Pierre Poilievre

[Taxation, October 5th, 2017]

—when the finance minister said that he would not do any deal, that he would not be involved in any matter—

[Taxation, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the question was not whether they are spending more money on tax collectors. The question was with regard to the treaty with Barbados—

[Taxation, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, she should talk to the finance minister about that because his billion-dollar family business has a certificate of registration in Barbados, yet the very day the minister rolled out his tax increase on local businesses, he was asked about the Barbados treaty and said, “But we're not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

Why did he forget to mention that the baby in question was a Morneau Shepell subsidiary?

[Taxation, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, according to the CBC:

Part of the draw is Barbados's corporate tax rate of between one and 2.5 per cent. And once that modest amount is paid, thanks to the 1980 tax treaty any leftover profits earned at a subsidiary based or linked to there can be brought back to Canada tax-free.

When the finance minister launched his crusade to target tax cheats, he only went after plumbers and pizza shop owners and farmers, but did nothing about this Barbados loophole. Why?

[Taxation, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, documents in my hand, which I have obtained, show that the finance minister's billion dollar company, Morneau Shepell, has registered its subsidiary in Barbados, which Oxfam lists as one of the 15 top tax havens in the world. Because of the Canada-Barbados tax treaty, companies pay virtually no tax at all on profits they ship back to Canada.

The finance minister's plan to target rich tax evaders goes after family farms and local businesses, but does nothing about tax havens like Barbados. Why?

[Taxation, October 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on election promises, he promised he would lower the small business tax rate to 9%, but then cancelled that tax rate.

He promised lower taxes for the middle class, but 87% of them are paying more.

He promised higher taxes for the rich, but we collected fewer than $1 billion from the wealthiest 1% than in the previous Conservative government

With this particular package, he promised the rich would pay more, but in fact, the Morneau Shepell millionaires and the Prime Minister's personal family fortune are excluded.

Will he admit that he broke all of those promises?

[Taxation, October 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who created the uncertainty with this surprise attack on the tax rates of our local businesses and family farmers. Double taxes will reach as high as 73%, and higher taxes on farmers selling to their kids than selling to foreign multinationals, but no new taxes on the Prime Minister's personal family fortune.

If I am wrong about that, can the Prime Minister give even one example of a measure in this package that will cost him a penny more?

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the member claims that a business owner can pay himself a dividend after only having paid 15% in corporate tax. We have a fully integrated system on the taxation of business owners. They pay 15% tax on their original earnings inside the company, and then they pay the rest of their marginal tax when they receive the money in the form of a dividend. Therefore, if their tax rate is 50%, they pay 15% inside the company and 35% outside the company. For the member to suggest that business owners are getting off with a 15% total tax rate on their earnings betrays a total lack of understanding of how our integrated tax system works. It spreads misinformation about the amount of tax businesses pay. Will the member not admit that we have integration in this country, and as a result, our small-business owners pay the same marginal tax rate at the end of the day as they would if they were taking the money in the form of wages?

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way claimed that the goal is to remove advantages for some taxpayers that are not available to others. However, the solution put forward by the government with respect to the taxation of passive income actually would create new imbalances and new biases in favour of some taxpayers over others. For example, a multi-millionaire CEO of a publicly traded corporation would pay a total tax of 55% on passive investment earned within his or her company. A pizza-shop owner earning just $75,000 a year would pay almost 60% on passive investment earned within his or her company. That pizza-shop owner has no choice but to save within the company, because an RRSP has withdrawal rules that prevent him or her from pulling it out in case it is needed.

The result of these proposals would mean a higher tax for that middle-class pizza-shop owner earning $75,000 a year than for a super-rich multi-millionaire CEO of a public company. How is that neutral and fair?

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, so the member claims he wants everything to be equal and even. He wants a tax code that is something like Switzerland, completely neutral. His government's proposal would impose double taxation on the passive investment of smaller private businesses, raising their effective tax rate to as much as a third higher than is the case for public companies; would tax at a higher rate a small business's investment in another business than it taxes that business's investment in its own operations; and would take away retirement income splitting for small business owners while maintaining it for politicians and others who have a company pension plan.

To narrow it down to one example, if the member wants to take retirement income splitting away from small business people through the so-called income sprinkling proposal, does he believe that the Prime Minister and he, himself, should lose that same ability with respect to their own pensions?