Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Durham for putting forward his private member's bill. Also I would like to compliment him on the style in which he delivered his ideas. The arguments and passion which he used were very persuasive. It is always nice to hear somebody speaking from the heart and with conviction rather than reading a canned speech from one of his staff members preaching the party line, which happens in all parties. Having worked with the hon. member in the Standing Committee on Finance, I believe he is
a Liberal who does care about the issues and who matches that caring with positive and concrete ideas.
He said some things today which I definitely support and agree with. He talked about the audit process which sometimes goes on forever. When auditors come into an office, they will there for one or two days or one or two weeks. If they are there for very long, they have to start justifying their time by squeezing out every dollar they can. Heaven forbid they audit one place for five days and leave saying that this company has a clean bill of health. Because there is a cost to the department, the auditor has to get a pound of flesh. The member's concept that those audits which go on endlessly and which become almost a persecution should have a beginning and an end is an excellent idea and one I support.
Another excellent idea is the example of proper notice. Revenue Canada should not be able to seize one's funds or garnishee one's accounts without giving notice. It is embarrassing. Most times there is not even the courtesy of a phone call. This is still another excellent suggestion to look into.
I really liked the analogy to banks. The hon. member indicated that the House has passed legislation to force financial institutions to have an ombudsman, yet the government does not want anyone to check into what it does.
The Prime Minister knows that integrity, honesty and respect for politicians are at an all-time low. He knew that when he sat on this side of the House. He promised to appoint an ethics commissioner to monitor any potential wrongdoing.
Now this member has made the suggestion that we should have an ombudsman who would look at and review what happens at Revenue Canada. In that way the taxpayers, the people who pay the bills, who sometimes make mistakes and sometimes do not, would have someone to go to and actually lodge a complaint about their concerns.
I know the member for Durham has had complaints and phone calls from his constituency and so have I from mine. I sit there and am helpless. I cannot do anything. I try to go through the minister to get an answer. A file is created and the best that I can do after a period of time, two or three or four months, is to get a response on why the decision or the actions of the department are consistent with the intentions and the objectives of the department and therefore there is not much one can do.
I really feel that some of the points made by the member are excellent. These examples are worth remembering because I feel that we do need to look at the Department of National Revenue and at taxation. We need to dispel that myth and make it more taxpayer friendly.
I have my way of doing it, which is a flat tax, but another way to make taxation and taxes taxpayer friendly is to reduce the friction between the taxpayer and the tax collector. Right now the only appeal and the only court of appeal that a taxpayer has is to hire a lawyer at a cost which most of the ones who are picked on cannot afford, to file an appeal and perhaps lose. It is a shame.
The examples that the member for Durham pointed out, of those people who need help, the seniors, the individuals with low income, cannot get help. They are the very people who need help.
I said earlier that this is a Liberal member who really cares. He has suggestions to show how he cares rather than the general rank and file of Liberals who say they care and just dish out the money. Even if it is people making $25,000 they get it, they do not care, they feel good, they have thrown out the money. This member wants the money to go to those people who need it and I compliment and applaud him for that effort.
Pushing taxpayer's rights is an excellent concept. Taxpayers need a taxpayers' protection act, anything along those lines are worthwhile pursuing. I like his idea, as well, of a six-month process from beginning to end or Revenue Canada loses its claim.
I have some concerns, however, and I would like to point those out. The member from the Bloc Quebecois has touched on some of them. The work overload for an ombudsman in this bill, as it stands, could be enormous. This person would have to hire a lot more people quickly because there is a backlog of high level appeals and complaints already at Revenue Canada. People have to wait.
Having another department will create work overload. That is a concern. It creates another level of bureaucracy. There is nothing in this bill that outlines how the member perceives the cost, the size of the department, how it would relate and put a number to it. This kind of activity, this recourse would probably cost the taxpayers x but the benefit to the taxpayers would be y .
Looking at clause 4(2), it is perhaps giving the ombudsman a little too much power. He can examine any person under oath. These are concerns I am pointing out. Perhaps after discussion or constructive discussion, these things can be improved upon.
Given the limited time for debate on this issue, the member has put two significant topics on the plate. It is much like the gun control bill. All Canadians are in favour of gun control but when it is lumped with firearms registration, it is an omnibus bill and two separate issues. We have gun control, the FAC. That has been in place along with firearms certificates. To introduce firearms registration was a a whole separate issue. It got into a whole big field.
That was a sizeable debate that took over a year. The justice minister got the legislation passed because of the issue.
Gun control and the criminal misuse of firearms was never an issue. Everybody, including the Reform Party, supported that part. It is an omnibus bill that has two elements. Each element is important. Each element deserves separate debate and separate consideration.
There is not time enough to cover everything when the two are lumped together. It is complicated to debate anything fully in an hour. I am glad the member had 20 minutes to explain the purpose and the objectives of his bill.
As the member from the official opposition said, he commends the purpose and objectives of the bill but he cannot support it because of a number of reasons. I have some concerns with it. I understand the intent of the member. I agree with his intent. I agree with his passion. I agree that there is a need to look at how Revenue Canada operates.
The officials in that department have been given too much power. Some of them have used the power, although not many. Very few do but all it takes is a few to wreck it. One rotten apple spoils the bunch.
It is important to look at this. I am definitely interested in taxpayers' protection acts, taxpayers' rights, taxpayers' issues. The member knows that. I would undertake, in whatever time is left in this Parliament, to work with the member to come up with a joint bill or motion.
In that way we could show this is a non-partisan issue. It is of benefit to all Canadians, all taxpayers. It would not be Liberal versus Reform but something that we could lobby at the committee that evaluates private members' bills. We should get it to be a votable motion and give it three hours.
Whether it is a motion or a bill, we should have something in place that is for the benefit of Canadians along the lines of what the member wants. In some areas, I agree with him wholeheartedly. All that is needed is to work out the details.
