Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today reflects the best intentions in the world to protect taxpayers.
Low income taxpayers, who, we are told, often feel singled out by mean taxation officials, might be looking forward to this bill, Bill C-215, with great hope and confidence.
In my opinion, however, Bill C-215, which was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Durham, opens the door to too much abuse. This bill calls for two types of measures, both aimed at reducing Revenue Canada's powers and reinforcing taxpayers' rights against taxation authorities.
Of course, one might think that Revenue Canada already has far too much power, that its powers must be reduced, while vulnerable taxpayers need more protection. In principle, this is true. In practice, however, there are ways to protect taxpayers better without leaving the door open to even greater inequities.
As it stands, this bill could lead to some inequities. It would be dangerous to aggravate tax inequities because those who would benefit the most still pay taxes. The worst off are not low income taxpayers who can barely pay their taxes, but those who enjoy good incomes, who already pay a lot of taxes, who would have more opportunities to avoid paying taxes, to circumvent their obligation to pay taxes.
We in Canada have a voluntary taxation system, in that taxpayers voluntarily agree to report their income at the end of every year and to send Revenue Canada their fair and equitable share of taxes. Taxpayers must calculate how much they owe by gathering the
information required in accordance with the law, report all their income, and send the government their share of taxes on this income. Unfortunately, the bill before us would not allow us to adhere to this great principle of fairness for all taxpayers.
I am referring to clauses 2 to 7. These clauses call for the establishment of a taxation ombudsman. This ombudsman would be appointed by the cabinet for a term of seven years and might be appointed for another seven-year term. If we had to appoint an ombudsman for all the departments now in Ottawa, we would be faced with an army of public servants and perhaps even greater injustice than we are already experiencing.
In my opinion, there are other measures that would cost less. The taxation ombudsman suggested here would soon, in my opinion, be swamped with work and complaints, because who would not be tempted, faced with a ruling from the department of revenue, to turn to an ombudsman? There would be no end of claims, complaints lodged with the ombudsman, who, in turn, would have to hire another army of public servants to look into each of the complaints, many of which involve small amounts.
Current procedures allow taxpayers a means of defence. First, there is the initial notice of appeal. If the reassessment, as it is called, is not satisfactory, the taxpayer may appeal to the Tax Court of Canada, which itself suggests two mechanisms for handling complaints: one of a general nature for cases involving large amounts of money, and an informal mechanism for complaints of $12,000 or less. And it costs taxpayers nothing to defend themselves before this court. They can represent themselves, without having to pay a lawyer to do so.
What is needed, in order to meet the hon. member's objectives, is for the public servants now handling our tax problems to take a more humane approach. Most of them are excellent people, who want to perform their duty, to assume their responsibilities. And at a time when jobs are scarce, in their day to day duties these public servants want to acquit themselves properly of their duties.
So, when the Minister of Revenue tells them: "Dear employees, this year your task is to get as much money as possible back from the taxpayer", you can imagine that they do not want to lose their jobs. They take their jobs seriously and they harass and squeeze the taxpayer to get the last drop possible out of them. Then they report to their superiors: "Today, my esteemed superior, I have bagged five taxpayers. Two of them burst into tears, one felt he was having his throat cut, the other, I have his shirt here, and the last has vanished. So, dear boss, I did my best to bag them today. The state is the winner today, because I got many hundreds of dollars from the pockets of those poor taxpayers". But that is not, I think, the object of the exercise.
Sometimes I see taxpayers in my office. For example, I have a man who owed $800 in taxes. Being a small time taxpayer with a low salary, he reaches an agreement with a taxation employee to pay $50 a month until the taxes owing are all paid. Revenue Canada accepts the agreement.
A few months later, Revenue Canada learns that the indebted taxpayer has filed his income tax and is expecting $200 back. So the Department of Revenue goes into hunting mode and tries to stop the $200 refund in order to claim it for itself, on the pretext that the taxpayer owed money to the tax people, despite the agreement that had already been reached. We tend to feel there is abuse in cases such as this on the part of tax officials, and rightly so, no doubt.
What we need, instead of a bill that opens wide the doors to other abuses, is a minister who will direct his officials to use judgement and to treat each case of unpaid taxes a little more humanely, with a little more thought for the taxpayer. When a taxpayer has made an agreement with the department of revenue, the agreement is usually kept. If the department of revenue wants to make sure that more money is coming in, it should first go after those who have the means to avoid paying taxes, to have a host of experts to advise them on how to make use of tax shelters. These are the people they should go after.
I regret having to speak against this bill whose intention is nevertheless, I repeat, excellent and highly laudable. But to support it reminds me of when we were children playing cat and mouse. I do not know whether you remember the game. You stood in a circle, boys and girls together, and held hands. When the mouse was in the middle, you linked arms and bent over to keep the cat from getting in and jumping on the mouse.
Today, the bill lets the cat and the mouse out at the same time. So when the cat and the mouse are left to themselves, the department of revenue goes after the smallest, and you can be sure it catches its prey. What needs to be done is this: rather than pass legislation that will result in further abuse, we should make relations between taxation officials and the taxpayer more humanitarian so that they are more humane, more civilized and more at the level of the ordinary taxpayer.