House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was tax.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Liberal MP for Mississauga South (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 37% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Petitions May 3rd, 1995

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has been circulating across Canada. The petition comes from the Calgary, Alberta, area.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

The petitioners also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged. The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide direct parental care for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

Supply April 27th, 1995

Madam Speaker, in the comments of the hon. member for Drummond, the statement is made that the federal government is attempting to keep Canada together by using medicare. The member should realize that medicare is not a vehicle to try to keep Canada together. It is one vehicle that has kept Canada together and makes it the best country in the world.

The five principles of the Canada Health Act are universality, accessibility, portability, public administration and comprehensiveness.

I ask the member which of those principles she does not support and why does she feel medicare is not working?

Supply April 27th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Two days ago a member rose in the House on a point of order to indicate that the speaker was not addressing the motion on the floor. I believe this is the same case. Therefore, I would make the point that the member should be addressing the motion.

Petitions April 27th, 1995

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a nationally circulated petition that has been received by me. This particular petition was signed by a number of petitioners from the St. Marys area of Ontario.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession, which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

Therefore, the petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.

Petitions April 26th, 1995

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has been circulated across Canada. This particular petition has been signed by a number of petitioners from the Surrey and Delta regions of British Columbia.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing a family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

Therefore, the petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995 April 3rd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled on February 27, 1995, and specifically the Bloc amendment thereto.

The 1995 budget was one of the most important in the history of Canada. It was a budget of fundamental reform and national renewal.

On October 18, 1994 the Minister of Finance addressed the finance committee and indeed all Canadians. I would like to quote the finance minister. At that meeting he stated: "We came into government to help build a better Canada, a Canada of jobs and growth. That is our only goal and it is because of that that we must act decisively on the debt challenge today. We must not waste this recovery."

That commitment continues to be met by this budget and it is reflected in the confidence level of the financial markets, of the business community, and indeed of the Canadian people.

The budget incorporated numerous provisions for all sectors. The deficit targets have been met using prudent economic assumptions. The total savings from the budget actions of $29 billion over three years are the largest set of actions since the demobilization of the second world war. The deficit was planned to be cut to 3 per cent of GDP or about $24.3 billion in the 1996-97 year. If the private sector economic forecasts are right, the deficit will likely be lower.

New borrowing from financial markets is down to $13.7 billion in the 1996-97 year or 1.7 per cent of GDP, less than projected for the national government of any other G-7 country. Debt to GDP begins to decline in 1996-97 as the debt grows more slowly than the economy.

The deficit reduction was largely due to expenditure cuts. The budget delivers $25.3 billion of cumulative spending cuts over three years, with $16.9 billion from the top to bottom program review. Almost $7 in expenditure reductions were made for every $1 of new tax revenue over the next three years. As all Canadians know, there is no increase in personal income taxes.

Program spending will decline from $120 billion in 1993-94 to $107.9 billion in 1996-97. This is the lowest program spending in relation to the size of the economy since 1951.

There has also been a dramatic reduction in departmental budgets. Several have been halved over the three years. As all Canadians know, 45,000 public service positions were cut as part of the budget.

In addition, there were structural changes to ensure that we have continued savings. There is a fundamental change in the structure of program spending, which will keep the deficit on a downward track. Major cuts in business subsidies were made. They are down by 60 per cent from $3.8 billion in 1994-95 to $1.5 billion in the 1997-98 year. Many programs have been consolidated, merged or commercialized.

The new Canada social transfer to the provinces in 1996-97 has been created to provide more flexible, sustainable block funding. Unemployment insurance reform is intended to be in place by July 1, 1996. A course has been charted for the reform of our public pension system to make it fairer and more sustainable in the long term.

The burden of the restraint must be shared equitably among all Canadians. Impact of budget actions have been equitably distributed across Canada. For instance, the transfers to the provinces declined 4.4 per cent from 1994-95 to the 1996-97 year compared with a 7.3 per cent cut in other federal programs. It demonstrates that the provinces have been asked to contribute far less than the federal government.

The increased cost recovery in other fees, such as the $975 immigration fee per adult immigrant, also recognizes that social programs must seek to provide self-funding to the greatest extent possible. There have also been new measures to ensure the collection of taxes owed. Tax fairness has been improved with tighter rules for tax deferrals on foreign and family trusts, R and D incentives, and RRSPs. There are also higher taxes for corporations and large banks and, as we know, a small excise tax increase of 1.5 cents per litre to help reduce the deficit.

One of the specific provisions within the budget that is of particular interest to me is the provision that deals with the tax deferral of unincorporated businesses and self-employed businesses. Businesses that are self-employed or unincorporated have the opportunity under the tax act to choose a year end that suits their needs. It does not necessarily have to coincide with the calendar year. That was brought in initially to provide businesses with the opportunity to have the cash flow they would need in those start-up periods so they could continue to establish the business.

The tax deferral of those deferred months is a permanent deferral. Take for example a business that has a year end of January 31. It means that the income from the past 12 months ending January 31, 1995 would not be reported until his or her personal income tax return was filed in 1996, which would not be until April of that year at the latest. Theoretically businesses would have a permanent deferral of up to 11 months. The budget changed the law so that after 1994 all businesses will have to declare income on a calendar year basis.

We understand the treatment involves a catch up of the deferral of reporting that income. To provide the transition period available, the budget proposes that the recouping of those taxes will take place over 10 years, 5 per cent in year one, 10 per cent in years two to nine and the balance of 15 per cent in the 10th year.

In addition, the government has extended the filing date for the tax returns of these taxpayers until June 15, although the taxes otherwise owing have to still be paid by April 30.

Most parliamentarians have made very clear their views on the budget. The most important aspect of the budget reaction is how Canadians feel about it. I would like to very briefly read some of the figures from the latest Angus Reid poll on the budget. First, more than two-thirds or 69 per cent of Canadians surveyed said they believed that the federal government is on the right track with the overall approach they have taken in the budget.

A majority of respondents from all major socio-demographic segments of the population endorse the overall direction of the budget. A clear majority of Canadians in every region support it.

A majority of Canadians, some 57 per cent, say that the budget is better than most federal budgets in the past decade or so. Fifty-six per cent of Canadians also say that they are more confident in the federal government's ability to manage the economy as a result of the budget.

I could go on but I think it is clear to say at this point that Canadians are happy with the work we have done. The biggest debate that has been going on has to do with the size of the debt. There is no question the government is committed to eliminating the deficit and to start paying down our debt. At $550 billion, it represents a substantial expenditure to service that debt.

Canadians, I know, are aware that the government is committed not only to hitting a target of 3 per cent of GDP for the deficit by the end of the third year but to getting it as low as possible as quickly as possible, but in a fair and compassionate manner.

The renewal of Canada's fiscal health must include compassion. That is a very important issue. Canadians must be consulted on the kind of Canada we want. Those who rely continually on government must be weaned off their dependency for social handouts.

The government can no longer afford to subsidize the payrolls of businesses through UI. The system must be restructured to a bona fide system of insurance. Also the government can no longer afford to sustain the same level of social spending. Seventy-five per cent of the people on welfare are employable. We must pursue every opportunity to promote job creation and training for Canadians so they can have meaningful employment.

The Canadian people spoke up very clearly on how they felt about increased taxes and the minister responded in the budget. The job of restoring the fiscal and social well-being of Canada has begun. We have work to do on behalf of all Canadians. It must be done in a fair and compassionate manner.

Petitions March 29th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing 36, I wish to present a petition signed by a number of petitioners from the national capital region.

They would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill, or the aged.

The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.

Petitions March 28th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is very complex, submitted to me by Mr. Cyril Fleming of my riding of Mississauga South. Because of the rules of the House I will not be able to read all of it. I will at least highlight the two most important points.

The petition has to do with the question of the rights of the unborn. The two relevant phrases in the petition are that Parliament recognize the unborn foetus from fertilization onwards as an entity separate from the mother, and that Parliament act to provide a wider interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the interest of obtaining and enhancing human dignity and to cause to cease by the most expedient means available the public funding for and the practice of abortion, thereby honouring Parliament and government's obligation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Petitions March 28th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first states that managing the family home and caring for pre-school children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value in our society, that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care in the home for pre-school children, and also discriminates against those who provide care in the home for the disabled, chronically ill and the aged.

The petitioners therefore pray that Parliament pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care for pre-school children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

Education March 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, during the recent recovery, 433,000 jobs were created in Canada. However a closer analysis will show that there is a disturbing problem underlying this.

Young people with a university education had a 25 per cent increase in the number of jobs. Those who had some level of diploma program after high school had a 14 per cent increase in jobs.

However, those who had only a high school education had a 23 per cent decline in the number of job opportunities. Accordingly it is very important for all Canadians to do what they can to encourage our young people to pursue their education.

The national high school dropout rate is 18 per cent. This is not acceptable for Canadians. I urge all members to do what they can to address this serious problem. As we all know, an investment today in our youth is an investment in our future for all Canadians.