House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 50% of the vote.
Taxation September 27th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, if I were defending that plan, I think I might just sit down and be quiet as well. This is a plan that would impose a double tax on the passive savings that small business owners use to fund their retirement. That tax can reach as high as 73%. That double tax would not apply to the millionaire owners of multinational companies trading on Bay Street. Why not?
Taxation September 27th, 2017
Mr. Speaker—
Taxation September 27th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, nobody saw their child care benefit increase more than the Prime Minister, who now has two taxpayer funded nannies, despite the fact that he has a massive, multi-million dollar family fortune. A small business person earning just $50,000 a year would, under the proposed plan, pay a tax rate of 60% on his passive income. The Prime Minister would pay 53% on his passive income. Why is a small business person paying so much more than this millionaire Prime Minister?
Taxation September 27th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, if he has a problem with our numbers, this is a Prime Minister who said he would raise $3 billion in additional taxes from the wealthy, but just last week his own finance department produced a report showing that revenues from the wealthiest taxpayers actually went down by $1 billion. In a report this week, the Fraser Institute showed that taxes actually went up by $800 for the average middle-class family. Why is everything that should be going down going up, and everything that should be going up going down?
Taxation September 27th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has gone across the country accusing our small businesses of avoiding paying their fair share, attacking them as “wealthy cheats”. Those are the words of the Prime Minister. Now he wants us to cry crocodile tears for him because people are asking questions about the bills that he is going to have to pay under these proposals.
Under the proposals, a small business owner will pay as much as 73% of his passive income, whereas the Prime Minister will pay almost one-third less on his public pension. How is that fair?
International Trade September 26th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, earlier today I asked a question of the Minister of Finance and he rose to respond. Then I asked a supplemental question, and he was sheltered from answering.
I was wondering if you would permit the hon. minister to rise now and answer that question.
Taxation September 26th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, they are doing two things at the same time: protecting the finance minister's family fortune and the Prime Minister's family fortune. If it is just scaremongering, if it is not true that their fortunes are sheltered, can the minister give me one example of a change in these proposals that will raise taxes on the Prime Minister's fortune or on the finance minister's fortune?
Taxation September 26th, 2017
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the finance minister are not only helping the wealthy, they are doing it by helping themselves.
The Prime Minister said his family fortune will be sheltered from these changes. The finance minister has structured the changes so that they will not apply to any company that trades on the stock market, like his billion-dollar family business, so while ma and pa in the corner store will pay higher taxes, his billionaire company will not. Why will the bill on Main Street be so much higher than for Bill on Bay Street?
Taxation September 21st, 2017
Mr. Speaker, the minister says that I am wrong to suggest that his billion-dollar family business, Morneau Shepell, will be sheltered from these changes.
Could he please list the changes that will apply to Morneau Shepell?
Taxation September 21st, 2017
Mr. Speaker, it is a classic case of “do as I say, but not as I do.”
Our millionaire Prime Minister confirmed these tax changes would not affect what he called his “family fortune”. The Minister of Finance made sure his billion dollar family business, Morneau Shepell, would be sheltered from any of the changes.
While the government imposes a 73% tax on small business investment income, why did it go to such lengths to ensure that the family fortunes of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister were sheltered?