Phil McColeman

[Finance, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the long list of Liberal promises now includes transparency, thanks to the Minister of Finance.

The PBO delivered a scathing indictment of the government for its lack of budget transparency. The minister refuses to acknowledge that we handed them a surplus. We know the Liberals jammed as much new spending in last year's budget and books as they could. If he truly wants to be transparent, will the minister tell Canadians how much the March madness spending spree has cost?

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for clarification as to exactly what the intent of the question being put is. I am unclear on the intention. Does this mean closure on debate on the issue? Perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, could answer that.

[Finance, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that he squandered the surplus, but the Minister of Finance does not have to keep squandering his credibility while he does it.

For months, the Minister of Finance has ignored the independent analysis of the PBO, private sector economists, and his own Department of Finance. Instead, he has decided to rely on his own magic to build a reckless budget.

Why does the Minister of Finance think that his mismanaging of the public purse is a gain?

[Finance, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it must be frustrating for the Minister of Finance that the facts keep getting in the way of his rhetoric. Once again, he has been completely contradicted by his own department, which reported that he inherited a $7.5 billion Conservative surplus.

Will the Minister of Finance at least try to salvage some credibility and finally admit that the Conservatives left him a surplus, and his own reckless spending squandered it?

[Tax Avoidance, April 14th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak to Motion No. 42. This is an important and timely discussion, part of a broader debate, about international tax avoidance that is taking place in Canada and around the world. The idea that all Canadians should pay their fair share of taxes is one our Conservative Party strongly supports. That is why we took a number of important steps in government to combat tax avoidance.

Most significantly, we created the stop international tax evasion program aimed at reducing international tax evasion and avoidance. We are looking forward to working with the new government to continue building on our strong record in this area.

With respect to Motion No. 42, the basic premise behind this motion is the condemnation of tax avoidance practices. Again, the idea that all Canadians should pay their fair share of taxes is one that we support. We do not contest the premise of the motion. However, what we do contest is the method employed in the motion to achieve its purported aim.

The Bloc believes that implementing the motion would result in more money back in the hands of the Government of Canada. In reality, it is not so clear-cut. The motion would nullify the Canada-Barbados Income Tax Agreement Act.

The Canada-Barbados Income Tax Agreement Act was designed to limit double taxation, a situation where the same profits are taxed twice as they are earned in a foreign country and then again when they are remitted to the parent company's country of residence.

Here is how it works in Barbados. Tax payable in Canada shall be deducted from the Barbadian tax payable on such income, profits or gains. In the case of a dividend paid by a company that is a resident of Canada to a company that is a resident of Barbados, which owns at least 10% of the voting power, the credit shall take into account the tax payable in Canada in respect of the profits out of which the dividend was paid.

In Canada, tax payable in Barbados shall be deducted from the Canadian tax payable on such income, profits or gains. For the purpose of computing Canadian tax, a company resident in Canada shall be allowed to deduct, in computing its taxes payable, any dividend received by it out of the exempt surplus of a foreign affiliate resident in Barbados.

Through the allowance of tax credits between particular countries, the international tax burden on companies and investors is effectively minimized. There is a general international tax principle that the country in which immovable property is located should have the right to tax the gains from the disposition of such property.

To successfully operate a foreign affiliate and legally benefit from the low tax rates available, the company must satisfy a set of regulations in place. These include both Canada Revenue Agency's demands as well as the local laws that govern IBCs.

The Canada-Barbados Tax Agreement Act was amended in 2011 to follow in the framework of the OECD treaty models and ensure holding corporations, trusts, or partnerships that held Canadian investments in real property and resource properties would be subject to Canadian taxation on sales of the shares of the holding company or the interests in the partnerships or trusts.

The Conservatives believe that any motion to override the act's provisions should be regarded with skepticism. Why target specifically this act? Undermining an existing act does not seem to be the most appropriate response. Minister Findlay signed the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement, helping to set the stage for the automatic exchange of financial information with international partners.

Economic action plan 2015 reiterated the Government of Canada's pledge to working with international partners to address international tax evasion and improve tax compliance, including a proposal to adopt the OECD's Common Reporting Standard, starting on July 1, 2017, with the first exchanges of financial account information beginning in 2018.

Canada is one of more than 90 jurisdictions that, to date, have committed to implementing the common reporting standard. The Liberal government is implementing more direct measures to investigate tax evasion.

I will repeat that we highly condemn the practice of tax evasion. However, we disagree that overriding a flexible act set in compliance with international standards is the best way to address the problem.

[Finance, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that was not an answer to the very specific question that I put to the minister as to what was the meaning of publicly showing his mandate letter from the Prime Minister, which was very specific.

I will remind the member what the question was. Why is the Minister of Finance, in his budget, not meeting the fiscal targets and anchors that were set out by the Prime Minister to him and what Canadians voted for when they voted the Liberal Party into power?

The response continues to be some kind of platitudes about this is what Canadians wanted. Canadians were offered a very specific proposition, and the member is still not answering this question. What purpose does the mandate letter serve if the government is not going to follow through on the promises made to Canadians?

[Finance, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on February 18, I asked the finance minister why he was betraying the spending promises he made during the election campaign, which are the same promises that he was explicitly instructed by the Prime Minister to keep: to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio every year and return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019. Unfortunately, he provided the House with no explanation whatsoever.

During the election, the Liberals' plans to borrow money were very specific. They asked for a mandate to borrow $10 billion this year and $25 billion in total over the course of their first mandate. Canadian voters accepted this very specific plan, and they did so under the understanding that this spending would be kept within a clear financial framework. This is very important, because as parliamentarians we must understand that Canadians do not give the finance minister a blank cheque to borrow as much money as he wants without any limits.

The Prime Minister could have asked Canadian voters for a mandate to spend whatever he thought was necessary to achieve his goals for Canada, but that is not what he did. Instead, the Prime Minister took great efforts to promise Canadians that his government would have clear financial targets and a clear plan to balance the books. The Prime Minister went further, giving the finance minister very clear instructions to deliver on those promises. He wrote in the very first point of the finance minister's mandate letter that he expects the minister to meet the government's fiscal anchors, including a balanced budget by 2019. Now we know that the Prime Minister's mandate letters are his marching orders to cabinet.

Many Canadians thought the Prime Minister was signalling that the contents of these mandate letters actually meant something, because he took the unusual step of posting them publicly on his website. The Prime Minister wrote very clearly that the Minister of Finance and the entire cabinet were supposed to achieve their goals within the framework of balancing the federal budget by 2019. However, just a few months ago, the finance minister signalled that he would ignore his mandate letter, and we began hearing rumours of massive open-ended spending. The finance minister will say that unexpected things had happened and that is why he abandoned his financial promises and ignored his mandate letter. However, does that mean that all of the Prime Minister's instructions to cabinet are conditional? If that is the case, I think this would come as a big surprise to many Canadians.

Of course, circumstances will change over a four-year government mandate, but when a Canadian reads the Prime Minister's mandate letter to his ministers, they rightfully believe that the ministers will do whatever he or she can to achieve what the Prime Minister asked of them, even when unexpected challenges arise. If that is not the case, and these mandate letters were simply an outline of things that would be nice to achieve but not truly necessary, then Canadians deserve to know that.

On February 18, I asked the following question: “Will the finance minister confirm that he will do as the Prime Minister has directed him and balance the budget in this term? If not, what was the point of the mandate letter?”

We have now seen the budget, which shows that the finance minister will fall short of the Prime Minister's expectations. His mandate letter instructed him to continue to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio throughout his mandate. His mandate letter also instructed him to meet the financial anchor of balancing the budget by 2019. Instead, he wrote a budget plan that will accomplish neither of these fundamental goals that the Prime Minister directed him to achieve.

Therefore, I will ask it again: What was the point of the finance minister's mandate letter?

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the question really drives at the credibility of promising Canadians something and then doing something very different.

It is political manoeuvring at its best when someone says they will do something and be open and transparent. In the case of the PBO, the PBO drilled down into asking the real questions behind the numbers. What the PBO found, and what we have found in looking at those numbers, is that the time horizons that formed the backdrop to how the numbers would come up were actually done over a two-year time frame instead of the more appropriate time frame of five years that every government of all political stripes prior to this one had used. When the PBO asked if the information over the five-year timeframe could be provided, the Liberals refused to give it.

The hon. member can tell me if that is open and transparent.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the question and the preamble, because I was here during those times of the global economic meltdown and saw his party and the other party across the way ask the government, plead with the government, to spend more in terms of deficit spending to make sure our economy stayed afloat.

Then we decided to have a plan and tell Canadians that we would return to balance, which is exactly what we did. I am very proud to own the record of that government on saying what we would do and then doing it.

The Liberals have done the opposite. During the election campaign, they promised basic items of economic health for this country: limiting the deficit, making sure we would return to balance, keeping our debt ratio appropriate and keeping it declining, which means health to this country. They have done the opposite. They have broken every one of those promises to the Canadians who voted for them, and they sit here today smugly saying they have a mandate to do whatever they want.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today is an important day to debate the 2016 budget because a lot of what was said by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister during the election have now become broken promises.

The Liberals asked for a mandate to run a very modest short-term deficit in order to make some very specific investments that they claimed would be focused on growing the economy. They made specific promises to Canadians. I learned a long time ago, along with a lot of other parliamentarians, that actions speak louder than words. Let me be clear. Canadians did not give the government a blank cheque to borrow and spend as it wished and as it wanted to. They did not vote for reckless spending without a fiscal plan.

Then the Minister of Finance decided that all of these fiscal promises and commitments really did not matter. He decided that it would be a lot easier to interpret the election results as a mandate to spend as much as he wanted, for as long as he wanted, on whatever he wanted. He is obliterating all of the party's fiscal anchors and betraying his promises to Canadians.

Let us look at what has actually happened.

The $10 billion deficit that was promised has become a $30 billion deficit. The plan to borrow $25 billion over four years is now a plan to borrow over $100 billion over four years, and counting. The debt-to-GDP ratio will rise, not fall, and the pledge for a balanced budget has been completely abandoned. The Prime Minister did not even bother trying to come up with a plan to return to balance.

Actions speak louder than words. Promises made, promises broken has become the hallmark of the Liberal government, all because it just cannot resist borrowing and spending not its money but taxpayer money.

Why exactly are we borrowing $30 billion? What we have before us is a budget that brings Canada from a balanced budget to a $30 billion hole for no clear reason or benefit.

There is no plan in the budget to create jobs. Almost eliminated from the budget is the mention of job creation. The Minister of Finance's job numbers from the budget have already been completely debunked by the PBO.

There is no plan to get businesses investing or to get private projects and sectors moving forward.

Only a small fraction of the $30 billion deficit, about $3 billion, will be spent on infrastructure, and only about half of that funding will not be spent on roads, highways and public infrastructure. The Liberals have said that they had to go into deficit to spend on infrastructure. However, $25.4 billion of the deficit cannot be attributed to new infrastructure spending.

This budget is not about growing the economy; it is about growing the size of government. It is all about satisfying Liberal interests.

Let me quote from Mr. Charles Lammam and Hugh MacIntyre at the Fraser Institute, who stated:

The Liberals [have given] the impression that infrastructure would be a key driver of their deficit spending and that such spending would help drive long-term economic growth. Yet it turns out infrastructure spending is a surprisingly small share of the projected deficit for 2016/17. Moreover, claims that the deficit will drive future economic growth are dubious....$25.4 billion of the deficit cannot be attributed to new infrastructure spending.

Not only does this budget fall short on the Liberal promises to grow the economy, it actually takes steps that will kill thousands of well-paying jobs. The choices made by the Minister of Finance in his first budget are very telling. Of course, the CBC saw its funding increase. Another billion dollars will be set aside every year to increase the benefits for public servants. These are some of the promises he chose to keep.

What promises did he decide to break? The promises he made to job-creating businesses.

Canadians understand that borrowed money has to be paid back, and that the Liberals will have to raises taxes to pay for this spending spree. Small businesses have been the first of one of those targets.

Let us talk for a bit about small businesses and the fact that they are the true job creators of the country. Small businesses employ 95% of our population.

Dan Kelly at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, CFIB said that this was a “brutal” budget for small businesses. He said:

Small business owners...are deeply troubled by the ballooning deficit. What was proposed to Canadians as a short-term $10 billion deficit plan to invest in critical infrastructure is now $29 billion with no plan to get back to balance...Most of the deficit is to cover a massive 7.6 per cent increase in program spending, which will do next to nothing to grow the economy.

He also said, “Small business owners know that today’s deficits are tomorrow’s taxes.”

The budget cancels, or puts to an end, the small business credit for hiring people.

The budget abandons the Liberal promise of lowering the small business tax rate to 9%. Instead, small businesses will pay 10.5% in taxes. Quantified, that is $900 million more per year than what was promised.

There is no plan in the budget to get businesses investing in the economy again. In particular right now, we look to the downturn in the oil and gas sector, and the over 100,000 people who have lost their jobs in the sector. We are looking at, this year alone, $35 billion of planned projects that have been cancelled or postponed. This kind of investment creates well-paying jobs.

There is no plan in the budget to invest in the economy. If anything, the budget creates huge levels of uncertainty in the economy because Liberal spending is out of control, and the government is already raising taxes to help pay for it.

Out of the entire $30 billion borrowing plan, only $137 million is earmarked for business growth and innovation.

This budget is not about growing the economy; it is about growing the size of government. Canadians did not vote for that. At the outset, I said that actions spoke louder than words. When actions do not match words and promises, then Canadians expect their government to explain in detail why we must have a different path to take. They expect government to adjust to new realities. They expect the government to maintain the core promises.

Remember those core promises, those fiscal anchors that the Prime Minister actually said to his Minister of Finance. He said that we would only spend $10 billion on infrastructure for a short period of time, that the anchors would be locked into, returning us to balance within the term of the government and reducing the debt to GDP ratio every year during its mandate of four years.

Canadians did not vote for that and that is not what is best for Canadians. I urge all members in the House to vote against the government's reckless spending in its budget.