House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was finance.

Last in Parliament September 2007, as Bloc MP for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 56% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply March 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am keenly aware of the comments and thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to offer some clarifications on what I have just said.

I know very well that what he has just said is a fact. However, what I said is that if there are two incomes in a family, both the man and the woman working, and the family is made up of two adults and two children, and if the two together earn less than $60,000, the 17% tax rate applies up to the $29,590 level.

If the income is $59,180, the portion falling between $29,000 and that $59,180 will be taxed at 26%. This is where the injustice lies. In the first example I gave, a two income family, the overall tax rate for the two incomes, which together are under $60,000, will be 17%. If this is one single income, the part between $29,500 and $59,180 will be taxed at 26%. This is the first injustice.

There is a second, that I mentioned earlier. Since there has been no indexation since 1984, not just of deductions and tax credits, but also of income levels, the 17% tax rate applies only to $29,590. If there had been indexation, the amount between $29,590 and $36,918 would not be taxed at 26% but still at 17%. In other words, a person earning $36,900 for example would be taxed at 17%, whereas at the present time he or she will be taxed at 26% on the amount between $25,591 and $36,900. This is where the injustice lies.

This situation does not affect just a few Canadian taxpayers. Most Canadian taxpayers earn $35,000 or less. According to Statistics Canada, 70% of taxpayers earn $35,000 or less. With just this adjustment to the indexation level, middle income families would benefit from tax measures. It would be only fair to them to provide full indexing, as well as correcting the injustice surrounding the difference between one family income of under $60,000 and two family incomes totalling under $60,000.

These two aspects of the tax system must be corrected. The hon. member should support this, being a member of the finance committee. With all his talk of fiscal justice, he ought to support such a measure.

Supply March 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Reform Party is giving us an opportunity to deal with the important issue of tax equity and tax fairness for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers.

As you probably know, tax fairness has always been a concern for the Bloc Quebecois. Since the 1993 election campaign, we have never stopped stressing the need for a personal and corporate tax system that is based on fairness and equity.

In November 1996, the Bloc Quebecois released a study on corporate taxation which looked at tax expenditures for businesses, that is the provisions included in the Income Tax Act to allow businesses to pay less federal tax.

Less than a year later, we tabled an in-depth report that reviewed personal income tax and tax expenditures, and in which we showed the evolution of that tax component since the Carter report, at the end of the sixties, and the obvious injustices we found in the tax system, particularly for middle income taxpayers.

We also proposed corrective measures to the Minister of Finance, who was favourable to the report when it came out. These measures are aimed at making the federal taxation system fairer to middle income earners and a bit less generous for taxpayers earning $250,000 and up, for instance, or for millionaires and billionaires.

At the time, we analysed the tax spending of individuals and concluded that there were $4 billion dollars of tax resources spent on tax advantages for individuals that were outdated, exemptions that no longer served the purposes for which they had been designed.

We took these $4 billion in tax exemptions and reallocated them within the system. We also generated over $2 billion in savings that could be put towards tax relief for low and middle income families and correcting inequities in the system, such as those denounced by the Reform Party this week.

The Minister of Finance was quite impressed by our analysis and set up a task force that held closed door meetings for over one year but apparently looked only at corporate taxation, not individual taxation, because he did not want to spoil things for his rich millionaire friends.

This group, headed by Mr. Mintz, an Ontario academic, tabled its report last year. It has been on the back burner ever since. This may have been a good idea, because what it contained was not necessarily what was desired, at least as far as a good number of the recommendations were concerned.

In response to a very serious need for fair taxation, the Minister of Finance struck a bogus group that turned out a bogus report, which led to bogus decisions, for the latest budget contains no significant personal or corporate income tax measures aimed at correcting injustices.

There is flagrant injustice as far as the income categories are concerned. One need only look at the taxation rates by level of taxable income to see that there is a serious problem. That problem must be addressed, not ignored or studied by bogus task forces.

Let us take the example of a family with two taxable incomes of less than $30,000. Both the man and the woman earn less than $30,000, let us say $29,500. Their tax rate will be 17%.

On the other hand, for a single earner family whose income is less than $60,000, that is to say one person who earns under $60,000, instead of two with a total income of under $60,000, the tax rate will be 26%. This makes no sense, particularly since there has been no indexation since 1984. When I refer to indexation, I do not mean just indexed tax credits, personal exemptions and other deductions, I mean also indexation of the various taxation levels.

Since there is none, we find ourselves in a situation where the 17% tax rate this year ought to apply not only to taxable incomes of $29,590 as it does at present, but to taxable incomes of $36,918.

In other words, those with an annual single or family income of between $25,590 and $36,918 ought to have paid only 17% tax this year, but instead they pay 26%. Can members see the double injustice here? If we compare a family with two incomes totalling less than $60,000 and a family with a single income of less than $60,000, there is a difference in the tax rates, one being 17% and the other 26%, which is a blatant injustice.

Moreover, the 17% tax rate would not apply only to incomes of up to $29,590, but also to incomes of up to $36,918, had full indexation been in place.

Do members know how many taxpayers are affected by this situation? If we look at the tax brackets for Canadian taxpayers, we see that 70% of them are in the under $35,000 category. This means that if the Minister of Finance had the political will to correct the gap between families with one income and families with two incomes, and if he decided to fully index the tax tables and tax brackets, 70% of all Canadian taxpayers would benefit from such a measure. This is a lot of people.

However, because the Minister of Finance does not have that political will, and because of the fact that he has been relying on economic growth since he took office, the government is maintaining injustices such as the ones condemned by the Reform Party and by the Bloc Quebecois since 1993. Furthermore, there is a lot to be done regarding the tax system.

As I said, we released two in-depth studies on corporate and personal income taxes, and we found that, in addition to the injustices being discussed today, the tax system is full of inconsistencies.

Let us take, for example, the child care expense deduction. Does it make sense that Canadian families earning over $100,000 save a minimum of $313 in taxes on each $1,000 they spend on child care, while those earning in the neighbourhood of $30,000 save only $175 for the same $1,000? This is not right.

If the Minister of Finance had done more than just pay lip service to the Bloc Quebecois' analysis of personal income tax, he would have corrected this a long time ago. The figures we provided in 1997 were very eloquent.

We pointed out that 25,000 Canadian couples earning over $100,000 had reported child care expenses of almost $25 million in 1993. Their tax savings were $7.6 million. We are talking about $7.6 million for 25,000 couples earning $100,000 and over.

If these 25,000 couples had earned around $30,000, their tax savings on child care expenses would have amounted to only $4 billion, or almost half what those earning $100,000 end up saving. There is something wrong here.

There are many similar injustices in the taxation system. I am sure there will another opportunity later on, because we have to keep bringing these things up, to give other examples of unfair situations that must be urgently addressed. These injustices affect low and middle income families and prevent them from contributing fully to the economic activity of the country.

The government must wake up and take a look at what needs doing instead of taking advantage of the situation and congratulating themselves on producing a surplus on the backs of employed and unemployed workers by dipping into the EI fund. It should be doing some serious work and not producing the likes of the Mintz report.

We will be supporting the Reform Party motion and will continue to work for fair taxes.

Budget Surpluses March 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, what he is not telling us is that, according to the chief actuary, there will be a 2.5% increase in earnings, while he is increasing employment insurance benefits by 11%. His answer does not hold up.

Is he again telling us that, as in past years, he is again going to conceal the surpluses he is taking out of the pockets of the unemployed?

Budget Surpluses March 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Minister of Finance telling us there will not be a recession, that everything is fine in Canada, that unemployment is going down.

In his last budget, on page 64, the Minister predicts a $1.3 billion increase in employment insurance benefits in 1999-2000.

Since the Minister of Finance is telling us that unemployment is going down, how can he explain such an increase in benefits for this year? Is he going to enhance the program, or is he going to hide surpluses from us once again?

The Budget March 1st, 1999

Mr. Speaker, what sort of federal-provincial relations does Ottawa have in mind when it makes decisions that not only run counter to the social union agreement, but that also ignore its own fiscal arrangements legislation, which provided for a much more gradual transition than that described in the budget?

The Budget March 1st, 1999

By unexpectedly and unilaterally changing the criteria for divvying up the CHST among the provinces, the Minister of Finance has taken everyone by surprise.

What made the government think it could pull a stunt like this with the CHST and ignore the social union agreement just signed with the provinces?

The Budget March 1st, 1999

Mr. Speaker, by unexpectedly and unilaterally changing the criteria for divvying up the CHST among the provinces, the Minister of Finance—

The Budget February 18th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I was surprised to hear the member for Durham say that the budget contained all sorts of tax breaks.

Who gets the biggest tax breaks? I will tell you, Madam Speaker. Those earning $250,000 and over. Their tax bill will be reduced by $3,800. As for those earning $30,000 to $70,000, the middle-income earners who have footed most of the bill for cleaning up the nation's finances, their tax break is between $50 and $300 a year.

This is an insult. I would suggest that the member for Durham really read the budget documents and quit being a doormat like his colleagues.

The Budget February 18th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is taking us for a ride.

Will he recognize that, as far as cuts are concerned, in the past four years, 39% of federal cuts have been made in Quebec? However, when it is time to give back, population size is the criterion. That is the reality.

Will he acknowledge that, had the federal government spent as it should have on research and development, goods and services and regional development, Quebec would not be getting equalization payments today, but would be making them to the other provinces in Canada?

The Budget February 18th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, if population is a good criterion, synonymous with fairness for all people in Canada, why is it that the people in Quebec have only 19% of federal investments, only 20% of federal purchases of goods and services whereas they represent one quarter of the population?

Is it because, for the Liberals, the population criterion is proper and fair when it puts Quebec at a disadvantage?