Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Motion No. 382 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South. When I read the motion and the accompanying material, I was pleasantly surprised by the hon. member's trenchant analysis in his short but very interesting paper. I must say he put his finger on a fundamental problem in Canada's tax system, and I am referring to the fact that a social contract between taxpayers,
individuals and even businesses and various levels of government has been broken.
This situation is so serious and so widespread, so deeply anchored in our day to day lives that recently, when the premier of Quebec, Mr. Jacques Parizeau, was buying furniture for his residence, he was asked by the salesman: "What do we do about the tax?" When we get to the point where even the Premier is asked whether the tax should go on the bill, the problem is fundamental and requires our full and undivided attention if we are to find a way to deal with the underground economy and the problems it creates for the tax system in Canada, Quebec and all the other provinces.
There are some very interesting ideas in the hon. member's document, and although the official opposition is not usually fulsome in its praise for Liberal members, and you must be aware of that, Mr. Speaker, when valid points are made, when we are offered an intelligent analysis of a problem, we are open to discussion, we are prepared to explore the best ways to deal with a situation, especially one that concerns public finances.
Consider the three suggestions the hon. member for Mississauga South explored in his motion. One is to inform the public. Many taxpayers are not aware of the impact of certain decisions or do not realize the overall impact of the decisions they make every day as consumers. Here is an example. Before the dollar dropped to 73 cents, when it was still 81 cents or 84 cents, people would tell us, and this was quite common: "Last week I went to the United States. I went shopping in the United States, because it was cheaper". That was not necessarily the case, but that is what they said. And those same people were mad as hell about the lack of jobs in Quebec and Canada.
The connection between what they do as consumers and what happens to the economy and employment is not always clear in people's minds. A campaign to educate the public about the underground economy and the impact of acts of civil disobedience, which is what we should call this today, might improve the situation in the future and make taxpayers more conscious of their obligation to contribute to the public treasury through their taxes.
The second suggestion made by the hon. member for Mississauga South also deserves our support.
A limited amnesty for income tax returns of previous years, not future years, should not encourage more people to evade taxes. On the other hand, a limited amnesty for the payment of interest and penalties on unreported incomes subject to federal or provincial income tax could encourage some people, who must feel ill at ease from time to time even if this practice is almost institutionalized, to pay what they owe. People may feel ill at ease by not fulfilling their civic duty to pay their normal share of taxes.
The third option suggested is also very interesting. Every one knows and talks about the fact, even if there are no comprehensive statistics about it, that renovation and construction is an area where the underground economy is flourishing. This is why a tax credit for tax payers who do some renovation could be an interesting idea to explore.
In short, the three proposals and the clearness of the analysis are such that we, as the official opposition, will support the proposal of the hon. member for Mississauga South because it is an intelligent and articulated proposal which deserves to be examined in depth by the standing committee on finance. I invite my colleague, who will have my support as a member of the committee of finance, to present his analysis and to suggest various options to the committee, as he did when he tabled his motion.
I also congratulate him for the clear thinking he shows on page 1 of his document when he says: "In the event of-this refers to the present context-cuts in social programs and a harsh budget-probably the last budget, and even the first one, both were hard on taxpayers, especially the poorest ones-the government will be blamed for not taking action in certain areas".
I congratulate him for having the courage to recognize that the context is very difficult due to the budget measures taken by the finance minister who is slashing transfer payments to the provinces for social assistance, post-secondary education and health, and is also taking, as of this year, $2.5 billion out of the unemployment insurance fund.
My colleague for Mississauga South has the sense to recognize that the government could be blamed for not acting in the areas where it should. He thinks along the same lines as we do.
For the past 15 months, as you know, we have been blaming the government for not taking action in certain areas-we seem to be exceedingly repetitive, but we will keep at it as long as it is not done.
First, when Revenue Canada is not given the necessary resources to collect unpaid taxes, which, over the years, have grown to $6.6 billion, according to the auditor general, and 75 per cent could be collected, in his estimation, with the proper resources, I agree with my colleague for Mississauga South, the government could be blamed for not taking action and for not immediately giving Revenue Canada the necessary resources to collect the amounts owing, amounts which are not even in question. We are not talking about avoiding taxes and the underground economy, we are talking about taxes that have not been paid because Revenue Canada does not have the resources to collect them. The government is to be blamed for this.
My colleague from Mississauga South said, and rightly so, that we are watching the goings on in government and that this is eroding our trust. Every day, we make new discoveries-so does the auditor general each year-regarding more wastage and lavish spending. We also are discovering places where the federal government failed to close tax loopholes. On this point, I agree with my colleague, who had the courage to say that his own government failed to do what it should have done.
They have to practice what they preach. When we see that people in government are still spending extravagantly and wasting money, for example, the trip to the United States for members of the Canadian armed forces for a rocket launching competition, holidays for diplomats at the taxpayers' expense, and when we see that the government just brushes these questions off, I think we must all admit that the government is sitting idly by, when it should be in action.
Let us look at compliance with tax laws. This issue has been in the news for the past two weeks. Once again, contraband cigarette shops are opening up all over the place. It is obvious and the government is not allocating the resources necessary to ensure compliance with tax laws.
Here again I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga South. The government could be accused of not acting where it should. All this must be straightened out, as far as the tax system is concerned.
I am not talking only about the federal government, but all governments. Restore confidence, make the public aware of the consequences of not contributing adequately to the tax base, and give a good example. I think these are the essential ingredients to restore the social contract and to improve public finances.
I once again congratulate my colleague from Mississauga South. The official opposition will support his motion.