Alex Shepherd

[Taxpayers Bill Of Rights, March 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House of my private member's initiative which I have called the taxpayers bill of rights and is currently being drafted.

Summaries of this legislation have been submitted to professional bodies and interest groups across Canada. I would like to thank them for their comments and suggestions. People from British Columbia all the way to Newfoundland have written to me and expressed their support for this initiative.

Greater financial accountability for existing and future programs, the protection of taxpayers from the onerous powers of collection authorities and the establishment of a taxpayers' ombudsman are part of this bill.

Finally and most important, it establishes a cap on the amount of taxation an individual can be subjected to and it provides for refunds over this threshold amount. A gradual reduction of thresholds by 1 per cent per year over the next 15 years will give taxpayers the assurance that we have put limits on the tax grab on disposable incomes.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are talking in some similarities. We know we are going to have to cut spending. All my Liberal Party colleagues have talked about cutting spending, so this is not new.

To start off on a little study of economics, the Keynesian philosophy was basically correct. The problem with Keynesian economics is that we did not take the other side of it which is that during periods of expansion in the economy we save. We continued to spend during good economic periods and we are paying the price for that.

Having said all that, Keynes also talked about levelling off the areas of the ups and downs of the business cycle. These are the things the Reform Party does not understand. In other words, we cannot have a situation where we create a tremendous contraction in the economy so that there is no growth. In fact there would be negative growth. There would be a recession.

By moving too quickly on the deficit, this is where the Reform Party will take us. We will be going nowhere. We will be in a worse situation because we will not have any tax revenues and our deficits will continue to spiral. It is very important that we continue to foster growth in the economy, to create certainty and to keep and meet our deficit target.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that Reformers are Tories in a hurry and we know what the Tories did to the country.

Everyone knows we must get our fiscal house in order. We must reduce spending and a draw a line on further taxation. We must reduce borrowing. We need to move toward better accountability in government programs and allow people to participate in these decisions to a greater degree.

I have been amazed by my colleagues in the Reform Party. That party supports the concept of a flat tax. We might as well call the earth flat. In a statement the leader of the Reform Party proposed a flat tax allowing lower income families to be exempt. Interestingly enough, those with average incomes in excess of $94,000 are currently paying 66 per cent of all personal income tax in the country. If one was to create a flat tax it is clear that income tax would have to be collected more from the middle class.

It certainly has been a strange week for me debating with Reformers and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. People are saying no more taxes, while these members with their hidden agenda intend to increase the relative burdens of the middle class.

The Reform Party talks about funding of special interest groups. I object to the funding of these groups. However, what special interest groups do the Reform Party represent? I do not remember a groundswell of opinion of people in the country to transfer tax burdens from the wealthy to the middle class. The middle class is taxed beyond belief. Forty-five per cent of the average family income goes to some form of taxes. The concept of reverse Robin Hood is not supported in any progressive jurisdiction in the world.

For my own part I have initiated what I like to call a taxpayers' bill of rights which basically has three components.

It is a private member's initiative of my own. It talks about accountability, the accountability of existing and future government programs, that they must be costed in totality and on a taxpayer basis. If this legislation had been in place I believe taxpayers and the electorate in general would have made better decisions that would have possibly prevented us from being in this mess today.

I also proposed a taxpayers' ombudsman that would act as an ombudsman between taxpayers and tax collecting authorities to protect from onerous collection procedures that often occur. As members of Parliament we can all think of how acts have actually been to the detriment of many honest law-abiding people in Canada.

Another part of that bill talks about freedom from undue taxation. It basically sets a cap of 55 per cent in totality of income on which total taxes can be paid. It simply attempts to reduce that by one per cent a year for the next 15 years. It starts with a 55 per cent cap and reduces it. It is a clear solution to some of our spiralling taxation problems.

The motion is just more of the Reform Party's fantasy world. It must be nice to get up in the morning to all this glittering tinsel but, alas, it is truly a wonderland.

To move too fast in the direction of deficit reduction is just as problematic as moving too slow. As programs are cut it will reduce the federal government's share of income taxes, exacerbating the problem. Let us remember the legacy of the Tories reducing spending, increasing taxes and spiralling deficits, caught in a continual loop. This is where the Reform Party would take us but only faster.

We must break the back of deficit and debt. However we need to walk the fine line between reductions and allowing the economy to grow. We would have thought that a party from the west would be familiar with the tight-fisted policies of R. B. Bennett and how these turned the west into a virtual wasteland of the thirties.

People come to rely on aspects of government programs whether social or rapid write-offs for capital investments by businesses. That does not mean they cannot and indeed will be changed. What we are talking about here is a rapidity by which change occurs.

Creating uncertainty in the business sector as well as other sectors of the economy may well witness a flight of capital. To the extent that we create contraction in the economy, other countries will look more promising to invest in. An outward flow of investment will result in the loss of jobs, further exacerbating our deficit and ultimately throwing us into a recession or worse. I am talking about a situation of reverse economics. Clearly to take government moneys and contract the economy is going to create a bigger deficit than we already have.

These are the policies of the Reform Party, the policies of wrack and ruin. It has taken us 20 years to develop the situation we now have. Regrettably we have to deal with it. The question is how quickly.

A slash and burn mentality does not work. We have to maintain the underpinnings of the social fabric of this nation. More important, we cannot afford to turn the corner that is basically going to put us into a recession or worse than that, a depression. Other countries have dealt with this matter in similar circumstances and have created some of these negative spiralling effects that will actually drive the economy into worse shape.

Clearly the way to get out of a deficit problem is to slowly grow the economy. As the economy grows, revenues from governments increase. By going too fast we run the risk of contraction. That contraction will just exacerbate our problems. The Reform Party does not seem to recognize that. The Reform Party would have us driven into a recession or depression within the next three years. This is unacceptable.

What is the solution? Keep the economy growing. Gradually reduce the deficit with targeted or slightly better than 3 per cent of GDP. Increase foreign trade.

Of the component aspects of national income another very important one is our current account deficit. As we can attract more foreign dollars into our country we can deal with the deficit more aggressively. I am happy to see that during our tenure that account deficit has been reduced from $30 billion to $15 billion.

Trade initiatives such as China, South America, more trade with the United States through NAFTA, these are all positive things to bring Canada out of its deficit situation and controlling debts and deficits as they continue in the future. This is clearly the way to go, not through a tremendous contraction of the economy.

In conclusion, we simply cannot afford pushing our economy back into recession. Worse, we cannot afford the luxury of letting the upper income brackets of this country shift their taxes to the middle class.

Once again it has been amazing to me in the last two or three weeks to watch the large crowds the Reform Party has put together. People are saying to cut spending. The other day in Pickering a gentleman was sitting with a sign which read "cut spending". After the meeting he came up to me and said: "I live in your riding. I am on unemployment insurance and I need a training grant".

It is clear that Reform Party members are misleading people, that somehow these cuts do not affect their own people. Worse than that, the flat tax, or as I say the flat earth tax, is an allocation of taxes from the upper income groups to the middle income earners. Do the middle income earners really know that is the Reform Party strategy, that they will bear proportionately more of the taxes?

I can think of no other country in the OECD or any other nation on the earth that subscribes to this policy. The Reform Party will tell us this gives incentive, it creates jobs. What it really does is it lines the pockets of the rich. This is not the policy of the Liberal Party and never has been.

Progressivity in the income tax system is accepted throughout the western world. As I said, I do not think the Reform Party has been totally honest with Canadians and with this Parliament. In conclusion, clearly we cannot afford the Reform Party.

[Income Tax, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

Canadians want government to take the tough decisions to meet our deficit targets. Many wonder if the deficit could also be reduced simply by collecting the taxes that are now outstanding.

What is the minister doing to ensure the government is collecting the taxes it is owed?

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Calgary North who I thought gave a fine presentation. Seemingly she is concerned about finding somebody to blame for our past problems and our budgetary situation today.

I note that all western democracies, all OECD countries, increased their deficits during this period of time. Clearly we would not blame the Prime Minister or our party for the debts of the rest of the world.

I do not think it is fair realistically to go back and study history. What we want and what the people of Canada want are solutions. I am surprised by an opposition party that has no solutions. All I heard were complaints. All I heard were problems. There were no solutions.

There is one thing I would like to know as a bottom line from my hon. colleagues in the Reform Party. They want to basically allocate social spending to the provinces, give up tax points to the provinces. What is the end result of this philosophy? Ten balkanized countries within Canada? What about standards, health standards, labour standards? What is it that makes a country?

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

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?

[Petitions, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition includes 82 names. This petition basically requests that this House amend the the laws of Canada to prohibit the important, distribution, sale or manufacture of killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that their products if destined for Canada will be seized and destroyed.

[Petitions, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to present two petitions from my constituents, the first being from 25 who call upon Parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

[Charitable And Non-Profit Organization Director Remuneration Disclosure Act, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to enter into debate on the very worthwhile bill being presented by my colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth.

People throughout the country are telling us that they do not want any more taxes. Taxes take various forms. They take the form of writing cheques on April 30 but they take other forms as well. Every time somebody receives a tax deduction for a charitable donation it is a form of taxation. It means that person did not have to pay tax on that transaction. He received an exemption for it. In a sense, between taxpayers there is a transfer of resources from one taxpayer to another.

People are asking us for greater visibility and accountability in government programs. One of my own initiatives, to be presented in a private member's bill later this year, is to basically try to focus on how much government programs cost and taking them one step further to how much they are costing each individual taxpayer in this country.

Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I stand in support of Bill C-224.

The financial community has long regarded accountability as being very important. Public corporations in this country publicly trading shares are required to report the remuneration of their top executives. The hon. member is asking for nothing unusual. It is only something that should have been put in legislation years ago.

One of my hon. colleagues from the Bloc mentioned that it is possibly too wide in scope and possibly applies to organizations that do not receive federal government funding. I do not really think that is the purpose. If there is a non-profit organization or a registered charity people want visibility whether governments have funded it one way or the other. Therefore, I do not think the scope is too broad. I think this could be something useful for all government agencies and for the public in general to have access to information.

Non-profit and charitable organizations do not have a profit motive or the necessary overburden for efficiency. In a free market economy, a capitalist system, obviously companies have to make a profit or they die, they go into bankruptcy and become insolvent. The whole concept of those organizations is how they are going to meet the payroll.

When I was in private practice running my own businesses every day I wondered how I was going to make the payroll. That was a big feature of my daily life. If I did not meet the payroll I would suddenly be out of business.

These organizations obviously have to meet the payroll but they also do not have the incentive to have to make a profit. This by itself creates inefficiency if there is not a constant focus on the results of the organization. Most non-profit and charitable organizations have a different focus. They are not trying to make a buck. They have a specific and worthwhile function they are trying to achieve. However, without having the restraints required of turning a profit or being efficient they will have a tendency over their history to build in inefficiencies. The greatest inefficiency is in the area of wages.

If we allow these organizations to simply set their own wage structure there will always be non-profit organizations demanding more money just by the nature of the way they are established. There is no requirement to be efficient.

I think the member has brought forward a very worthwhile bill that will give these organizations an advantage to make them more efficient because people will have the visibility of how much people were remunerated. The question is whether it is reasonable remuneration.

In conclusion, I certainly congratulate the member for Hamilton-Wentworth for his very valuable contribution today and I certainly support it. I would respectfully request that all the parties of the House support this very worthwhile legislation.

[Durham College, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Durham is home to Durham College, which from 1992 to 1994 was the fastest growing community college in Ontario. It now has over 42,700 students learning technical skills which will ensure that Durham and Canada will be world class competitors in the future.

Durham College is very much community based. I am pleased to say that I have used its facilities to bring constituents together to discuss issues dealing with government. The most recent was

a forum on the future of Canada's social programs hosted by the president, Mr. Polansky.

A number of weeks ago the students started a protest with respect to a possible rise in tuition fees which may result from program changes regarding federal funding of post-secondary education. Instead of throwing macaroni and being generally disruptive, these students raised money for a local food bank, making a positive contribution to their community while getting their point across.

I have received their initial petition of over 600 signatures. I am sure more are on the way.

I would like to thank the students of Durham College and assure them that I appreciate their mature attitude and I further assure them I will be relaying their concerns directly to the Minister of Human Resources Development.