House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 71% of the vote.
Taxation May 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, this chaotic, confused cabinet continues to confound Canadians. The Prime Minister says no to tax cuts. The industry minister says yes to tax cuts. The finance minister says “Maybe we should cut taxes, maybe we should not, but not right now”. Yesterday the trade minister said—
Premier Of Ontario May 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, we have an industry minister who one week says cut taxes, a Prime Minister who says we really do not need to cut taxes and a finance minister who says maybe we should, maybe we should not but we should not do it right now or too quickly.
Perhaps the industry minister who believes in cutting taxes should run for the government of Mike Harris in the next election. That way he could sit around a cabinet table and work with a group of people who are committed to cutting taxes and creating economic growth.
Is the real reason we do not have tax cuts in Canada—
Premier Of Ontario May 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, we seem to have the attention of members opposite. Perhaps they can start acting on tax cuts like Mike Harris has done.
Would the industry minister rather have Mike Harris as a boss, somebody who believes in lower taxes, instead of a Prime Minister who does not believe that lower taxes will benefit the Canadian economy?
Premier Of Ontario May 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Ontario budget will be delivered later today. Over the past four years the Premier of Ontario has reduced taxes significantly. He has increased provincial spending on health care and education. He has reduced the provincial deficit well ahead of schedule and he has created nearly half a million jobs.
Budget Implementation Act, 1999 May 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-71, the budget implementation act.
I am going to address some specific and very important issues which I feel the budget has not addressed fully. Then I will speak in a more general sense about tax relief. The time constraint of 10 minutes does not allow for a detailed discussion of some of these issues, but I will focus on a few specific areas that I feel the government has failed to address.
The first area the government had an opportunity to address more fully was EI premiums. The government says that it has reduced EI premiums over a period of time, but the fact is it has maintained EI premiums at a rate that is significantly higher than the necessary rate of $2 per $100 contribution. That rate would be enough to sustain the EI fund even during an economic downturn.
The question that has to be asked is why would the government want to maintain a direct tax on jobs, a payroll tax that directly reduces the incentives for companies to expand and hire more workers at a time when we have unemployment rates in Canada at twice those of the U.S. Why would the government want to do this?
The government has slashed benefits to an extent that only 30% of those making EI contributions can actually withdraw or qualify for EI benefits when they are in need. At the same time it is maintaining unnecessarily high premiums to create a surplus that can help pad the government's books in other areas. The government is trying to make its numbers look better.
It is consistent with the government's actions in Bill C-78. That legislation will effectively provide the government a mechanism by which to access the $30 billion surplus in the superannuation fund. Again the government is trying to find any means by which it can pad its books, use the money for other unrelated spending and create a less transparent process, a more Byzantine and circuitous fiscal process.
The government hopes that Canadians will not be able to figure out what is going on with the federal budget process and that Canadians will not realize the degree to which a real tax cut, significant broad based tax relief, is possible in Canada. At the same time, this provides the government with the opportunity to spend more of Canadians' money on programs it deems are important.
There is the issue of the seasonal worker. In the finance committee we are talking about productivity issues. I would assert that the issue of the seasonal worker in Canada is one that should be incorporated into this discussion.
There was a time in Atlantic Canada when much of the workforce was employed seasonally, particularly in the fisheries, forestry, agriculture, and other industries which are inherently seasonal. The government through its changes in the EI program has effectively eliminated the opportunities that once existed for seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada.
The government thought that if it eliminated the potential for seasonal workers to draw EI, more of them would be working. I do not know where the government's leap of faith came from, but the fact is the result of its policy has been perversely to create disincentives for individuals who did work seasonally to work at all.
Currently these disincentives have been created for those who did work in seasonal industries in Atlantic Canada, Quebec or rural Canada. Those people did work at least part of the time and contributed. They are facing a direct disincentive to working at all. Many of them are on provincial social assistance programs.
This has caused an increase in poverty. This has caused increased strains on the provincial governments which are facing other cutbacks and now have to face a higher social burden because the government has tried to create this huge surplus within the EI fund to pad its books.
The issue of high marginal tax rates in Canada has to be addressed. I recently participated in the Canadian Tax Foundation's annual conference. The theme came up over and over again that our high marginal tax rates, particularly relative to those in the U.S., need to be addressed. While the government has tinkered a little bit around the fringes, it has failed to deal not just with tax reduction but with a more holistic set of tax reforms.
There has not been meaningful tax reform in Canada since the late 1980s under the previous government. This government is ignoring some of the significant issues we have, particularly the huge tax gap between Canada and the U.S.
Innumerable reports have provided information to the government on how to reform both personal and corporate taxes to create a more competitive environment, better productivity, less disincentives for Canadians who want to succeed here in Canada. The latest of these reports was the Mintz tax report that came out in June to which the government has not really responded. In all likelihood that report will collect dust because the recommendations are so good that the government is afraid to implement them. The political will is not there.
In 1994 Industry Canada worked with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other organizations to write the report, “Breaking through Barriers: Forging our Future”. It was a great report that addressed tax issues and regulations and all kinds of policies that should have been dealt with. Again, the government has shelved the report.
The industry minister said earlier this week that in the upcoming budget he would like to see 50% of the budget dedicated to productivity and 50% dedicated to lower taxes, the inference being that lower taxes have nothing to do with productivity. This is the same industry minister who said a few months ago that high taxes may help improve productivity because they would make people work harder. They would have to work harder to pay the burden of a bloated government.
Yesterday we read the Prime Minister's comments in the National Post that the so-called brain drain will not be reversed through lower taxes alone, that it would take the kind of positive actions we have already taken to foster economic dynamism. Effectively the Prime Minister is saying that only the government can create positive action and foster economic dynamism. The Prime Minister is still focused on a 1970s command style economy. He is ignoring the fact that true economic growth can only come through unfettering the Canadian public from an over-burdening tax system that continues to pummel productivity and continues to pummel initiative.
The Liberals still believe we can spend our way to higher levels of productivity and that somehow we can create initiatives through government that can somehow exceed the level of growth that is possible from the private sector.
It is interesting that one of the members opposite said “Let's hear it for Brian Mulroney”. I think he has an incredibly important point. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney reduced the deficit as a percentage of GDP from 9% in 1984 when it was at $38 billion in 1984 dollars to around 5% by the time he left office. He reduced government program spending growth from 15% to 0% by the time he left office. He implemented the free trade agreement, against the wishes of the Liberals of course, and the GST. By the way, I read recently the current finance minister's comments on the GST back when he was a critic, that the Liberal government would be tearing up and getting rid of the GST.
The fact is those were the types of policies and initiatives, the long term approach to very serious issues that Canada faced then, which this government should be trying to effect and produce now.
Instead of taking a crisis management knee-jerk reaction approach to issues, instead of using Liberal focus group and poll driven economics as opposed to true economically sound and rooted policies that will drive productivity and growth into the 21st century, the Liberals continue to focus on the short term politically palatable. They ignore what in the long term will provide the type of growth Canadians need in the 21st century. They ignore the types of initiatives that will actually generate a Canada that in the 21st century will be leading the world in productivity instead of being embarrassed by the fact that Canada continues to lag and is underperforming relative to the other economies.
I look forward to the comments of the other members.
Taxation May 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is not just hockey teams that need help. It is not just hockey teams that we are potentially losing from Canada.
Nortel is losing 500 engineers per year to U.S. competitors. The fact is that last week Nortel's CEO, John Roth, said that Canada has a problem, that we are driving our talent away.
The industry minister has said what I have been saying for a long time, that we have to lower taxes. Specifically, what taxes should we lower? What taxes does the minister want to lower to keep Nortel here in Canada along with the other high tech industries that we have?
Taxation May 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in a February 24 Ottawa Citizen article the Minister of Industry said that by the end of April he would be presenting to cabinet various options that would help keep NHL franchises here in Canada.
Now the minister is saying that he wants to have a hockey summit to further discuss the issue.
After two months of study, does the industry minister actually have some concrete suggestions to make to cabinet, or is this hockey summit just a delaying tactic, some way to buy time because the industry minister does not really know what to do to keep the hockey franchises here in Canada?
Taxation April 30th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the previous government also implemented free trade against the wishes of the Liberals and that has provided the engine for economic growth in Canada that has allowed the current government to reduce the deficit.
Nortel is losing about 400 employees per year to U.S. competitors, despite the minister's feel good speeches. Will the minister show leadership and convene a summit of all high tech CEOs in Canada to discuss the problems they are suffering as a result of the government's continued reticence to provide meaningful tax relief and tax reform to benefit all Canadians?
Taxation April 30th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister of Finance agreed yesterday to meet with the CEO of Newbridge Networks to discuss the possibility of tax relief for high tech workers in Canada.
The government must cut personal income tax rates to prevent top R and D workers from leaving Canada for opportunities south of the border. Taxes are too high, not only for Canadians involved in high tech, but for all Canadians.
Will the minister show leadership and commit to providing meaningful, broad based tax relief and tax reform to benefit all Canadians?
Taxation April 30th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, Canada's high taxes are threatening the continued presence and expansion of our high tech sector and some of our largest corporations.
The CEO of Nortel has said, “Canada has a problem. We are driving our talent away”. He was referring directly to the high taxes in Canada.
Last week the CEO of Newbridge cited the presence of headhunters scouring our markets in Canada as further evidence that our high taxes are creating an opportunity for high tech companies south of the border.
Nortel needs to hire about 5,000 workers for its research operations in Ottawa over the next four years and it is unsure whether it will be able to find these workers in Canada because of the high tax regime of the government.
It is not just hockey franchisees who are feeling threatened in Canada. Our high tech industries are pleading that our taxes in Canada are killing job growth and opportunities for Canadians. What will it take for the finance minister to recognize and truly act on the high tax policies that need to be addressed to create continued economic growth and expansion for our high tech sector?