Pierre Poilievre

[Taxation, December 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the question was for the finance minister. He is the one who says he is going to impose a reasonableness test on what family businesses can pay their family members. It is not just the past chief justice of the tax court, but the current chief justice who, in an extraordinary comment, said these rules are so vague that no one will know how to enforce them or interpret them.

Why does the government not listen to the judges and small businesses and do away with this complex web of tax increases?

[Taxation, December 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister plans a reasonableness test to determine what small businesses can pay their family members. Here is what the former chief justice of the tax court says about it: “I think it’s going to substantially increase the number of cases that go to the court, because it’s going to be a battle between the CRA and the taxpayers as to what ‘reasonable’ means in various situations.”

How much will this cobweb of rules cost the CRA to enforce, small businesses to comply with, and both of them to litigate?

[Committees of the House, December 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, you are correct. There is a dissenting report.

Before I introduce its contents, I thank the chairman of the finance committee for presiding over a very well-executed study. Even though the conversations were interesting and much information was produced, the final report by the majority was, in our view, flawed.

As a result, we introduce a dissenting report. In it, we call on the government to cancel any and all tax increases, including, but not limited to, those imposed on diabetics, autistic people, and others to whom the government has suddenly denied the disability tax credit.

I am pleased to report to the House that just today, even before we had the opportunity to formally table this dissenting report, it appears the government is relenting under pressure by the official opposition and reinstating the disability tax credit for type 1 diabetics. I am very pleased to learn it is backing down from this cold-hearted tax increase it had attempted to put into place back in May of this year.

We will be watching very carefully to ensure this is not yet another head fake by the government to deceive people who are suffering and are vulnerable. We will continue to hold the government to account if it tries to target other vulnerable people with tax increases.

In addition to that recommendation, our dissenting report takes the broad view that the government should emphasize free markets and free enterprise as the greatest hope to eliminate poverty and expand opportunity for everyone. That contrasts with the big government central planning that the main report proposes and the overall direction of the government, which is impose higher costs, heavier regulations, and more severe burdens on the people who pay the bills in our country.

[Taxation, December 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister appears unable to stand and answer basic questions about a plan that he will impose in just three weeks. It is not just that the finance minister owned shares in a company he regulated, or introduced a pension bill while having ownership in a pension company, or sold shares just a week before market-moving tax measures, all those things were ethical lapses and failures. However, because he is up to his eyeballs in these troubles, he is unable to do his job, which is to answer questions and tell people what the rules will be.

If he cannot do the work of a finance minister, why will he not step aside and let someone else do it for him?

[Taxation, December 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the small business tax rate was already set for 9% when the finance minister took office. He then raised it back up to 10.5%. We are happy that due to the unrelenting pressure of the official opposition, he has backed down from that.

Now small businesses are expected to have faith in the government's idea of “reasonable”. Reasonable to it is raising taxes on people with diabetes, on waitresses enjoying a small sandwich during their break, on autistic people, on farmers, and on small businesses.

How can the government expect small businesses to have faith that the government will be reasonable in its treatment of family compensation?

[Taxation, December 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, five months ago, the finance minister told local businesses he would impose a reasonableness test to determine what they were allowed to pay to contributing family members as part of the business.

Now, three weeks before that so-called reasonableness test will take effect, nobody has any idea what it means. There is no written legislation, there are no written rules, but businesses are now scrambling right before the Christmas break to determine what the laws will be.

How is that reasonable?

[Taxation, December 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that to mean there will not actually be a bill before the measures take effect. Our small family businesses will be forced to follow laws that do not even exist. How does the government expect anyone to run a business with rules that are written nowhere than in a press release, released the night before Christmas?

[Taxation, December 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, if the finance minister will not resign, hopefully he will stand and answer the question I am about to ask him personally.

Last summer, he launched a direct attack on small businesses. He ruined the ability of farmers to be in their fields, for tourism operators to serve their customers, and for others to enjoy a small break during that time. Now he is doing the same thing right before Christmas. He said he would have legislative proposals on his small business tax increase in the fall. If that is true, when will we see the bill?

[Taxation, December 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, well, the finance minister wants us all to cry crocodile tears for him. He is the one who called our small family-owned businesses a “privileged few”, using fancy accounting schemes to avoid paying their fair share, yet it was he who set up companies in the Bahamas, Alberta, and other places where he did not live to lower his tax bill. It was he who sold his shares before his own tax increases came into effect.

Why is it that whenever Liberals raise taxes it is always everyone but them who are stuck with the bill?

[Taxation, December 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago around this time, the Minister of Finance increased taxes on the floor of the House of Commons, but not before he could sell his shares and realize his gains before those taxes took effect. That meant he dodged the same taxes he was imposing on others. Now he is at it again, with new tax hikes that Morneau Shepell will not have to pay. In just three weeks, the minister's tax hikes on family businesses will take effect.

Where are the details?