The time is ripe for a Taxpayer Protection Act in British Columbia requiring that politicians receive a fully-transparent mandate from voters during an election
Voter Approval of Tax Changes Would Prevent Future Taxpayer Revolts
By Canadian Taxpayers Federation ——Bio and Archives--September 22, 2010
Every household expenditure – food, clothing, insurance - requires your permission; except for one: taxes. Ironically, taxes are the single largest household expenditure, accounting for 42% of family income in 2010.
A massive petition drive, court cases and most recently a debate over the timing of a referendum on the future of the HST, would all have been avoided had there been a law in place requiring voter approval of new or increased taxes.
Between 1999 and 2004, Ontario had in place a law requiring voter approval of new or increased taxes via a province-wide referendum or, requirement that such tax changes be submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer for publication during a provincial election. Under such a law, Premier Campbell’s explanation that “we did not have time in 2009 to discuss [the HST] with people” simply wouldn’t cut it. Under such a law, the control of our largest household expense would move from the arbitrary whims of politicians, to voters.
Opportunity Missed
Elections are not just about retaining one roomful of suits or replacing it with another, but are an opportunity to discuss the issues that matter to voters. The BC Liberals squandered that opportunity and left most voters feeling angry and unconvinced, despite strong economic arguments in favor of the tax reform.
Taxpayers used the province’s citizens’ initiative law to force a referendum. Despite its near impossible thresholds, organizer’s managed to collect an incredible 700,000 signatures to force a province-wide referendum that is scheduled to take place in September of 2011 (if not sooner).
These are positive developments. It has energized and engaged an electorate. It has put a lie to the oft-cynical suggestion that voters are too apathetic to care, let alone get involved. It has demonstrated first hand that citizens themselves can serve as a check on their elected representatives when they are dishonest or act outside of their elected mandate.
So why shouldn’t that check be expanded to encompassing all future tax changes? Not so fast says NDP Leader Carol James: “I don’t think tax policy should be set by referendum.”
Surprise, surprise. A politician that thinks only politicians should decide these matters.
Increasingly, the divide in politics is less about left vs. right and more about a new breed of populist revolt vs. status quo elitism. It’s reflected politically in Rob Ford’s mayoral campaign in Toronto and the rise of Danielle Smith’s Wild Rose Alliance in Alberta. It’s represented in movements opposing the federal long-gun registry and in demanding a say on imposition of the HST.
Variations of voter approval laws for new or increased taxes still exist in Manitoba and Alberta, while British Columbia leads Canada with its MLA recall and citizens-initiative referendum laws.
The time is ripe for a Taxpayer Protection Act in British Columbia requiring that politicians receive a fully-transparent mandate from voters during an election, or go to voters in a referendum when it comes to our largest household expense. It is time for a law ensuring that politicians serve taxpayers, not the other way around.
