Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was tax.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Progressive Conservative MP for Markham (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2000, with 19% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Speech From The Throne September 29th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague.

I think we all realise we are in a very competitive world today. We are in the global economy and in order for us to create jobs and be competitive against the rest of the world we cannot afford to continue with high costs.

Everybody knows in this House that some of the reasons why the provinces had to make very drastic cuts in the last three or four years to health care and education are the reductions in transfer payments the federal Liberals gave to the provinces.

Also, I am not here to defend the Ontario government but the Ontario government, with its tax cuts, is creating 30,000 to 40,000 jobs a month in the last four to six months. It goes to prove that low taxes create jobs and high taxes cost jobs.

Speech From The Throne September 29th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to share my time. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Burin—St. George's.

I would first like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your position as Acting Speaker.

It is a great pleasure that I join in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, representing my electorate of Markham.

I believe and I am sure many members of this House will agree that the government's plan is an attempt to move forward to the past. This government through the 29 spending proposals outlined last Tuesday is seeking to take Canada back 20 some years to the period of tax and spend Liberalism, a time of ballooning deficits, the Trudeau years, a time our current Prime Minister remembers with great fondness. Why then is this government willing to throw away all the sacrifices made to eliminate the deficit?

In a free market system like Canada, the private sector has always operated under budget constraints. It is a fact of life, a reality that forces companies to make tough choices, choices that are both efficient and effective.

Since 1984 the federal government accepted budget constraints and in turn made tough choices, choices that have led us to the other end of the deficit tunnel. Budget constraints force us as a nation to set priorities and find efficiencies. This is clearly difficult for Canadians.

The continued effort however has been that our nation is moving from intrusive big government to one that supports individual aspirations of our citizens. Today we see provinces like Ontario having to make similar tough choices in the face of intense budget constraints, choices affecting health care and education, tough but necessary choices.

The throne speech of last week says to Canadians that the future will mean new spending, new programs and by that, sabotaging what we have been doing for over a decade. By telling Canadians that the federal government no longer has to make tough decisions, we risk going back to the welfare state where entrepreneurs who brought about innovation will become lobbyists in search of government goodies.

We know that in a world of inflation, individuals find it profitable to enter financial professions that benefit from inflation rather than technological and scientific ones that promote growth. Why then would the government encourage the practice of making new promises of dispensing taxpayers' dollars which gives an incentive for individuals and companies to invest in seeking those dollars rather than in technological innovation?

For all intents and purposes we have achieved a national consensus on the need to rethink the role of government, to set priorities in support of economic growth in employment through innovation. The Speech from the Throne threatens this consensus and risks all that has been achieved. We cannot allow the government to go back to the tax and spend seventies.

The government talks a lot about the new economy but understands little of it. The new economy is about innovation which in turn is dependent on a stock of highly skilled workers, workers who are as mobile as the companies in which they operate.

How do we encourage these domestic and foreign workers to choose Canada? With attributes such as low taxes, quality education and health care and a safe and clean environment.

We do not have to research economic theory to know that broadly based rather than targeted government programs provide the bigger bang for the buck. This is common sense yet it escapes the thinking of the government.

We know that taxes are too high in this country. While progress has been made in lowering the deficit, it has come at the expense of jobs through higher taxes. Since 1993 this government has increased taxes no less than 40 times: 12 hikes in the 1994 budget, 11 hikes in the 1995 budget, 10 in the 1996 budget and more in the budget of this year.

The widening tax gap between Canada and the U.S. continues to damage our standard of living. Taxes in Canada now account for almost 40 percent of GDP. The outlook is not encouraging given the CPP hikes proposed by the government without corresponding cuts in EI premiums.

To add insult to injury, the proposed CPP premiums will hit self-employed workers hardest, those workers of the new economy, yet will do nothing to address the unfounded liability facing younger generations. Together the CPP and EI premiums will reduce, not create jobs in the country.

The EI account is expected to reach $16 billion this fiscal year. This is far from the $3 billion to $5 billion EI surplus the Minister of Finance talked about in 1995. To put this in perspective, working Canadians will have contributed over $110,000 to the EI surplus during the short 10 minutes it takes me to debate the Speech from the Throne.

To justify the current surplus the Minister of Finance must be forecasting future unemployment in the 10 percent to 15 percent range, requiring a recession of immense proportion. The reality however is that the most pervasive tax, the tax on jobs, has less to do with being prudent and more to do with eliminating the deficit by taxing jobs directly.

Now as we approach the other end of the deficit tunnel, this government chooses to continue to forgo jobs and tax jobs at a rate of $2.80 per $100 of insurable earnings, nearly 30% higher than necessary. Members should ask how much more employment is this government willing to forgo.

This mandate holds little hope for tax relief. Furthermore only the party to which I belong is calling for immediate tax cuts. Now unshackled by deficit, the Liberals talk of new spending while other parties speak of debt reduction before tax relief.

We on the other hand choose to speak about priorities. By legislating balanced budgets, by holding the line on spending, by directing surplus to tax cuts, the debt will fall to 45 percent of GDP within 10 years as a result of the growth in the economy.

The other parties are wrong when they say that tax cuts can only come at the expense of the debt. This is why the PC party is calling on the government to reward Canadians for enduring years of high taxes by reducing income taxes immediately. Only then can we increase our competitive edge with our trading partners, notably the U.S., having economic growth and employment growth in this country.

The Speech from the Throne does little to promote growth in employment. The government pays lip service to promoting jobs for young people but its actions do not support its promises.

I see examples of this government's hypocrisy every day in my riding of Markham. As the government calls on small business to generate jobs for young people, small businesses will see their tax bill increase by about $7,000 under the proposed CPP plan for a company of 10. This represents about the same cost as one or two summer jobs for youth in my riding. This is typical of the hypocrisy of this government.

Innovation and the economic growth that it generates is not produced by any particular program but by fostering a society that encourages innovation and change. Government programs and government money do not do this. Putting computers in schools and hooking them up to the Internet does not do this. Creating economic incentives and opening up markets while eliminating regulations, monopolies and protected markets helps to foster a new economy.

Unlike the 29 proposals found in the throne speech, these are changes that do not cost the government money. In other words, growth-promoting economic policies can in many instances be implemented independently of the fiscal position of the government. The federal government however chooses to view everything in terms of revenue and expenditures.

As we move into the next millennium, profound changes will continue to take place in the economy. This government had the opportunity in last week's Speech from the Throne to choose one of two paths: move forward to the future using the tools of tomorrow, low taxes, a government that encourages innovation and economic growth; or move forward to the past using the tools of yesterday, high taxes, interventionist government. Unfortunately, the government chose the latter and missed the opportunity to offer Canadians real leadership.

I would just like to leave members with one thought. We must spend all our energies planning the future because that is where we are going to live the rest of our lives.

Income Taxes September 25th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, taxes are too high. While progress has been made in lowering the deficit, it has come at the expense of jobs and higher taxes.

If Canadians experience increases in their incomes, personal income taxes, EI and CPP premiums reduce those incomes by two-thirds. Taxes in Canada from all levels of government account for more than one-third of the GDP. CPP hikes proposed by this government with current EI premiums will further burden already over taxed Canadians.

Clearly lower taxes mean both economic and employment growth. As a nation that depends on bilateral trade with the United States, the widening tax gap between the two countries continues to damage our standard of living.

If the government is serious about jobs for all Canadians in this new economy, it must now get serious about tax cuts and lower EI premiums as Canadians have earned this right.

We are the only political party that is advocating tax cuts now.