House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was fact.

Last in Parliament February 2019, as Liberal MP for Kings—Hants (Nova Scotia)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 71% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply March 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I was not attacking Ward and June Cleaver. Who knows? Perhaps June wanted to work. Maybe Ward drank a little too much. We do not know what he did outside of the house. I am not convinced that it was a totally functional situation. Perhaps it was. But that was television in the 1950s.

The bottom line is, if June wanted to work she should have had the opportunity. My point was that choice is fundamental. We are not advocating a return to the chauvinistic principles and ideals that may never have existed in the first place.

I believe that this motion is sufficiently vague to represent the general intent to reduce and eliminate the discriminatory policy that currently exists toward stay at home parenting.

The hon. member for Mississauga South is an accountant, so I forgive him for delving into the minutia of the details of implementation. Perhaps that is why many great ideas that start with a glistening generality never actually make it to fruition on the Liberal benches. They become so engulfed in the details that they never make it happen.

The intent of this motion is clear. The intent of this motion is sound. And we will be supporting this motion.

Supply March 4th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the motion to eliminate the discriminatory tax treatment of single earner families.

There is no more important fundamental debate about the future of our country than the debate about the future of the children of Canada. If one takes the time to review the information that abounds on this topic, including the Mustard studies, it has been demonstrated unequivocally that the first three years and the first six years are the most important years in the development of a child's cognitive skills and socialization skills. During that period it is absolutely pivotal that a child have a stimulating environment in which to develop the type of creativity and socialization necessary to succeed in an increasingly complex knowledge based society.

The discriminatory policy against single earner families with children is one way the government is currently encouraging one type of behaviour over another. It is what I refer to as a Pavlovian tax policy which tries to encourage or push Canadians toward one type of activity and discourage another type.

Our party believes very strongly that Canadian families should have the opportunity to make their own choices on these types of matters and that the government does not have a role in trying to push Canadian families, for instance in this case to putting their children in day care when in fact many Canadian families would prefer one parent to be actively involved and stay at home to help raise the children.

The C. D. Howe Institute in its recent studies calculated that a single earner family making $60,000 per year will pay a penalty of $4,000 per year over what a double income family would pay. A single earner family at $70,000 would actually pay a $14,000 penalty over what a double earner income family would pay. This is clearly unfair.

The Liberals point to the child tax credit, and I have heard this repeatedly over the past few days, as a way to ameliorate the perverse effects of their tax policy. The fact is that the tax credit through means testing reduces any benefits to Canadian families beyond an income of $65,000, actually $67,000. There is no benefit beyond that. In fact the benefit begins to decline at the $25,000 level. For the Liberals to point to the child tax credit as a way to ameliorate or to soften the impact of their perverse tax policies is absolutely false. It is bogus and is not reflective of the realities here.

The fact is that on the lower income levels, eight of the 10 provinces are clawing back the child tax benefits from the social assistance recipients. While the child tax credit purports to benefit Canadian families and Canadian children directly, it does not because at the low income level, eight of the 10 provinces are clawing back the money. Money that was designed to directly impact the lives of Canadian children is being used to support provincial bureaucracies. At the middle income levels it is being clawed back by the federal government so as to not provide that benefit to families that need it.

Ottawa encourages new parents to put their children in day care. We believe that families should be able to make these choices. I think we all know of cases where having both parents working in professional situations particularly is actually advantageous to the children. The parents choose to work and they choose to be self-actualized in a work environment and they choose an appropriate positive day care environment for their children. Everyone wins. There is nothing wrong with that.

Some people argue that it is better for a child to have stay at home parenting. Some recent studies actually demonstrate that either can work, but it depends on the individual family. It is important that individual families and parents can make these choices.

Our party is not advocating a return to some 1950s model of a Ward and June Cleaver family. This is not what we are advocating. We are not purporting to know what is best for Canadian families. But we believe that Canadian families know what is best for them and what is best for their children and that they can make those types of decisions.

The tax system should not encourage, in our opinion, either stay at home parenting or the utilization of a day care system or an alternative system. We should not be encouraging either. We should give Canadians the choice. It would be equally pernicious and counterproductive to have a discriminatory policy against two income families, because in some cases that may be the best alternative.

Our position on this has remained consistent from as far back as August 1996 at our Winnipeg policy conference. I will quote from a document: “A Progressive Conservative government would introduce a joint tax return so that single earner households with dependent children stop paying more tax than dual earner households with equal incomes”. That was in August 1996. “Beyond that, a Progressive Conservative government will introduce a child care tax credit available to parents working inside or outside of the home to replace the present system of day care credits”. We have been consistent on that.

I know the hon. member for Mississauga South has worked assiduously on this issue. “Caring for children is an honourable profession. Parents who make the sacrifices and deliver quality care have earned the right to get support”. That is a quote by the hon. member for Mississauga South who is an expert in this area and has written extensively on it.

Why does the Liberal government not listen to its own members who have devoted so much time, research and effort to this cause and eliminate this discriminatory tax policy that takes choices away from Canadian families and parents? Ultimately it may result in Canadian children not having the best possible start in their lives, particularly in this global knowledge based society where their cognitive skills and brain power are not only going to enrich their own lives but will reflect directly on the future standard of living of Canadians.

This issue currently, and it is argued disproportionately, affects women. Working women with children, for instance some argue, are actually paying an incredible cost because not only are they working hard in the workplace but when they return home, despite the fact that society has evolved somewhat, they are still faced with a disproportionate share of work in the home whether it is with child rearing or other domestic areas. This is fundamentally unfair but it is a fact that women continue to share a significant burden both in the homes and in the workplace.

We have evolved from an agrarian society where men had significant advantages because people made their livings with their hands and brute force, to an industrial society where to a certain extent that may have been reduced but still occurred, to a knowledge based society today. I would argue that in a knowledge based society, women will have significant advantages over men.

On the issue about it disproportionately affecting women, people should recognize that in an evolutionary sense, in the future this will not disproportionately affect either sex. Based on the graduation ceremonies I have been attending over the past several years for grade 12 and also university, women are winning the scholarships and the student council presidencies. They are earning top marks not just in history, arts and English but in maths and sciences. In the future this issue is going to affect all Canadians equally regardless of gender.

Some members opposite may say that this motion is some type of archaic movement by the opposition parties to return Canadian society to the Ward and June Cleaver family model. I would argue that from our party's perspective it is a way of effectively recognizing a societal trend that will benefit all Canadians of either gender. We also believe that we should start treating all Canadians fairly and equally and it should start with the Canadian family. Give Canadian families the opportunity to make the best choices for their children.

Some will choose for both parents to work and for the children to have appropriate care outside the home. Some will choose to stay at home. The best choices can be made closest to the people affected, the children. Those choices can clearly be made best by the families of those children.

Let us get away from this ridiculous Pavlovian tax policy of the government where it believes that it can make the best choices. Let us return the choices to the people who really should have had them from the beginning, the Canadian parents and families for the benefit of Canadian children.

Taxation March 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state probably also said he would abolish the GST when he was in opposition. The fact is that the C. D. Howe Institute has calculated that a two income family with two children will pay $14,000 more in tax than a single earner family in Canada.

If the minister agrees that stay at home parenting is real work, why does he not eliminate his discriminatory tax policy that punishes stay at home parents?

Taxation March 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians were appalled to hear the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions say that two income families are putting in twice the amount of work of single earner families.

If the Minister of Finance genuinely disagrees with the statement yesterday of the Secretary of State or International Financial Institutions that two income families deserve special tax treatment, why does he not give the tax relief that Canadians deserve to all Canadians families?

The Budget February 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He has been spending too much time asking softball questions of ministers opposite, because that is a softball question.

The fact is that he speaks with some level of authority about building deficits. As a Liberal he understands that fully, because under Liberal governments our deficit in Canada grew from zero to $38 billion by the time the previous Conservative government took office in 1984, which was 9% of our GDP. The Conservative government reduced that from 9% to about 5% of GDP by the time it left office. Not only did it start deficit reduction. It also implemented the policies which made it possible for this government to eliminate the deficit.

I would love for the hon. member to explain to the House where he stood on free trade, where he stood on the GST, and where he stood on deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy. Where did he stand on these policies? He probably did not stand anywhere except in opposition to them.

The fact is that he is absolutely right about leadership. Leadership is necessary to address issues. There is no leadership in the government to provide visionary policies that will ensure the next government, which will be a PC government, has the opportunities provided by strong visionary policies by the government now.

The Budget February 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

This government is not interested in making the tax system more progressive. It believes quite strongly in a regressive tax policy.

I need not remind the member of the EI tax, the most regressive tax there is. I mentioned earlier that someone making $39,000 per year will pay the same amount of EI premiums as somebody making $300,000 per year. That is fundamentally unfair.

I would advocate tax reform in Canada that would build a fairer tax system. I would also advocate a flatter tax system. However the most pernicious, offensive and regressive taxes in Canada right now are our payroll taxes and EI premiums which are excessively high because the government is using them to pad its books and make its bottom line look better.

It is important to recognize that while the government is in the black, Canadians, particularly low income Canadians, are in the red.

The Budget February 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his gentle and erudite comments.

The minister said the Liberals are sensitive to the issue of the homeless, which was similar to their treatment in the budget documents. It was kind of a warm, touchy feely way to mention the issue.

On behalf of the homeless I want to thank the government for mentioning the homeless in its budget. That is cold comfort to the homeless. There is a role for the federal government to work with the provinces and to work with the municipalities to develop a real strategy to deal with the homeless.

When I said the government did not address the issue of the homelessness and that it only mentioned it in its budget for political purposes, I was quoting one of the heads of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities who said during an interview last night that it was another level of government that has to deal on the front lines with the homeless.

This is similar to the way the government handles a number of economic issues or social issues. It talks about the homeless but there is no way that the government provides a program to deal with the homeless.

It talks about tax cuts as well. After this budget someone making $39,000 per year will pay more taxes due to rising payroll taxes. This is a government that likes to talk the talk but it seldom walks the walk on important issues like homelessness.

The Budget February 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are profoundly disappointed with this government's budget. This was summed up best in today's

Globe and Mail

editorial: “Poor marks for the finance minister's budget”. It said that he has left the impression of a man more interested in short term political popularity and budget sleight of hand than laying the foundations for a stronger economy in the long run”.

This is a very important time for our country. We are entering the 21st century, a time of global opportunity. The decisions and choices we make today as a country can either limit or reduce the choices we have as Canadians in the next century. We fear that the minister is making the wrong choices.

The Liberal government did not address the fact that Canada currently has the highest personal income taxes of any of the G-7 countries, the highest tax burden of any of the industrialized countries.

The Liberal government did not address the fact that our productivity growth has been the worst in the G-7 over the last two decades. Our incomes, after taxes and inflation, have been declining while our neighbours to the south have enjoyed soaring incomes.

We live in a world with unprecedented change. Globalization and the forces of technology are driving that change.

Governments will be successful in bringing their countries into the new millennium to be full participants in the global economy only if they have the vision and leadership to do so.

Our party believes in the free market system but we also believe that all Canadians deserve an opportunity to participate in that economy. They need access to the levers of the free market economy. Without that we will not have the type of society that Canadians want, a prosperous society, a society where all Canadians have equality of opportunity regardless of where they are from in the country, regardless of the income level or the socioeconomic status of their parents. We want to see all Canadians participate in economic opportunity.

This government really has no meaningful agenda. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have demonstrated no real vision. This is a government on cruise control. It is a caretakership government, a government without real leadership.

This was nowhere more evident than during last summer's dollar debacle when the debate surrounded the dollar and the dollar went to record lows of sub 65 cents. At that time the Prime Minister actually had the economic naivety, I should say audacity perhaps, to say it was good for tourism, implying that somehow the lower dollar could help the Canadian economy, implying that we can devalue our way to prosperity.

The logical corollary of his argument would be that if we reduce the dollar to zero by high taxes and productivity inhibiting policies ultimately we would become the greatest exporting nation in the world.

We all know a country cannot devalue its way to prosperity. To achieve success and prosperity in a global environment requires a country that values productivity, that values its people and their opportunities.

Instead of looking into the next century the Liberals are focused on the next election. The finance minister is focused on the next leadership campaign. Canadians deserve better than this. Economic policies are not short term in nature. They require consistency, a long term focus and they require vision.

Last year when the government even had a vague whiff of a surplus what did it do with that? It took $2.5 billion from Canadians for the millennium scholarship fund, $2.5 billion out of last year's budget, and stocked it away for the future. It took it from Canadians who needed the economic stimulus, who needed the investment in the economy last year and said they could not have it.

That is clearly unacceptable. Not only does it offend the auditor general but it offends Canadians and it offends good economic policy.

We have seen the results of five years of this government. Those results have been a beleaguered health care system, a health care system that is not there when Canadians need it. The tax burden has grown from $112 billion in 1993 to over $150 billion last year under this government.

What we have here is a budget surplus and a leadership deficit. Canadians deserve a full opportunity to succeed. That is the least they deserve. Our leader, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, said recently that sound economic and fiscal policies are the bedrock of any country that wants to function effectively in the modern world and economic growth is the means to achieve all the goals we set for our society.

There are some dire warnings out there about the Canadian economy from organizations like the IMF and the OECD, one of the world's greatest economic think tanks on these types of issues. The OECD, headed by a former Liberal cabinet minister, warned recently that current trends could “lead to a substantial decline in Canada's per capita income relative to the OECD average”.

In short, Canada is falling behind our trading partners, behind other countries, and Canadians will pay the price in the future for a government's lack of vision now and the Liberal government's lack of courage in tackling the real problems facing Canadians and the Canadian economy.

Canadians and our party understand the importance of fiscal responsibility. In 1979 Joe Clark introduced the first fiscally responsible budget of a generation, which was defeated for purely partisan purposes. The last P.C. government reduced the deficit to GDP ratio from 9% when it took office to around 5% when it left office.

The real price to reduce the deficit has been paid by Canadians, Canadians who have seen their health care system slashed, Canadians who have seen $19 billion taken from their health care system, Canadians who have seen taxes rise dramatically from $114 billion to $151 billion, EI premiums kept at a ridiculously high rate and benefits slashed. Only 30% of applicants or those who pay into the system of EI actually qualify when they need it. This is clearly unacceptable.

The Liberals have fought the deficit by charging Canadians more and giving the provinces and Canadians less. They also had some help. The

Economist

said that much of the credit for deficit reduction goes to the passage of time and to successful reforms implemented by the previous government, including free trade, deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy and of course the GST that the Liberals used to be opposed to but now embrace and which the Prime Minister claims on foreign trips to have invented.

Good government will require better choices than this government is making. The previous government gave it the opportunities to make the right choices, because that government had the vision to make the right choices.

In this budget there is no tax relief for Canadians. I think it is very important that point be made clear. What we have is a fiscal shell game and an illusion that there are tax benefits in this budget, but in fact there are not. Cutting taxes and giving more money back to Canadians who have borne the brunt of deficit reduction is not important to this government. Government members feel they have cut the deficit. We see them over there like trained seals during question period applauding their efforts. They feel they cut the deficit. Canadians paid the price for reducing and eliminating the deficit and Canadians deserve a break now.

The Liberals increased the basic personal exemption a little in this budget and they said it will take 200,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. What about the 1.4 million low income Canadians who have been dragged kicking and screaming on to the tax rolls by this government by refusing to reindex tax brackets?

There has been a huge tax grab in the EI fund, $19 billion this government has taken from workers and employers, workers who need that fund during difficult times, seasonal workers. During a transitional period, during a time of immense change, both economically driven and technologically driven, there are regions of our country where people need help to make that type of change. This government has turned its back on regions of this country, including Atlantic Canada. The message was very clear in the last federal election. I would add that the message will be clear in the next federal election as well.

This government is practising a give and take tax policy where it will give some tax breaks through the front door but then through the refusal to reindex tax brackets will take it through the back door.

Bracket creep is costing Canadians around $1 billion per year. This government has not addressed that issue. The budget does not address the brain drain issue, the fact that the tax disparity between Canada and the U.S. remains immense. In Canada one reaches top marginal tax rate at about $65,000. In the U.S. it is around $400,000 Canadian. In Canada the top marginal tax rate, federal and provincial, is about 50%. In the U.S. it is about 40%.

The members opposite will say yes, but things are better here. The fact is things used to be better when we had a decent health care system, when we had a health care system people could rely on. But for the difference in take home pay after taxes, Canadians are discovering they can buy health care in the U.S. when they need it.

The fact is no one in the House or at least in our party advocates a private health care system, because we believe in a single user pay system that works for Canadians and is provided by the government. We believe very strongly in that because all Canadians, regardless of income levels, deserve access to a quality health care system. This government has devastated the health care system and at the same time has continually raised taxes, driving some of our best and brightest south of the border.

The EI premiums are an extraordinarily regressive tax. Payroll taxes are particularly regressive. Someone making $39,000 per year will pay the same amount of EI premiums as someone making $300,000 per year. This is the government's idea of a fair tax policy.

In terms of corporate taxes, in June the Mintz report was tabled to the finance committee. It pointed out some of the disparities between business taxes in Canada and business taxes in the U.S. and our other trading partners. It pointed out that one of the biggest impediments we have to economic growth and productivity in Canada is our tax system and particularly our business tax or corporate tax system. There was not a mention of really addressing the fundamental issues of corporate taxation in the budget.

We will continue to lose foreign investment to other countries because the budget has not addressed the fundamental issues. In time we will continue to see substandard job growth in Canada. The government said unemployment has gone down in recent years. It has gone down in the U.S. as well. In the U.S. the unemployment rate is at the lowest point in 20 years. Canada maintains an unemployment rate double that of the U.S. That is clearly unacceptable.

When we talk about lower taxes it is very easy to not really explain how important it is to the lives of average Canadians. We advocate tax reduction for three reasons.

Canadians need a break. Canadians have seen their disposable incomes decline by 9% in recent years. During the same period U.S. disposable incomes increased by 11%. Canadians need jobs and opportunities. In every jurisdiction high taxes kill jobs. In a global environment it is not possible to maintain an artificially high tax rate. We need to ensure that our tax system is competitive and thus Canadians can be competitive in the global environment.

Job creation has been led by Ontario and Alberta. Why? The governments in Ontario and Alberta have recognized that lower taxes create economic opportunity and jobs. By lowering taxes in Ontario the Harris government has actually taken in more tax revenues. It is imperative that the government learn from some of its more rational provinces in terms of appropriate tax systems.

What was really cynical in this budget is it mentioned the homeless but there was not one single initiative for the homeless. How dare the Minister of Finance mention the homeless but not provide one single initiative to help the homeless.

The budget may talk about poverty, and it is a major issue. One in five Canadian children is living in poverty. We had a debate in the House sponsored by our party on the issue of poverty. Why are children living in poverty? Their parents are living in poverty. We have slashed access to EI benefits for seasonal workers in regions like Atlantic Canada without providing anything in the wake of those draconian slashes. We have maintained artificially high taxes which have inhibited job growth. More Canadians need jobs.

The parents of these children who are living in poverty want to work. They want opportunities to compete and to succeed. The best way to ensure this is to reduce the tax burden on all Canadians to create economic growth and opportunity such that these people can participate in the economy.

In my riding there are many constituents with families living on less than $10,000 per year.

Members opposite have dismissed poverty as something that really is not there or they have said that we should change the way we measure poverty because the way we currently measure living in poverty in Canada is statistically incorrect. I heard a member of the Reform Party compare poverty in Canada to third world poverty by saying there may be some Canadians who are starving but not many.

In my Canada and our party's Canada it is unacceptable that any Canadian is starving or that any child is living in poverty. The only way we are going to change that is to recognize that we need to attach the hands of Canadians to the levers of economic growth, get this government of high taxes and high regulation out of the way and provide Canadians with the opportunity to compete and succeed.

This was supposed to be the health care budget. The last budget was the education budget. I forgot that for a moment because the results of the last budget, being an education budget, were fairly nebulous. There was a $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund taken out of last year's books. Of course it will not benefit any Canadian until after the year 2000, even then it will only benefit only 4% of students seeking higher education.

Interestingly enough, the year after the Liberals' education budget, 12,000 graduates have declared bankruptcy. I shudder to think what will happen after the health care budget but it cannot be any worse than what the Liberals have done before.

The minister expects to be commended for an $11.5 billion reinvestment in health care, which will only bring health care spending up by the year 2004 to the 1995 level. That ignores the $3 billion yearly growth in the cost of health care due to inflation and an aging population. That would be like thanking an arsonist for burning down your house and then rebuilding a smaller one on the same site eight years later. This is ludicrous.

The way the Liberals are spending on health care, they have cut indiscriminately since 1993 and now they are preparing to spend indiscriminately. Nowhere in the budget was there mention of engaging the volunteer sector to better maximize the health care spending of organizations like the VON which have served Canadians well in the past and will continue to do so in the future with very little help from this government. What is the strategy to address the fundamental issues of pharmacare and home care? What about palliative care with an aging population? Where is the strategy for developing a real program working with the provinces to provide not just a more expensive health care system but a better health care system?

We will be addressing issues in the budget debate over the next several days. This budget has clearly not dealt with some of the fundamental issues in the Canadian economy and health care system. On the economic front this government has not set firm debt reduction targets. Again the government is ducking the real issues.

I remind the Minister of Finance who recently said the economy is clicking on all cylinders that the economy continues to sputter for many Canadians and that we want to see the economy firing on all cylinders. The minister talks about the government's strong fundamentals. John Kenneth Galbraith, Canadian ex-patriot and economist, once said beware of governments that say their fundamentals are strong. That is very appropriate for this government.

Let us look at the fundamentals. We have an unemployment rate twice that of the U.S. We have record high rates of personal bankruptcy, a negative savings rate, the highest personal debt rates ever. The IMF and the OECD are saying cut taxes. Brain drain is taking our best and brightest. The economy is not clicking on all cylinders and we want to see it click on all cylinders for all Canadians.

The Budget February 17th, 1999

Now that the minister is saying he has eliminated the 3% surtax, another deficit reduction measure, why does he not reindex tax brackets now to ensure that Canadians can actually get a tax break when he forgets to give one?

The fact is that this minister has used the GST, has used free trade and has used the 3% surtax to do what they were intended to do, to pay down the deficit, but the deficit is paid off. Now will the minister give Canadians the real tax—

The Budget February 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister mentioned the origins of deindexing tax brackets. That was a deficit reduction measure similar to the GST, similar to free trade. The minister is not backing away from those—