over time, some rights were removed, even though it was hoped that the 16 rights could be subject to investigation.
However, when the government created this position, it chose to limit to eight the number of rights that could be subject to an ombudsperson's review.
That investigative power is also not a coercive power. It's just a power of recommendation.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
The ombudsperson has authority to examine and recommend.
However, it isn't normal that the ombudsperson can investigate only eight of the 16 rights in question. That was established at the outset.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
That's correct.
What's even more abnormal is that, when Canada created the position of taxpayers' ombudsperson, the person who occupied a similar position in the United States was asked to come and meet with the people at the Canada Revenue Agency.
In the early 2000s, that person came and met with the CRA people and provided them with all the information he had about his position, in which he managed a budget of approximately $700 million a year. He had direct access to the files of all taxpayers in the United States.
He could also make recommendations and publish directives for the IRS to be used in modifying taxpayer files, a much more powerful role than we have here.
In Mexico, the situation is quite different in the case of the PRODECON, as it's called there, which also has much broader powers than here in Canada.
Ultimately, Canada's taxpayers' ombudsperson, though brimming with good will, is unfortunately bound hand and foot.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
What intrigues me is that, as taxpayers, we trust the CRA. We think it must be doing things right. We don't suspect any problems associated with the software you mentioned. We expect that, since we have an ombudsperson, we have remedies if needed.
Our trust in the Canada Revenue Agency crumbles as we hear you speak. I find it disturbing that we can't believe this agency, which has created a position for an ombudsperson who can't investigate cases regarding certain rights.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
Mr. Villemure, it's more than a position of trust. It's more a position of ignorance that, of course, goes together with trust.
The journalist Laurent Laplante once told me you can't control what you can't see.
If people aren't aware that there is an ombudsperson, how can they exercise their rights? What do you want them to do if they don't even suspect that the Taxpayer Bill of Rights exists?
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Most people don't know, but those who do must expect that the ombudsperson can investigate. I find that extraordinarily ironic.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
Talk about it with tax experts, lawyers and accountants in Quebec and Canada, and they'll tell you that not even 5% of Canadians know that a taxpayers' ombudsperson exists.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
You're absolutely right. I wasn't even aware of it myself.
Which leads me to the following comment.
The department tells us that the onus is on taxpayers and that all kinds of processes are available to them if they're looking for information. It seems to me those processes are more obscure than transparent.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
With respect to tax assessments, the Income Tax Act provides that the onus is on taxpayers to show that the agency is wrong. Why is that the case? It's because the minister makes a decision through the agency and the taxpayer in a way appeals from that decision. The taxpayer must therefore show that the minister is wrong. That's how the system is designed.
However, if the agency takes measures to address fraud, for example, are taxpayers aware of those measures?
I believe that taxpayers would like to be more informed, especially about out-of-court settlements reached between the agency and taxpayers.
November 26th, 2024 / 4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Lareau.
Thank you, Mr. Villemure.
Mr. Green, you have six minutes. Go ahead, sir.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Monsieur Lareau, I really appreciate your coming back to committee. I know these administrative quirks happen at committee from time to time. I will say that I was online and ready to hear your testimony at the last meeting.
I want to begin with how you feel this privacy breach, from your perspective, has ultimately impacted taxpaying Canadians.
People had their information compromised. People had monies that were supposed to come to them sent fraudulently to somebody else. Of course, as you know, there might be impacts on their OAS and GIS. I think about seniors in Hamilton Centre.
Can you comment on the scale of tens of thousands of Canadians having their data compromised in this way?
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
I think the first problem is that taxpayers find out this occurs through the media. The CRA should step forward and tell taxpayers, “Look, we had this or that problem, but we corrected it.” Instead, the media tells taxpayers it happened, so the feeling among taxpayers is, “Well, why do we learn about it through the media? What does the CRA have to hide? Why can't they be more transparent with us and tell us exactly what happened?”
We're ready to forgive. You know, fraudsters use all kinds of mechanisms to perpetrate their fraud. The CRA is always trying to catch them. I have a lot of sympathy for the CRA, because it's very difficult, especially now with computerized systems.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
CRA, at the same time, has to be more transparent with taxpayers.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes. I would agree. You may have heard me, in some of my questioning in the last round to the commissioner and the minister, talking about the embarrassment. It feels like this government has a propensity for shutting down any kind of outside communication to the public. For those who are tuning in, it's important for them to note that as MPs, we found out the same way everybody else found out.
In your expert opinion on the topic, what do you think the CRA's duty of candour should be? Is it to be transparent by default and open when these breaches happen? In your estimation, how should that play into the mandate of the CRA in terms of its responsibilities to those who are filing taxes?
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
Well, right now what we've seen is that the CRA seems to be very upset with the civil service, with their workers. Okay, I understand that, but to me, the CRA should be a lot more upset with fraudsters than with their people. If it's the case that their people went to the CBC or wherever to bring this fraud into the open—I don't know if this occurred—then maybe there's a reason. Maybe the people who work there don't have enough trust in the system: There's something wrong here.
I don't encourage them to do that, but at the same time, it just shows that there's a problem.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Professor, just to be clear, would it be your recommendation, then, that should there be future breaches to privacy of information, the CRA—or in fact, any government agency—has a duty to report not just to the House of Commons and MPs but also to the general public when such breaches happen?
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
I am not talking here about one specific taxpayer. We're talking about the systemic system here.
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual
Yes. CRA should have an obligation to go to the public.
