SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 334 - Jun/18/24

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Jun/18/24 6:24:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member once again gave us a lot to think about. It is interesting, because we often do not hear about some of the history and what decisions different governments made. What I find interesting is that he brought up the late Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, because it definitely demonstrates really what a Progressive Conservative government is like versus what the neo-con Reform-Conservative government is like. What I also found interesting was that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney brought forward the GST and that it was Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government that lowered it by 2%. How it tried to recoup that was by making seniors work two extra years. The same people, seniors who have built the foundation of our country and have given so much, were told by Conservatives that they were going to have to work harder, for two extra years, so the Conservatives could lower the GST for everyone, which is a consumption tax. My question really involves what the member believes is the vision of the Conservative Party, which today is against increasing capital gains on the wealthiest 1% of Canadians, yet whose history demonstrates it had no problem increasing taxes or having some of the most vulnerable in our communities contribute more, whether they were youth or seniors. I would love to hear the member's comments on that.

229 words

Context: House Hansard - 334 - Jun/18/24

Mr. Don Davies

Jun/18/24 6:25:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to that question. I would say to Canadians that this is not their fathers' Conservative Party, but a mean-spirited, fact-free, Donald Trump-influenced party that has reduced politics to slogans. I call it “nursery rhyme politics” or “bumper sticker politics”, where Conservatives take complex, serious issues in this country and reduce them to a jingle. That is not going to work. I think the Mulroney government may have had different policy ideas than my party, but it was serious about the issues of the day, which is why it increased the capital gains inclusion rate in this country. I have not heard my Conservative colleagues say a word about that. They look down at their shoes as soon as I raise the issue, because they cannot explain why their party raised the capital gains inclusion rate. Of course, the reason it did that back then was that in the 1980s, I think all parties in the House were concerned about tax fairness because we paid attention to the Carter commission and the facts as established by a royal commission; we were not whipping up division and making up false numbers that do not make any sense. However, Canadians know the answer; most Canadians know that they are not going to be selling buildings and making capital gains over a quarter of a million dollars every year, like the Conservative colleagues' wealthy benefactors do, so we will know which party will support good tax policy in this country.

259 words

Mulroney

Context: House Hansard - 334 - Jun/18/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/18/24 7:06:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question is on the capital gains tax. I am wondering if my colleague from across the way could explain to Canadians why, when the Liberal government makes the decision to have a fairer sense of taxation, the Conservative-Reform party say no, it is a bad idea, yet Brian Mulroney, the former Progressive Conservative prime minister, not only raised it but raised it to a higher level than we are raising it. If the Conservative Party today is arguing that it is going to cause so many problems, what does it think happened when Brian Mulroney, the then Progressive Conservative prime minister, raised it? There seems to be a double standard, and maybe there is not a double standard. Maybe it is because it is really and truly a Conservative-Reform party being given direction from the far right.

142 words