Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my fellow colleague.
All of us are opposed to tax increases. In my lifetime I do not remember anyone ever saying that they were in favour of tax increases. I can go back 20 or 30 years, I do not remember anybody saying that they liked the concept of tax increases.
I am surprised by some of the attitudes of the members of the Reform Party toward changes in expenditures. For instance, I heard the previous speaker talk in terms of any changes in revenue that came through a redefinition of taxation expenditures should somehow be turned around and given back. In other words, it should not be used to reduce the deficit.
At the same time, the same people are telling us that we are not moving fast enough on deficit reduction. I am getting mixed messages. I do not quite understand what they are trying to say.
RRSPs are a good example. The previous government raised RRSP exemption levels to $13,500, that is income levels for individuals earning $75,000. A proposal that I have had is to reduce that down to $9,000. With a $9,000 exemption that would be somebody with a $50,000 income. The object of the exercise would be that people earning over $50,000 surely can save for their own retirement without getting assistance from the taxpayers of Canada.
A second aspect of this also has to do with the foreign component of registered retirement savings plans. Currently we allow up to 20 per cent of RRSP funds to be held in foreign denominations. Once again the question is why is it that the Canadian taxpayer is allowing a tax deduction on their tax return simply so people can invest in foreign countries? It seems to me if people want to make the decision to invest in foreign countries they can do so without the credit of the taxpayers of the rest of Canada.
I am often concerned when I hear people talk about loopholes and incentives.
In my background as an accountant, today's incentives become tomorrow's loopholes. The loopholes we are talking about blocking today were probably yesterday's incentives.
The other aspect about no more taxes, of which I am a believer, is the deficit. The reality is that a deficit is unpaid taxes. In other words, we did not pay enough taxes and that is how we created this deficit; or, as some my colleagues would argue, we spent too much relative to our tax base. Be that as it may, as of today the deficit represents taxes we have not paid. The bottom line is how are we going to resolve those kinds of problems?
I have taken the time to work on a private member's bill which I hope to introduce this month that I call the taxpayers' bill of rights. The bill basically focuses on government spending and how government spending affects each and every individual. In other words, every time the government announces a program it should be visible and costed on a per taxpayer basis. It should allow the individual taxpayer choices and rights.
Do they think a bill in that vein would be good for accountability? Why do they feel expenditure reduction should not be used in fighting the deficit?