House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was billion.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Liberal MP for Etobicoke North (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 62% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Budget Implementation Act, 2000 May 31st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I am quite amazed at the alliance member for Medicine Hat who introduced two motions which will effectively delay the enactment of Bill C-32, a bill that will deliver $2.5 billion in increased payments under the CHST to the provinces and territories for their health care systems and post-secondary education. It will ensure that students receiving assistance under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act will have a seamless transition in the fall and that their student loans will be protected. I am amazed they would introduce these spurious motions to delay the implementation of this bill, which Canadians want. Canadians have responded very favourably to budget 2000.

We can stand in the House to debate tax cuts and the pace at which we are making tax cuts. Of course, the alliance would like a flat tax, a tax which would move the tax burden from higher income Canadians to middle income Canadians. We could debate that and unveil the fact that the tax is not progressive and that it would hurt middle income Canadians. We could also demonstrate quite clearly that the tax would not be more simple. It would not be a simpler tax. Many Canadians think that a flat tax would be a simpler tax, but it would not be. When we put questions to members opposite as to whether there would be exemptions for health care, medical expenses over a certain amount, child care expenses, et cetera, they say yes to all of that. Yes, we would have a flat tax of 17%, but Canadians would still have to fill in the same forms. And, by the way, if those deductions were allowed, it would not be affordable in any case.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat talked about poor citizens being trampled upon by Revenue Canada, or the new revenue agency. I would point out that these measures are meant to allow the revenue agency to take action after having been to a court. A judge has to determine whether there is enough evidence presented by the revenue agency to allow it to collect the taxes. It is not the revenue agency acting on its own volition; it is getting a court order to do that. It is done only in exceptional cases, those very rare cases. Most taxpayers are honest, taxpaying citizens. To stand in the House and try to protect those people who are evading taxes is increasing the tax burden on all Canadians.

We have cases where people are collecting the GST and, because there is a delay in the remittance period, they are taking advantage of that. They have no intention of remitting the GST. What does that mean? That means that every one of us pays more tax.

The fact that this member and the member from the Progressive Conservative Party would stand and try to protect tax evaders I find scandalous. They know full well that people have the protection of the courts.

I would like to talk to the specifics of these particular measures. The hon. member opposite said that he understands these measures bring GST and HST collection into line with the Income Tax Act, but he says we should be moving the other way. We should be moving the measures under the GST and the HST the other way. In other words, we should be removing these provisions from the Income Tax Act.

Most Canadians do not try to evade taxes. They expect to pay their fair share of taxes. If taxes are not being remitted, I think that Canadians look upon the government to collect those taxes. The motions proposed by the hon. member for Medicine Hat do not take into account the fact that the government has that right.

The GST and the HST are collected by businesses and are held in trust on behalf of the people who paid that tax in good faith in the expectation that it will be remitted to the government. There are cases in which these taxes are not remitted. These people have no intention of remitting that money, and the hands of the revenue agency are tied under the current provisions.

The provisions under this bill would allow the revenue agency to go to a judge, demonstrate that there is a good case and collect the taxes that are owing on behalf of all Canadians.

Taxation May 19th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the company, the employees and the management to look at federal budget 2000. In that budget we laid out a plan for a corporate tax reduction from 28% to 21%. For a small business we apply the 21% rate now up to $300,000 of taxable income.

When we look at small business tax rates they are the lowest in the G-7. Our general corporate tax rates are coming down to be competitive with the best and the lowest in the world.

The Economy May 19th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the member has things slightly mixed up, as usual. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that the finance minister does not intervene in the day to day operations of the Bank of Canada.

What we need to do is look over the medium term in terms of fiscal or monetary policy.

With respect to the prime rate and mortgage rates, despite the recent increases mortgage rates remain between 165 and 200 basis points below their January 1995 peak levels. The prime rate remains 225 basis points below its lowest point of April 1995.

Competition Act May 16th, 2000

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report that the shipment of waste containing PCBs from U.S. military bases was not off-loaded in Vancouver and is on its way back to Japan.

We are pleased that the U.S. government has taken responsibility to dispose of this cargo outside Canada. Throughout we have maintained that the cargo and its disposal were the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Defense and Trans-Cycle Industries.

As a result of this incident we have asked the U.S. Department of Defense to inform us in advance of any shipments of PCB contaminated waste intended for Canada no matter what the PCB concentrations.

We would ensure that our obligations under the Basel convention and all federal and provincial regulations are complied with before any decision on allowing such a shipment is rendered. Under our regulations Canada ensures that hazardous waste imports and exports are handled in a manner that protects the environment and human health.

The new Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides enhanced authority to control imports and exports of hazardous waste. We will introduce new regulations to implement specific criteria to assess the environmental soundness of proposed imports and will refuse any import if these criteria are not met.

An outright ban on the import of all hazardous waste is neither required nor appropriate. A ban would neither be consistent with Canada's international obligations nor with the policy of sharing facilities with either side of the Canada-U.S. border which under the proximity principle allows both countries to use the nearest approved facilities thereby reducing transportation distances.

Canada intends to continue to honour all of its international obligations and will take steps to continuously improve the standards for hazardous waste whether these wastes are domestic or international in origin.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999 May 16th, 2000

Certainly, Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether it is an alliance party or a movement but I am happy to comply.

The Canadian Alliance solution 17 heads in the opposite direction. It would significantly reduce the progressivity and fairness of the tax system. For incomes above the basic exemption, it would tax a lone parent earning $30,000 a year at the same rate as a wealthy CEO making $2 million a year.

Let us step back for a second and look at this issue on a broader conceptual basis. Indeed several different flat tax proposals have been put forward in recent years both in Canada and abroad. Typically such proposals involve the replacement of a progressive rate structure with a single tax rate and the elimination of many deductions and credits. The resulting tax structure is of course appealing for its superficial simplicity. However, these flat tax proposals raise a number of issues.

Flat tax systems can be designed to be progressive, like the current income tax system, through the provision of a relatively high basic personal exemption for low income filers. Providing such an exemption with the reduced single rate would result in a significant reduction in income tax revenues. We have to consider the cost of any proposal especially over the long term.

The opposition's 17% solution, including an increase in personal exemptions to $10,000 and a new $3,000 exemption per child, would cost in the range of $34 billion a year. That is almost one-third of the entire federal program spending budget for this year. Even including the tax cuts we have announced, it would entail major cuts to federal programs. Which programs would the hon. member want to cut: health spending, support for R and D or old age security? It would be cuts like these that are the real cost of the tax savings the opposition seeks.

What about the issue of simplification? Here too the opposition is playing fast and loose with both fact and philosophy. The real fact is that most taxpayers would not find tax calculations much easier if only one rate were used. Simplicity generally comes from the elimination of deductions and credits, not from reducing the number of tax rates. Again we get a glimmer of the real bottom line agenda of the opposition.

In the real world many of the deductions and credits that would have to go to deliver tax simplification and to pay for the reduction in the tax rate would hit painfully and punitively on modest and middle income Canadians. It could mean for example getting rid of the child care expense deduction, the medical expense and tuition fee tax credits. Perhaps the hon. member for Medicine Hat has no problem getting rid of this targeted relief aimed at those who are in the greatest need.

That is not the solution this government would ever embrace because Canadians demand better of us. Canadians understand that eliminating these deductions and credits would provide less recognition of the ability to pay tax of individuals in different circumstances. Canadians recognize that such action would mean less flexibility for the government in delivering social and economic policy in a volatile global economy; policies designed to help our country seize new economic opportunities while protecting those who can be buffeted when the winds of change blow too harshly.

Here is where we can see clearly and cleanly the basic philosophy difference between our government and the opposition. We both may agree that a key objective of national policy must be to lower tax rates in order to leave Canadians with as much money as possible so that they can provide for their needs. However, we differ diametrically when the advocates of flat taxes justify the elimination of deductions and credits by arguing that the government should not use the tax system to pursue social and economic policy. The sad irony is that if these deductions and credits are carried forward in the solution 17 flat tax proposal, then clearly they would not have made the income tax system more simple, as many Canadians believe to be the advantage of flat tax system. We cannot have it both ways.

While I agree that taxes should be lowered, this government also believes that how and how fast we cut taxes is also critical. To make those decisions, we believe that fairness should be paramount. The government must ensure that the most vulnerable in society are not left behind. This in turn has a concrete corollary which recognizes that the ability of Canadians in different circumstances to pay must remain a key concern.

In conclusion I emphasize that looking for ways to improve the fairness of the tax system while keeping it as simple as possible are ongoing objectives of the government. We are committed to bringing the overall tax burden down as fast and as far as we can without jeopardizing Canada's hard won fiscal stability. Never again will we risk a return to deficit financing, especially not with pie in the sky tax solutions.

And that is the problem with the idea that underlies this time-wasting motion. Against every element of a proper template for tax action—fairness, effectiveness, compassion, and long-term fiscal prudence—the opposition's approach fails, and fails badly.

Let us not reward that failure by wasting much more time here today. We should get the motion defeated and get on with the real tax cutting as contained in the income tax amendment act before us.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999 May 16th, 2000

Madam Speaker, it is sad to see the opposition taxing the patience of members of the House by trying to delay legislation that would reduce the taxes of Canadians, but then logic and consistency have really never been the strong suit, or should I say the long suit, of the party once known as reform.

The motion proposes that:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-25...since the principle of the Bill does not provide for a Single Rate Tax Plan as proposed in Solution 17.”

If I may offer some friendly advice to the hon. member and his colleagues, if they ever want to build a truly national constituency, it is time they got out of the single rate rut. The flat tax proposal of the Canadian Alliance fails miserably in the two most important tests: the test of equity and the test of simplicity. I hope I can show that in my remarks which follow.

Instead of trying to sell a phoney silver bullet solution, they should be helping the government enact its program of tax relief, including the $58 billion in tax savings proposed in the February budget. They are real tax savings for all Canadians and fair tax savings that provide the greatest benefit for families in the greatest need rather than reward the rich.

Our government knows that Canadians are tired of the tax burden. That is why, with the deficit eliminated for good, we have taken clear, concrete action to get taxes down. We have made it clear that the actions in budget 2000—including those contained in this bill—are just a minimum. As revenues improve, we will do more.

But a single tax rate is not on that agenda because it is not on anybody's agenda. They should put effective, equitable public policy ahead of desperate partisan politics. This point was emphasized in a column last week in the Ottawa Citizen . In referring to the hon. member for Medicine Hat, it states that he:

—points out that (Premier) Harris `has been agnostic' on the (single rate) tax. Yet, in last week's budget, the Ontario Premier missed the opportunity to move in the direction of a single-rate tax. And there are few other examples for the Alliance to point to: Only Latvia and Hong Kong have flat taxes, and five American states have single-rate taxes.

More impressive is the list of those (from Thatcher's Britain, to Reagan Republicans, to an early Reform Party task force) that have studied the flat tax and rejected it.

The reason that so many jurisdictions have rejected the opposition's solution 17 approach, just as a decade's worth of U.S. primaries rejected the flat tax mania of millionaire presidential wannabe Steve Forbes, is that it is both wrong-headed and wrong-hearted.

The fact is that solution 17 with its 17% single rate would provide much larger tax reductions for high income individuals compared with middle and low income individuals. This would violate the widely held view in our democratic system that a key objective in providing tax relief should be to deliver it first to those who need it most: middle and low income individuals and those with families.

Thinking caring Canadians understand that it is important to ensure that the tax system recognizes the ability of individuals to pay by taxing at a lower rate middle and low income families. But reform's solution 17 heads in the opposite direction. It would significantly reduce the progressivity and fairness of the tax system.

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1999 May 12th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you might find that there is unanimous consent to see the clock as being 1.30 p.m. to proceed to Private Members' Business.

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1999 May 12th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today at second reading of Bill S-3, the 1999 conventions implementations bill.

This legislation puts into force seven new tax treaties that Canada has signed recently with Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Algeria, Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan and Jordan. It also replaces the existing convention with Luxembourg and amends Canada's treaty with Japan.

These nine tax treaties have been designed with two objectives in mind—the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income

Before discussing the specifics of this bill, there are a couple of points I want to make for the benefit of my hon. colleagues.

First, I want to make it clear to hon. members that Bill S-3 is standard, routine legislation.

Proof of this is the fact that all of these treaties, like their predecessors, are patterned, to a large extent, on the OECD Model Tax Convention, which is accepted by most countries around the world. The provisions in these particular treaties comply fully with the international norms that apply to such treaties.

Another point I want to make at the outset is that, should any conflicting matters arise, tax treaty rules take precedence over the Income Tax Act. This ensures that the objectives I just mentioned can be reached.

Let me take a moment to put this legislation into context. One of the goals of the 1971 review and overhaul of Canada's income tax system was the expansion of our network of tax treaties with other countries, a goal that the government has worked hard to achieve, and with great success I might add. At present Canada has tax treaties in place with 68 countries, a number that will increase to 75 when the treaties in this bill come into force.

It is interesting to note that Bill S-3 is the 24th tax treaty bill to be introduced in parliament since 1976. In the past two years alone Canada has signed treaties or protocols with 14 countries.

Tax treaties are particularly important to two ongoing government priorities: tax fairness and the promotion of trade and investments. I will deal first with tax fairness.

Since coming to office in 1993, the government has been guided by the following principles of tax policy—principles that the finance minister recently reaffirmed in the 2000 budget.

First, our approach to tax relief must be fair. While tax reduction must ultimately benefit all Canadians, it must be directed first to those who need it the most—middle- and low-income earners and especially families with children.

Second, broad-based tax relief should focus initially on personal income taxes where the burden is greatest and where Canadian taxes are most out of line with our history and with other countries.

Third, the business tax system must be internationally competitive. Fourth, broad based tax relief should not be financed with borrowed money.

As hon. members know, the government's fiscal improvements have enabled it to begin providing general tax relief, an integral element of our strategy for sustained economic growth and an improved standard of living and quality of life for all Canadians.

While tax reduction has begun, the government realizes that more needs to be done to lower the overall tax burden and to reform the structure of the tax system. Tax treaties are a part of this overall structure and tax fairness demands that no Canadian should ever find himself or herself caught in the midst of double taxation. As their full title implies, this is exactly what tax treaties work to eliminate.

Let me explain what I mean by double taxation. International double taxation arises as the result of the imposition of comparable taxes in two or more jurisdictions on the same taxable income in the hands of the same person and for the same period of time.

This overlap between source based taxation and residency based taxation can result in adverse and unfair consequences for taxpayers. These tax treaties like the ones included in the bill avoid double taxation by establishing rules for dividing taxing jurisdictions between the country of the taxpayer's residence and the country where the income arises.

Allocating taxing rights not only helps safeguard against double taxation but also reduces the burden of compliance to taxpayers resident in one country who have only limited contact in the other country. An example of this is the reduction of withholding taxes.

Withholding taxes are the taxes countries generally impose on income paid to non-residents. This is a subject I will discuss in more detail a bit later.

The other government priority that tax treaties address is the promotion of trade and investment. Tax treaties are directly related to international trade in goods and services and therefore directly impact on Canada's domestic economic performance.

Their impact is very significant. Over 40% of Canada's annual gross domestic product is tied to exports. Moreover Canada's economic wealth also depends on foreign direct investment as well as inflows of information, capital, technology, royalties, dividends and interest. It is obvious then that the tax treaties contained in Bill S-3 will benefit Canadian businesses and individuals with operations and investments in these nine countries.

Let me outline the additional benefits in addition to the avoidance of double taxation that I have already mentioned. Taxpayers will know that a treaty rate of tax cannot be increased without significant advance notice. The mere existence of these tax treaties will foster an atmosphere of certainty and stability for investors and traders that will only enhance Canada's economic relationship with each country.

Annoyance and complexity in the operation of the tax system will be reduced as the need to pay tax on certain business profits where there is no substantial contact with the other country will be eliminated and a mechanism to settle problems encountered by taxpayers will be provided. Reducing the burden of compliance will encourage more international activity which will have a favourable effect on the Canadian economy.

I referred to withholding taxes as being one of the solutions to the problem of double taxation. I also mentioned that countries usually impose such taxes on income paid to non-residents.

Canada's network of tax treaties provides for several reciprocal withholding tax rate reductions. Without a tax treaty or other legislated exemption, Canada taxes income paid to non-residents at the rate of 25%.

Reduced withholding taxes simplify the tax system and make it fairer. The country where the income is generated can withhold tax usually at a rate of 5%, 10% or 15% on dividends and 10% in the case of interest and royalties. In some instances royalties on copyrights, computer software, patents and know-how are exempt at source.

I will not go into the detailed changes in the tax treaties. They are fully outlined in the bill. They talk about the withholding taxes that will apply to these treaties with respect to dividends and other types of income. It is well laid out in the act. In the interest of time I will move to other provisions.

The treaties covered in Bill S-3 address other tax treaty issues such as capital gains, non-discrimination based on a taxpayer's nationality and pensions and annuities paid to non-residents. Time does not permit me to discuss all of these provisions in detail.

However, there is one issue in particular I must bring to the attention of the House, and that is the proposed rules relating to the taxation of emigrants' pre-departure gains. These rules were proposed by the finance minister and will be included in the 1999 technical amendments bill when it comes before parliament. The proposed rules are recognized in the conventions with Luxembourg, Portugal, Lebanon and Jordan as they address the potential for double taxation in such situations.

However, since the treaties with Uzbekistan, Bulgaria, Algeria and Kyrgyzstan were negotiated prior to these rules being announced, the proposed migration rules allow Canada to give a unilateral foreign tax credit to emigrants until the year 2007. This timeframe guarantees that there will be no double taxation of pre-departure gains before these treaties have been negotiated to take the new rules into account. Japan has asked to review taxpayer migration in future negotiations.

Before closing, I would be remiss if I failed to mention another benefit to double taxation treaties. The second objective in designing these treaties is the prevention of fiscal evasion.

Double taxation treaties encourage the exchange of information between revenue authorities to prevent tax evasion or avoidance. Sharing information helps revenue authorities identify cases of tax evasion or avoidance and act on them.

In summary, I urge my hon. colleagues to support the legislation. The benefits of Bill S-3 are clear.

The thrust of the treaties covered in Bill S-3 is to provide equitable solutions to the various taxation problems existing between Canada and these nine countries.

These treaties will help to secure Canada's position in the increasingly competitive world of international trade and investment while ensuring that Canadian tax policy remains consistent and Canadians are not subject to double taxation. Let us pass the bill in haste and put it into effect.

Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999 May 9th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on two matters raised by the member for Winnipeg Centre.

First, is the member aware that in 1985 the auditor general told the government of the day, when the EI had a deficit of about $5 billion, that it would distort the public accounts if the deficit was not included in the consolidated accounts of the government? The auditor general said that the deficit must be included in the consolidated accounts and the government of the day did that. The EI surplus of today, if he wants to call it that, is really incorporated within the consolidated revenues of the government.

Does the member also know that the EI notional account has been in a deficit for 11 years of the last 17 years? Does he understand that the Canadian taxpayers supported that deficit for 11 years? Therefore, when the account has a surplus, why should the Canadian taxpayers, generally, not be able to use that notional fund for the benefit of all Canadians?

The member talks about tax relief for rich or wealthy Canadians. Is he confusing this with the tax policy proposals of the Alliance, which talk about a flat tax, which would clearly move the tax burden from the high income earners to middle and low income earners? The government in its last three or four budgets has delivered tax relief to low income and middle income Canadians.

From where did the member pick up the notion that the government was providing massive tax relief to high income, wealthy, rich Canadians? The facts do not support that. Is he mixing it up with the flat tax proposal of the Alliance Party?

Could the member opposite clarify his understanding that the EI notional surplus has been in deficit 11 out of 17 years? How can he justify not using that surplus today to benefit middle income and low income Canadians?

Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999 May 9th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments by the member for Kings—Hants and I heard a different interpretation and variation of history.

One interpretation I found particularly intriguing, although I forget his exact wording, was when he said that the former Progressive Conservative government built the architecture for the fiscal results of this government. In reflecting upon that, I looked at the growth in the deficits. In fact, when we came into office in 1993 the deficit was at $42 billion. There had been no action on the deficit whatsoever. The public debt had increased significantly. Taxes had been increased, the EI premiums to name one, and other taxes.

I wonder if the member could actually describe the architecture that was built by the former Progressive Conservative government that lead to the very good fiscal results of this government since 1993.