Ziad Aboultaif

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 3rd, 2017]

With regard to the commitment on Page 80 of the Liberal Party’s election platform related to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the “tax gap”: (a) what is the current tax gap level in Canada; (b) when will the CRA be publically releasing the full statistics relating to the annual tax evasion and the tax gap levels; (c) has the CRA provided the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the information required so that he can do an analysis on tax gap levels and, if so, on what date was the information provided; and (d) does the government have any annual goals or timelines for reducing the tax gap levels and, if so, what are the goals for each of the next five years?

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, again, I will go back to economics 101. We need to lower taxes on the job creators. That is exactly what happened. That is not only on large businesses but also on small businesses. We are the pro-small-business party. That is what we believe in.

I am a small business owner. I am not sure about the hon. member. We created 1.1 million full-time jobs for Canada's economy. That reduction in the business tax helped us create jobs and bring more money into the economy. That is a smart measure. That is a smart step to take in doing business anywhere, and we are very proud of our record.

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, bad memories or good memories, the one thing the government needs to remember, the one lesson in economics 101, is not to borrow money one cannot pay back. Do not spend what one does not have, and look after Canadians before looking outside Canada. That is the best recipe to control spending and balance budgets and to keep the economy in the right place at the right time.

What the government is doing now is the opposite of all the good things we learn in our memories in our classrooms in school. That is my message to the government, and that is my answer to the hon. member.

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, last fall I travelled with the Standing Committee on Finance across the country as part of the pre-budget consultations. We heard from academics and business leaders, from farmers and trade unions, and from students and senior citizens. One thing they had in common was a concern about the direction of Canada's finances.

When the previous Conservative government left office, the nation's budget was balanced. We had come out of a difficult recession, when the government had been compelled to put billions of dollars into economic stimulus measures. That sort of spending was no longer necessary in 2015. The Conservative government had the economy in good shape. We had weathered the recession, and Canada had been praised internationally for the soundness of its banking system and the economic policies of its government.

What a difference 18 months can make. Now we have a government that has not a clue about fiscal management, led by a Prime Minister who believes, in some magical way, that budgets balance themselves. If he truly believes that, then we can expect no new taxes when the Minister of Finance rises in the House of Commons tomorrow to table his new budget. Canadians who are already struggling as the government has increased the tax burden on the middle class will have nothing to fear. There will be no carbon tax on seniors and students. By the way, that carbon tax is raising the price of almost everything Canadians do or touch.

Those of us who live in the real world know better. We know that the current government has a spending problem and not a revenue problem. There is not a trendy program at home or internationally that is not supported by the current government with huge chunks of taxpayer dollars. No one on the government side ever asks if Canada can afford this reckless spending. No one on the government side asks how the endless borrowing will be repaid. The Liberals expect the Conservatives to clean up after their fiscal mess when we win the next election in 2019.

Will the Minister of Finance admit to this House that the problem is not one of inadequate government revenues? They can ask anyone, as I had the opportunity to do as the finance committee travelled the country. People will tell them that taxes are already too high and that the government wastes the money it receives. Will the minister commit to not raising taxes on hard-working Canadians until he is able to get his fiscal house in order? Can the minister tell this House when he expects he will be able to bring government spending under control and balance the budget, or will he continue to pretend that borrowed money never has to be paid back? How can the government promote thrift and savings to Canadian citizens, when it refuses to lead by example. Where is the credibility in that?

Before the people of Edmonton Manning asked me to represent them in this House, I was a business owner, an entrepreneur. I can read a balance sheet. I understand about profit and loss. I know about the need for a return on investment if a business is to be successful. In the early years of a business, as a company is getting established, it is not surprising if operating costs are high and the business does not turn a profit. There are capital expenditures up front, perhaps, or extra personnel costs in launching a new venture, but after a few years, if the business is well run, it starts to turn a profit, and that profit makes up for losses in the early years.

Government is not the same thing as a business. There is no profit and loss in serving the public, but some of the principles are the same and are supposed to be the same. A business that is always in the red does not stay in business very long.

When we always have to borrow money to stay afloat, it is a sure sign of bad management, and eventually no one will loan us any more money and we will have to shut down.

When a government runs deficit after deficit, always borrowing money to pay for its spending, the cost of borrowing goes up each year. Eventually lenders are unwilling to extend any more credit unless there is a plan to repay the money, not just a theoretical plan but something the government is actually required to stick to.

Those people who lend money, especially the major international lenders who deal in the billions, know very well that budgets do not balance themselves. Someone has to take charge and reduce spending. Will the Minister of Finance be the person who says, “Enough”, to fiscal insanity, to deficits three times their election promises? I really hope so, but given his track record and the track record of his party, I am not very optimistic.

I am the proud father of two sons, young men just beginning to make their place in the world. I know how difficult it can be to get established in the workforce. At times it seems like employers want to hire young people only if they have 20 years' experience. It is tough to get started in a career in this world.

When the minister presents his budget tomorrow, I hope he takes that into account. Canada has an abundance of smart, educated young people who are unemployed and underemployed, through no fault of their own. The job market is tough, especially as businesses are reluctant to expand because of the ever-increasing tax burden they face. No one is tougher than Canada's youth. Whether they have just finished their education or are taking time off school to save money for it, young Canadians are having difficulty finding meaningful work.

Given such a situation, one would expect the government to address the youth unemployment crisis, to take immediate measures to encourage companies to hire young Canadians. This is the sort of thing we would expect governments to do, one of those areas where profit and loss are not measured the same way they would be in a business. Money spent on such a program would have long-term benefits for the health of the country. It would provide young Canadians with that all-important first job in their chosen field.

I would not be surprised if the Minister of Finance includes something like that in his budget. It would be the right thing to do. People would praise him and the government for their actions.

What he will not tell young Canadians, what they will have to figure out for themselves, is that he is merely loaning them this money to get them started. The government, due to reckless spending decisions already made, does not have the money to support our youth. If it wants to do anything to deal with youth unemployment, it will have to borrow the cash. It will use that money with no plan for how to pay back. It will be left to future generations, those just starting in the workforce now and those yet to come, to pay this bill, plus interest. So it is with anything this government does. We do not need to pay now, but we will pay later, much later and much more, once we add all the compound interest.

It would be nice to see fiscal sanity return to this House when the minister tables his budget. Is that too much to hope for?

[Taxation, March 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is tax time again in Canada. Millions of people are filling out forms and discovering just how much they owe the federal government or just how much the government owes them. They are looking back at 2016 but, in this House, we are looking at the 2017 taxation year, and it is not pretty. Reckless Liberal spending, record deficits, and an ever-increasing national debt means that it is indeed a tax increase in this coming year once again.

Soon the finance minister will table a new budget and Canadians will discover just how much they will have to pay for the spendthrift actions of people who still believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny and that budgets balance themselves.

If I thought it would do any good, I would call on the finance minister to stop this fiscal insanity.

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, if the government is suggesting a restructuring of the taxation system in Canada, it is welcome to do that. It is in power and can probably deal with it, if it has something to come forward with.

Why is the government only agreeing with the motion in principle? I am not sure if this is a signal that government members will be coming forward and proposing amendments to the motion.

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this House who would want any money to be lost, caused by our taxation system and the way we do things.

As I said earlier, when people negotiate in business, they get what they negotiate. People do not always get what they deserve, they get what they negotiate in life. That is something we all know.

We all support keeping money and getting the best out of our dollars, and making sure taxpayers are protected. On the other hand, my problem with the motion presented is that it is really lacking concrete details. We need to speak about that and be sure that we have concrete ground to stand on in order to be able to understand it and tell Canadian taxpayers, Canadians at large, what we are saying, and be able to explain it fairly and in a good way.

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, no one stands more firmly against tax evasion than the Conservative Party of Canada. We believe all taxpayers should pay what they owe in taxes, and there should be no special treatment.

The Conservative Party believes in keeping taxes low for all Canadians, but we also believe in ensuring that all corporations and individuals pay their fair share of tax. We are committed to lower taxes for all Canadians, not just a select few.

The previous Conservative government had a strong record of standing up to international tax avoidance. To enhance the integrity of the tax system, the Conservatives created the stop international tax evasion program, aimed at reducing international tax evasion and avoidance. We remain committed to addressing the issue of international tax evasion and avoidance and will continue to advocate for Canadian taxpayers.

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper, the government moved aggressively to close more than 85 tax loopholes, which saved the government and the taxpayers of Canada billions of dollars annually. However, I do have some concerns about the motion, which does not seem to take into account the structure of our tax system.

I think that it is offensive to Canadian taxpayers to suggest that those who take advantage of legitimate deductions and exemptions should be lumped in with those who are evading taxes by hiding money offshore. Certainly, those people who are able to claim, for example, the children's fitness tax credit or the arts tax credit, which were cancelled by the current government, were only trying to do what was best for their families. They used the deductions allowed them by law. I can only conclude that the hon. member who sponsored this motion does not understand that tax deductions are available to all Canadians. They are part of making the taxation system fair for all. They are not something offered to benefit the ultra wealthy.

No one disputes that tax evasion is a problem, whether it is $7 billion annually or $70 billion, but the hon. member cannot say for certain, as the number is only an educated guess. However, it is important to remember that we in the House are responsible for the laws and regulations of the taxation system. If there are loopholes, deductions, and exemptions, we have only ourselves to blame. It is not fair to blame the taxpayer for taking advantage of what they are legally entitled to, and I stress the word “legally” in this matter.

By all means, we should prosecute those who are breaking the law by avoiding paying taxes. However, given the spending habits of the current government, I applaud those who use legal means to keep money in their own pockets rather than hand it over to a pack of fiscally irresponsible spendthrifts who do not seem to understand that tax money is not theirs but given to them by Canadians in trust. Taxpayers expect and deserve wise stewardship from politicians, not $800,000 office renovations. No wonder people resent having to pay taxes when they see things like that happening.

The motion calls on the government to address tax measures that primarily benefit the wealthy, which seems reasonable enough. After all, we all know who the wealthy are. They are anyone who has more money than I do. That they may have earned their money through hard work and innovation would seem to be irrelevant. It is assumed by some that those they consider wealthy should be paying more, even though we talk about treating all taxpayers fairly and equally.

Perhaps a case can be made that those who have more should pay more, but I do not see the case being made in this motion. Indeed, we already have different tax brackets in Canada. The wealthy are already paying more. Therefore, exactly what measures does the motion address? We are left to speculate.

The government is also told that it should take aggressive action to tackle tax havens. The how and why is left to the imagination. I believe that if we have a fair taxation system, there will not be the same incentive there is now for those who know how to shelter their money offshore. When people do not believe the taxation system is fair, when people do not believe the government spends tax revenue wisely, it is very tempting to look for ways to keep their money out of the hands of the taxman. What we need is a government that understands that budgets do not balance themselves, a government that does not pile things like a carbon tax on hard-working Canadians.

The motion calls on the government to tighten rules for shell companies. Once again, there is no definition to be found here. It is assumed we are in agreement that shell companies need additional rules and regulations, but there is no rationale set forth in the motion. We have to take the hon. member's word that this is a problem. I do not see any suggestion of illegality here, just a call for something to be done.

The government is also told to renegotiate tax treaties that let companies repatriate profits from tax havens to Canada tax-free.

I do not think I was in the House when those treaties were approved by Parliament, but I cannot say for certain as the motion does not say which treaties should be renegotiated. I can only assume the government is supposed to know these things, perhaps through mind reading. Nor do I know why the treaties were negotiated to allow tax-free profit taking. There was probably a good reason at that time. The House can of course change its mind if it feels a mistake was made in the past.

What I do know is that renegotiating treaties carries certain risks. There has been a lot of publicity recently about politicians who want to renegotiate certain treaties. The implication is that there are winners in such negotiations and there are losers. There is not always equal treatment. If we ask to reopen a treaty, while Canada may have a certain goal in mind, that goal may not be shared by the other country or countries. We might find, after renegotiation, that there is less benefit to Canada than there is now. However, I am only speculating as there are no details here. We are just supposed to know what the bad deals are.

I understand why people are in favour of dropping the penalty-free amnesty deals for people suspected of tax evasion. Canadians are naturally upset when they hear someone has managed to avoid being penalized for tax evasion. It does not seem fair somehow. I suspect the hon. member who brought this motion forward had a particular highly-publicized case in mind.

The Canada Revenue Agency operates independently, free of political interference. This sounds to me like we politicians are trying to tell it how to do its job, when we may not know the details of what and why it does something.

As I understand it, the lack of prosecution in recently publicized cases was not a matter of special treatment, but standard procedure when people come forward and voluntarily disclose that they may owe money that was previously undeclared. To encourage such disclosure, the CRA waives penalties. That was not the case with CRA auditors finding wrongdoing. The money might never have been collected if the individuals had not come forward. The CRA might never have realized what it was owed. Therefore, while the idea of amnesty is offensive to hard-working Canadians who pay their taxes in full and on time, there are those who can make a credible case to defend the process. Removing voluntary disclosure, which seems to me to be what is being asked here, could conceivably lead to less tax being collected, not more.

It would be far better to call on the government to bring in a fair and reasonable tax system, but that is as likely as the Minister of Finance bringing in a balanced budget.

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the motion called for, “ending penalty-free amnesty deals for individuals suspected of tax evasion”. Will the government support this part of the motion or not?

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the motion calls for renegotiating tax treaties. Would the hon. member be able to tell us which treaties he is referring to in the motion?