Our taxes at work

It's a beautiful sunny afternoon in August. You're stretched out on a lawn chair in the yard. You reach out to take a sip of your cool, thirst-quenching beer. Damn! An ant has crawled into your glass. No big deal, really, but yuck. In the same way, seeing our taxes at work sure can spoil a good thing.

A few months ago, Revenue Canada finally replaced its old customs declaration forms for air travellers, which had been obsolete since the changes in 1997 to basic exemptions. Public servants in Ottawa slaved away for two years to come up with a new customs declaration card, providing a unique opportunity for 30 million Canadians to see their taxes at work.

Unlike countries in Europe, Canada is pretty picky about the information it requests from incoming citizens travelling by plane. To the average citizen, most questions are irrelevant. Furthermore, the form isn't particularly welcoming to non-Canadians.

Revenue Canada could have used this opportunity to simplify Declaration E311 (99) and greet travellers in a friendlier, less bureaucratic manner. But it wasn't to be. Our taxes were at work, and Revenue Canada wasn't going to throw in the towel.

The new card contains a number of innovations. For example, despite the fact that it's pocket-sized, the form is now divided into four parts: A, B, C and D. "They" now require everyone who has completed Part A "to be included" in Part B and answer Parts C and D, in the same order as in Part A. Great work, if it wasn't so confusing! Another major change is that the card no longer discriminates against large families (a sign that David Foot hasn't yet made it big at Revenue Canada). Five family members at the same address can now all use one card. But Persons #3, #4 and #5, who represent about 0.5% of respondents, take up a third of the form. Indeed, Person #5 makes up only 0.001%, yet occupies 5% of the form. Why doesn't Revenue Canada stop at two per family or, if paper is cheap, at three? Going to five is bureaucratese at its worst.

What's more, Revenue Canada hasn't dropped the question about bringing eggs. (Yes, eggs!) It also shows its environmental awareness by asking you to declare all "articles made or derived from endangered species." (There are two pages of explanation, in case you need it. Four, really; they are in both official languages.)

Nor have the form's great "classics" been jettisoned. You are still asked whether you will visit a farm within the next 14 days. I have always wondered if there are more true positive responses to this question (a farm visitor who checks "yes") than false negatives (a farm visitor who checks "no") and false positives (someone who has no intention of visiting a farm but checks "yes"). Great minds in our nation's capital must think travellers will tell the truth. (My own advice: never check "yes.")

It is not only the information requested that is a national embarrassment; it's also the form's general appearance. Most of us are friendly to visitors to this country. Unfortunately, Revenue Canada greets them first, at least those who arrive by plane. Canada thus welcomes them not only with bureaucratic gibberish and concerns about eggs, but with questions about funny diseases and such. Nice work, public servants!

Let's put aside what Ottawa does or intends to do with this information. After all, there's only one month of summer left. Let's ask ourselves why they do this with our taxes.

Far be it from me to allege that public servants aren't good. Ottawa employs hardworking, qualified people. I know that for a fact. Ten years ago, as assistant to the prime minister, I was probably one of the 100 most important people in government. The problem isn't with the individuals. It's with them getting together to work on something; it is the system that stinks.

Take the questionnaire for travellers. It likely required dozens of long meetings, memos to the minister and deputy minister, focus groups and so on to design it. And after "they" read my column, more memos might follow. I am sure they will justify every line, period and comma on that form. "These questions, Mr. Minister, are required by law," they'll say. "Revenue Canada is only responding to the requirements of other departments.""This information is very important and useful." "Cote is wrong; this form is attractive, well-intentioned and welcoming.""Other countries use similar forms." Etc., etc. You see, this is Ottawa. It is always right. Didn't you know?

The most unfortunate side to this story is that Ottawa has probably printed enough of these forms for the next 10 years. Don't ask why; this was the right thing to do, some good public servant will say.

Our taxes at work? Just like ants in summer, they sure can spoil a good beer.

[Author Affiliation]

Marcel Cote is a senior associate at SECOR Inc. in Montreal.