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

The Budget February 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the truth hurts, obviously. Members opposite know that Canadians will continue to pay the highest tax in the G-7 because their government continues to refuse to provide the type of meaningful tax relief that Canadians need.

Canadians need this tax relief now, not tomorrow. Due to high payroll taxes and bracket creep Canadians will actually pay more after this budget than they did before.

Why is the minister practising give and take economics: giving Canadians some tax breaks through the front door but taking them due to bracket creep through the back door?

The Budget February 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, last year Canadians paid the highest taxes in the G-7. Do you know what? After this year's budget they will still pay the highest taxes in the G-7. Canadians have a negative—

Taxation February 15th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the secretary of state should explain why the unemployment rate in Canada is twice that of the U.S. Maybe he should explain why his government has increased taxes every single year since 1993.

The fact is the Liberals give tax relief through the front door and then they take it through the back door due to bracket creep.

Will the government provide meaningful tax relief tomorrow and reindex the tax brackets, or will this be another give and take budget where it gives the tax relief in the front door and takes it from Canadians through the back door?

Taxation February 15th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, Canadians pay the highest income tax in the industrialized world. The Liberals say there was personal income tax relief in last year's budget but the numbers do not add up. Their 1998 budget projections show an increase in personal income tax revenues of $2.6 billion and a further increase of $2.5 billion for this year. So why are the Liberals talking tax cuts and doing tax grabs?

The Economy February 12th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I should expect no more than that from a minister who once said that high taxes help productivity. Even a former senior Liberal cabinet minister, Mr. Don Johnston, now head of the OECD, says that our taxes are too high.

Francesco Bellini, CEO of BiochemPharma, once the star of Canada's pharmaceutical industry, blames high taxes for his company's move to the U.S.

Will the government provide meaningful tax relief in next week's budget and will it reindex tax brackets so that it is not taking from the back door through bracket creep what it is pretending to give through the front door?

The Economy February 12th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the government's dirty little secret is out. A recent headline in the Wall Street Journal read that low productivity clouds Canada's competitiveness and living standards.

The article cited a recent OECD report which said that high taxes and regulation are reducing Canada's ability to compete. The OECD predicts that in 20 years, due to high taxes and regulation, Canada's per capital GDP will drop to 15% below the OECD average.

Does the industry minister agree with what the OECD has said about Canada's productivity and dropping living standards?

Supply February 11th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his softball question. I feel like we are on the other side of the House now and he is a backbencher asking a question to try to make us look good.

The member is right to point out the consistency in our position since before the last federal election. What a stark contrast to his party's position. They change positions more often than in the Kama Sutra . This year raising it would cost $1.8 billion. Next year raising it to $8,500 will be another $2.5 billion. The following year would be $3.75 billion to raise it to the full $10,000. I was happy to be given the opportunity to answer his question unequivocally. The money would come from the economic growth that is available to Canadians. It would also come from the fact that we do have a projected surplus this year that will be quite significant. It will not come from more boondoggle spending programs, the Mother Hubbard ones he has referred to, that will benefit no Canadians today and few Canadians tomorrow.

Supply February 11th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The hon. member always has erudite interventions in the House and has been consistent with his intervention today.

He points out something very interesting, that the Liberal government has betrayed the basic principles that the Liberal Party of Canada based itself on for so long, social justice, equality, recognizing that all Canadians deserve to succeed in this great country of ours.

I was at a conference a couple of weeks ago, the international democratic council meeting. It was centre-right parties around the world and we were talking about different policies. They asked to describe the difference between a political leader and a politician. What we came up with after some discussion is that a politician is someone who does what is necessary to get re-elected. A political leader is someone who does something that is right for the people they represent.

On the other side of the House we have a lot of politicians but we do not have any political leaders.

Supply February 11th, 1999

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak to this very important opposition day motion.

The issue of poverty is one that touches each and every one of us as members of parliament, as parliamentarians and as Canadians. One of the things we value and on which we pride ourselves in Canada is equality of opportunity, not necessarily quality of outcome which cannot be guaranteed by government. There is no area of government that is more important if we are serious about dealing with equality of opportunity than to ensure that children in Canada are not living in poverty.

One in five children is living in poverty. The government likes to say the fundamentals are strong. That is one of the fundamentals, that one in five children are living in poverty. That is absolutely atrocious. It is unacceptable in a country like Canada.

The personal debt rates in Canada are an unprecedented high. Personal bankruptcy last year set record highs. We have never had as many people declare bankruptcy as have declared bankruptcy last year. Personal disposable income has dropped 7% over the past six years.

John Kenneth Galbraith, an ex-patriate Canadian economist, once said beware of governments who say their fundamentals are strong. That is extremely appropriate for the government. Despite its assertions, its fundamentals are not strong for the average Canadian and most egregiously for the poorest of Canadians who are not doing well under the government.

One of the most regressive and pernicious taxes on the poor in Canada is EI premiums. The EI premiums are the most regressive form of taxation that we now have in Canada. Someone making $39,000 per year is paying the same amount of EI premiums as someone who is making $300,000 per year. Yet when a lower income Canadian needs employment insurance less than 35% are now qualifying. This is scandalous. The government is effectively doing the reverse Robin Hood theory. It is taking from the poor and redistributing to everybody else. This is absolutely, fundamentally unfair.

Our party believes that equity for all Canadians, starting with the poorest of Canadians, is more important than padding the books of the federal government. We believe that a Canadian making less than $10,000 should not be paying income tax. We believe very strongly in those principles.

The issue of equity and the issue of doing the right thing are only possible when governments have economic growth to make it happen. I do not have to remind anybody in the House, particularly not the Liberals who at one time opposed these initiatives, that the fundamental structural changes made by the previous PC government, including free trade, the elimination of the counterproductive manufacturers sales tax, the deregulation of the financial services industries, the transportation sector and energy, were the cornerstones that provided any opportunity for economic growth to eliminate the deficit over the past several years. It was those basic changes that provided the strength for the Canadian economy to grow today.

A Conservative government, having recognized the need for those changes then, implemented them. The Conservative government had a vision for Canada that would provide economic growth and opportunity to all Canadians. We did not anticipate that there would be a government in Canada which would take advantage of the changes it previously opposed when it was politically convenient. It took that money and failed to deliver the equity to Canadians that we value as a cornerstone of Canadian social policy.

Members opposite have argued today that increasing the basic personal exemption would not be a good idea. Then I heard a member make the ludicrous argument that increasing it by $500 was a good idea because it would take 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls, but increasing it to $10,000 which would eliminate two million people from the tax rolls was a bad idea. I would have thought the logical corollary of his argument would have been that if we further increased the basic personal exemption to $10,000 it would be even better. Somehow this is Liberal economic logic or lack thereof.

I am very concerned about the trends of the government in terms of accountability relative to spending programs. There is the issue of the millennium scholarship fund. There is not a member of the House today who would not agree that investment in higher education is an important activity and an important initiative that needs to continue if we are to ensure that Canadians can compete in the 21st century. The structure the government chooses to engage in these types of programs is absolutely ludicrous.

In the last federal budget the government took $2.5 billion out of the federal treasury and away from Canadians for a millennium scholarship fund that will not help any Canadian until after the year 2000. Even then it will only benefit 4% of students seeking higher education. It is the Mother Hubbard theory on spending. Stock the government's cupboard for the time being. It is fancy book work. It is the type of accounting principle that offends the auditor general. It is the type of social policy that offends right headed Canadians because they know that if the money is stocked away in some type of self-gratifying government program for the future, it cannot benefit Canadians when they need it. Canadians need help today and the poorest of Canadians need help today.

We believe very strongly that at this time we should be increasing the basic personal exemption significantly to reduce the disincentives for Canadians at lower income brackets to participate in the workforce and to provide more money in their pockets. We also believe very strongly that at this point it is not just appropriate but right to eliminate bracket creep and to reindex the tax brackets.

There are members opposite who say the previous Conservative government was the party that implemented deindexation back in 1984. At that time that initiative, as were other tax initiatives, was implemented to eliminate the deficit. Given that some of those initiatives have obviously worked and we have eliminated the deficit, now is the time to recognize the role Canadians have played in eliminating that deficit and giving them some money back in their own pockets.

One million, four-hundred thousand low income Canadians have been dragged kicking and screaming on to the tax rolls since 1993 by bracket creep. This has to stop. It is fundamentally unfair and we are calling for the government to fully index tax brackets.

Next week will be the week of the federal budget. We have our alternative program and I just want to share with members and Canadians that a single earner making $20,000 per year will save $694 with our tax relief versus a Canadian making $20,000 with the current Liberal plan.

Last year the Liberals said they were giving tax breaks to low income earners. The fact is someone making $10,000 per year, according to the government's own figures, would only receive a benefit of $80 per year. That is a pittance. It is an insult. That is one cup of coffee per week at Tim Horton's, one per month at Starbucks. That is clearly unacceptable.

This government does not get it. It is out of touch with reality. It is out of touch with Canadians and very soon after the next election it will be out of touch with power.

The Economy February 11th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, that was the long answer. The short answer is zero. Not one red cent of that $2.5 billion taken from Canadians was reinvested in Canadians this year. Will the minister stop playing Mother Hubbard with Canadians' money? Will he reduce taxes for low income Canadians next week by fully reindexing tax brackets and by raising the basic personal exemption to $10,000?

I ask the secretary of state not to say that he cannot comment on the budget because everybody knows that the minister has been leaking like a sieve.