House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was billion.

Last in Parliament February 2017, as Liberal MP for Markham—Thornhill (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 56% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus) November 16th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I think it was Winston Churchill who once said, “When the information changes, yes, I change my mind, sir”.

As I explained in my speech, it is not a flip-flop to support something in principle, and then to observe that it is badly implemented or not done, and then to withdraw one's support. That is our Liberal position. That is a perfectly principled position.

The Liberal Party has said many times that we support the home renovation tax credit and that Canadians can be assured that they will get that credit no matter which of our two parties is the government.

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus) November 16th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to the House why the Liberal Party voted in favour of the first budget bill but will vote against the bill that is now before the House.

If we go back to the budget last January, we will recall that the Canadian economy was at the height of fears of recession and that the G20 had agreed that all countries should do fiscal stimulus to help to protect and save jobs. Moreover, unlike what it did last November when it had an absolutely disastrous economic statement that actually cut spending, the government in January at least proposed to expend many billions of dollars on infrastructure and other measures to support the economy and save or create jobs.

Given that we were at the height of fear and concern about the economy, it was our view that while the budget was highly imperfect, it would nevertheless have been irresponsible to provoke an election by bringing the government down, thereby delaying fiscal stimulus for at least a couple of months. That is why, notwithstanding some flaws in the budget, the Liberal Party decided to support it.

If we flash forward 10 months to today, why does it appear that we have changed our minds and decided to go against the budget? It reflects a triple-failure in implementation of this budget on the part of the government.

First of all, there is a failure to get the money out the door. This is important. We can have a stimulus of $50 billion or $500 billion, but if we do not get the money out the door, we stimulate nothing and create or save zero jobs. Therefore, the first failure is that the government did not get nearly enough of this money out the door to actually save or create jobs.

Second, and this point has been emphasized by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government failed in its responsibility to be accountable to Canadians for how taxpayer money is spent.

The third failure is the government's failure in managing the nation's finances.

Let me take each of these three failures in turn. At the time of the finance minister's budget, he said that to be effective the stimulus had to be out the door within 120 days. We are now approximately 300 days since the budget. The construction season is coming to an end. Therefore, one would have hoped that the vast majority of funding for infrastructure would long have been out the door and at work for months in terms of shovels in the ground and the creation and saving of jobs.

Far from it, the fact of the matter, thanks to research done by our infrastructure critic, is that only 12% of this fiscal stimulus is out the door and put to work in the form of actual jobs, actual shovels in the ground, and actual jobs being saved or created. Only 12% of the money is out the door some 300 days after the budget, despite the finance minister having said that the money had to be at work within 120 days.

That is entirely unacceptable. That is a big, fat juicy F for failure. The recession is now. The job losses may still increase in the future, but they have occurred in large numbers in the last 12 months. The fact that some 300 days after the budget only 12% of that money has been put to work illustrates and proves a lamentable failure of execution and implementation.

The second failure is one of accountability. This government makes a big deal about accountability, but it has been extraordinarily unaccountable in explaining to Canadians how their taxpayer dollars are being put to work. The government uses words like “implement”, but their website and their reports say nothing about money actually out the door and put to work.

That is why our infrastructure critic had to get the information directly from the mayors. The government refuses to provide this information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It has pulled off a stunt of dumping some 5,000 pages of information in his office as if we were in the 19th century rather than the computer age. Day after day, the government has stonewalled and refused to give the most basic information to Canadians on what it is spending Canadians' money on.

Compare this with the United States, where citizens can go onto the U.S. government website and find out, in huge detail, in exactly what states and regions and on which programs the stimulus money is being spent and how it is being put to work. It is unclear to me why Americans are deserving of so much information, accountability and transparency from their government while Canadians, it would appear in this government's view, are undeserving of the kind of information our neighbours to the south are being provided with.

The third source of failure amounts to the government's management of this nation's finances. One year ago, at the time of the November statement, the government actually said this country would run nothing but a long string of surpluses. Then it was $34 billion. Next it was $50 billion. Then it was $56 billion. I do not know what it will be next, but the reliability of the government's deficit forecasts is about the same as the reliability of its statements on the timing of H1N1 flu shot deliveries; in other words, totally unreliable.

In conclusion, yes, we supported the first budget bill because it was urgent to get the money out the door, but now, with the passage of some 10 months, we have seen this triple failure: failure to get the money out the door when it was needed, failure to be accountable to Canadians, and failure to have competent management of the nation's finances.

POINTS OF ORDER October 28th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, he was quoting from it, allegedly. Second, unless he has proof that I uttered those words, which to the best of my knowledge I never did, I would like him to retract his statement.

POINTS OF ORDER October 28th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Minister of Finance quoted me using words that, to the best of my knowledge, I never uttered. I would ask two things. First, when he allegedly quoted me, he looked at a document. I would ask the minister if he would be willing to table that document.

The Economy October 6th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what to make of all that. It was filled with the usual Conservative rhetoric that makes no sense to anyone outside the Conservative caucus.

The minister started by saying in just over 100 days we are seeing progress. What does that mean exactly? The budget was tabled 252 days ago. It is 208 days since the budget passed. So what does the minister mean when he says something like in just over 100 days we are seeing progress?

The truth is it does not mean anything at all, and neither did that speech. It may not have technically been a thinly veiled government ad for the Conservative Party, but it was a profound waste of the time of the House which the transport minister used to pat the finance minister on the back. If the finance minister wants a pat, here is a brief account of his record as finance minister.

The finance minister swung into his seat at the finance department and the very first thing he did was to raise income tax at the lowest bracket, ensuring he hurt vulnerable Canadians the most.

The finance minister broke his party's promise not to tax income trusts by increasing taxes on them a whopping 31% and destroying the life savings of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

The finance minister tried to hobble the ability of Canadian companies to compete in the world with an insane interest deductibility policy that was so bad he had to withdraw it and two years later abandon it.

The finance minister has booked EI premium increases over the next five years that will pluck $13 billion from the pockets of small businesses and workers.

The finance minister inherited a $13 billion Liberal surplus in February 2006 and had made it into a deficit by 2008-09. He was still pretending to run a surplus 10 months ago. He acknowledged a $30 billion deficit nine months ago, a $50 billion deficit last spring, and a $56 billion deficit last month.

I would like to congratulate the finance minister on his Euromoney award, but I would also urge him to stop taking up the House's time with self-promotional ministerial statements.

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus) October 2nd, 2009

Mr. Speaker, the member might want to check his facts before he stands. What he says is entirely false. The legislation has been passed, the authorities exist and so the infrastructure funds could keep flowing whether there were an election or not.

That is not the problem. The problem is the government simply does not have its act together and, as a consequence, has only flowed some 12% of the money in terms of actually creating or saving jobs.

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus) October 2nd, 2009

Mr. Speaker, that seemed more like a stream of consciousness than a question. The member does not like the term “dishonest”, so he can use whatever term he wishes.

However, what adjective would he apply to a government that says it will not increase taxes to balance the books, but has a massive increase in EI premiums? What adjective would he apply to a government that says that it will not tax income trusts and then does precisely the opposite? What adjective would he apply to a government that raises the lowest income tax rate, as it did in 2006, while claiming that it actually cut it? He can choose his own adjective. I would suggest that is not the height of honesty.

In terms of the mayor of Markham, while the government has such a punitive, vindictive attitude to any mayor who says anything bad, I think the mayor of Markham is wishing to protect such contributions that he may one day receive from the government.

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus) October 2nd, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with all that my colleague from the Bloc Québécois said before putting his question.

To answer his question, we will be voting against this bill because we have no confidence in this government.

However, the Leader of the Opposition has said repeatedly that we would fully honour the home renovation tax credit program.

Canadians can therefore rest assured that they will receive their credits, regardless of who is in government.

Conservative Party of Canada October 2nd, 2009

Mr. Speaker, Gordon Landon continues to stand up for what is right even after he was dumped as the Conservative candidate in Markham—Unionville.

Mr. Landon revealed in an interview with the Markham Economist & Sun, published on Wednesday, that members of the Prime Minister's Office hastily travelled to Markham to flex their iron-fisted control over Conservative candidates. This is a quote from him:

I met with the PMO...at the Hilton and I just decided that I couldn't work under their policies because I just decided I couldn't work with the media the way they wanted to work with the media. I'm the type of person (who) likes to respond to issues honestly...

The real question is who in the Prime Minister's Office, paid by Canadian taxpayers, travelled to Markham in order to muzzle Mr. Landon and his truth-exposing ways.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus) October 2nd, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member implicitly acknowledged that his side of the House is raising payroll taxes. I did not hear him say that but neither did I hear him deny it.

His question also indicates my theme of dishonesty. He said that our proposal would cost billions of dollars, $4 billion is what he said. Four billion dollars is utter rubbish and totally dishonest. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the Liberal measure would not cost more than $1.1 billion, not $4 billion.

Once again, we have total dishonesty emanating—