Madam Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity to talk about the new tax agency and compare it to what exists now.
As a member of parliament, as do all members of this House, I meet with people on a daily basis who are having difficulties with Revenue Canada. These difficulties generally result from the adversarial approach that Revenue Canada uses.
I have seen individuals who have been in heart-wrenching situations where Revenue Canada has seemed to compound the hurt these people are facing.
I can give one example of a young mother who had a premature baby which weighed under two pounds and was put in a special hospital unit in the city of Vancouver. This child survived because of the hospital and the mother bonding with the child, giving it the incentive to be a real little fighter.
The mother at the end of the year tried to claim the expenses of travelling from South Surrey to Vancouver on a regular basis to make sure this child was bonding with her and to be supportive of the health care the child was getting. The mother was told it would not be covered because she should have gone to the hospital closest to her.
The hospital closest to the mother happens to be a palliative care hospital, a hospital which specializes in the treatment of the elderly, not newborns who are facing serious health problems. The hospital that specialized in this type of care just happened to be in Vancouver.
Revenue Canada, in dealing with this situation, said it was unfortunate but the hospital just happened to be a little bit too close. The hospital should have been another 10 kilometres away and then the mother would have qualified.
Tell that to a mother who is trying to make ends meet and who has extra costs because of the health needs of her child. Because the hospital happened to be 10 kilometres too close she did not qualify.
My concern is that there does not seem to be any kind of flexibility or compassion in the existing system. The existing system is managed by a minister of the crown, responsible to this House of Commons and accountable to the people of Canada.
I can give many other examples of people who have lost their homes and whose families have broken up because of the attitude within the existing Revenue Canada of “You owe us money and under all circumstances you will pay that money”. When people find themselves in distress and unable to pay, whether it is GST or income tax, or when they have a problem and are appealing a decision, a year or two years later when the appeal process is underway they find that what they owe has tripled or quadrupled because Revenue Canada is charging interest on the amount that is under dispute.
I cannot tell the House how many families I have had in my office who are just beside themselves because they are unable to pay the government. The government is unwilling to be flexible.
My concern is that if we have this independent agency, which is really only accountable to the minister, what is the attitude going to be? Is it going to be like the IRS? It wanted to charge a young lad who happened to catch the baseball which Mark McGwire hit when he was building up his home run record. This young lad gave the baseball back to Mark McGwire, but the IRS actually talked about taxing him on the amount that baseball would have sold for on the open market. That is the kind of irresponsible decision making that agencies make that are far removed from accountability.
My concern is that we are talking about setting up an agency that is only accountable to the minister. I am afraid it will be a little bit more hard-nosed than the existing system.
Let us say that this agency is a good thing. There are people at the provincial level, for example the minister of finance for Alberta, who feel that a proposal to handle federal-provincial tax collection would be a great thing and that it should go to any province that wants it, potentially gutting a key federal power. Provinces that ought to collect all taxes on their territory would remit the federal portion back to Ottawa, which is a reversal of the existing system.
People would say this is a provincial minister who is out to lunch. But he is not the only one. I will quote from a document from a provincial MLA who was asked to do a study for the provincial government of British Columbia. In his report he says “The division of taxing powers between the federal and provincial governments is an important part of what defines Canada as a federated state”.
He goes on to say “It is time that our Confederation was renewed with a transfer of taxing authority from Ottawa to the provinces so that the provinces have the resources to adequately fund the programs that they are legally bound to deliver”.
There are people across this country and provincial governments who believe that maybe we should be looking at a taxing authority. Where they differ from the federal government is that they feel it is time for these taxing powers to go back to the provinces so that the provinces can use the money to deliver the services, as they are the government closest to the people. Then they will release the funds that are necessary to the federal government so the federal government can do that which is its to do.
This is a debate that has occurred over a number of years. There are two sides to the debate. We have the Liberal government that feels it wants to get federal control of this agency and that the provinces will go along with it, not acknowledging that there are provinces and people in the provinces who feel it is the provincial government that should be taking this initiative, not the federal government.
It is very important that if the government is serious about this manoeuvre of having an arm's length agency to collect taxes in the country that it take hold of the accountability factor a lot more than other ministers of the crown have done.
I do not know how many times immigration ministers have stood in this House to tell us that the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board, is an arm's length board which they cannot control and have no say in. The solicitor general has said that the Public Complaints Commission is at arm's length from the government and he has no say in it. At some point there has to be accountability. Somebody has to take responsibility for the decisions that are being made. If the minister of revenue is intent on establishing this agency, then he will have to accept responsibility for the decisions this agency makes on behalf of Canadians. Because it is an arm's length agency does not remove the fact that the buck has to stop somewhere, and it stops with the minister who is responsible.
Another concern of the opposition is that if this agency goes ahead there has to be some protection for the Canadian taxpayer. Canadian taxpayers who feel they are being taxed unjustly must be able to go to someone for help and assistance. We would like to see an office for taxpayer protection established before this agency comes into effect.
The taxpayer protection office would report to parliament each year, issue taxpayer protection orders, act as an advocate of last resort for taxpayers, assist taxpayers in resolving disputes, identify areas where taxpayers have been consistently having problems with the agency, propose changes to administrative practices where these problems arise, and identify potential changes to legislation in order to minimize problems encountered by taxpayers.
If the protection is there for the Canadian taxpayer, if there is a government commitment not to throw the taxpayer out to the wolves, we might be more willing to support this legislation.