Summary#

Bill 15, the Taxpayer Protection Amendment Act, 2018, would amend Ontario’s Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999. Its stated purpose is to extend existing limits on changing tax rules to also cover bills that weaken those limits. The change would take effect on Royal Assent if enacted.

• A minister could not introduce a bill to loosen the Act’s restrictions on tax changes or remove a tax statute from the Act’s designated list unless a referendum first authorized that change.
• A minister could not introduce a bill to loosen restrictions on giving a non-Crown body or person authority to change a tax rate or levy a tax unless a referendum first authorized that change.
• A referendum would not be required if the proposed change was described in a statement to the Chief Electoral Officer, the Officer found the statement met the Act’s requirements, and the party whose leader gave it formed the government after the election.
• The bill does not itself change a tax rate, create a tax, or give any body new authority to tax.

What it means for you#

• Ministers and future governments: They would face a referendum requirement before introducing bills that weaken the specified tax protections, unless the election-statement exception applies.
• Voters: A referendum would have to happen before the bill was introduced, and authorize the change, when the requirement applies. But a qualifying election statement and subsequent formation of government would remove that requirement.
• Taxpayers: The bill does not directly change your tax bill or create a new tax. It changes the rules for changing some existing protections.
• Other public bodies: The bill does not itself give them power to set tax rates or levy taxes.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill provides no spending amount or funding for referendums.
• A referendum may be required in some cases, but the material gives no estimate of its cost.

What is unclear#

• The Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999 is not supplied in full, so the existing referendum process and the full list of designated tax statutes could not be checked.
• The material does not explain what detail a statement to the Chief Electoral Officer must include to count as describing the proposed change.
• It does not state what happens if a minister introduces a bill contrary to the new restriction.
• The bill does not specify when a referendum must be held beyond requiring it to occur before the bill is introduced.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to stop a government from avoiding tax protections simply by first changing the law that contains them.
• Requiring voter approval before weakening those protections could give voters a direct say in that specific change.
• The election-statement exception still allows a party to seek authority for a change during an election, while requiring the proposal to be disclosed to the Chief Electoral Officer.

Case against#

• The election-statement exception means a referendum is not always required: a party can avoid one if the stated conditions are met, including forming government.
• The bill does not make clear how specifically an election statement must describe the proposed change. That could affect how clearly voters are informed.
• Requiring a referendum may make future changes to the tax-protection rules harder, even if a later government and the Assembly consider a change appropriate.