Jason Kenney

[The Senate, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government is laughing at democracy. Yesterday nearly half a million Albertans cast ballots, the largest result for a candidate in Canadian history. Bert Brown yesterday won more votes; more Canadian citizens cast votes for Bert Brown than have cast votes for this Prime Minister in his entire political career, and he calls it a joke.

Will he apologize to Albertans for his arrogance and his contempt for democracy? Will he appoint one of the elected candidates to the next vacancy in the Senate, yes or no?

[The Senate, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tried everything in his power to sabotage yesterday's Alberta Senate elections. He instructed his provincial wing not to run a candidate. He called the process supported by 90% of Albertans a joke. Then he appointed another patronage hack in the middle of the election. But Albertans ignored this Prime Minister and went to the polls in record numbers yesterday to give Bert Brown the largest democratic mandate ever given to a candidate in Canadian history. Will this Prime Minister abide that democratic mandate and appoint Bert Brown to the next Senate vacancy?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

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?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

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?

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.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

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?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

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?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

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.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

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.

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?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

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?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

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?