Finance Committee on June 18th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 150 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on Thursday, June 13, 2024, the committee is meeting to discuss the changes to capital gains and corresponding measures announced in budget 2024.

Before we begin, I'd like to ask all members and other participants in the room to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

Please take note of the following preventative measures that are in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Only use a black, approved earpiece. The former gray earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you're not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to Standing Order 15.1.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informing the committee that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting and are ready to go.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking orders best we can. We appreciate your understanding in this regard.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I'd like to now welcome our witnesses. We do have a full house. We have six witnesses before us.

We are hearing from Professor Luc Godbout, chair in taxation and public finance at the Université de Sherbrooke, who is appearing as an individual.

As an individual, we have Larry Stefanec, plumber and business owner.

From the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Bea Bruske, president. Joining President Bruske, we have senior economist D.T. Cochrane.

From Canadians for Tax Fairness, we have researcher and policy analyst Silas Xuereb.

From Centre for Future Work, we have economist, director and no stranger to this committee, Jim Stanford, joining us.

From the Wheat Growers Association, we have its president, Gunter Jochum.

Now we are going to hear from the individuals. We're going to start with Professor Godbout, please, for five minutes.

[Prof. Luc Godbout, Professor, Chaire en fiscalité et en finances publiques, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual]

Good morning, everyone. I'll be quick.

The increase in the capital gains inclusion rate announced in budget 2024 will take effect next week. For individuals, there is a $250,000 threshold before the change applies. For corporations and trusts, the increase in the inclusion rate to 66.67% will apply on the first dollar of realized capital gains.

The question for me is not so much whether capital gains taxation reform is relevant. I believe that, in the long run, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and that the implementation of the reform must be encouraged. That said, I would like to take a step back with you to better assess the situation.

This is not the first time changes have been made to the capital gains inclusion rate, nor is it the first time such changes have taken place during the year. How have these changes been made in the past? Without going too far back, I would remind you that, in 1971, we still had six months between the introduction of the bill that led to the taxation of capital gains and its implementation on January 1, 1972. When the inclusion rate changed in 1988, it was announced six months in advance when a white paper on tax reform was tabled, but it took two weeks for the tax change to come into effect so that a notice of a ways and means motion could be tabled. In addition, the bill was introduced after the change came into effect.

That is somewhat similar to the current situation. Obviously, from a good practice perspective, it would have been desirable for the legislation relating to the changes to be made available to practitioners as early as the April 2024 budget. It would have made their jobs a lot easier and, above all, it would have helped taxpayers better plan their affairs. Even today, some taxpayers are struggling to understand the changes and get advice, as tax practitioners are currently overwhelmed.

That said, I have identified four areas of concern that I would like to discuss with you. Obviously, since the notice of a ways and means motion was tabled only last week, other issues will surely come up later.

The first concern is flexibility. It would be possible to give taxpayers the choice of realizing capital gains on paper before June 25, with no real disposition—that is, through a deemed disposition. I made that proposal, which was also made by the Joint Canadian Bar Association/Canadian Professional Accountants of Canada Taxation Committee.

Some will say that today, June 18, is too late to give such a choice to taxpayers. I disagree because it's never too late to do the right thing. Providing such a choice would give taxpayers time to see if it would be in their interest to trigger a capital gain before the change comes into effect. This choice would be transmitted at the same time as the tax return—in other words, in early 2025. So people would have more time to incorporate the change and it wouldn't fundamentally change the new rules, which would still come into effect after June 25. Therefore, providing such a choice would have the advantage of avoiding hasty actions. It would also give taxpayers a fairer chance. Some assets may be more difficult to dispose of than others before June 25. Selling shares on the stock market is easy to do, but selling a building is not as easy. So I think providing that choice would be advantageous.

The second issue of concern is the unintended retroactive effect that emerges from the analysis of the notice of a ways and means motion. I have consulted tax experts who are members of the Association de planification fiscale et financière and work in Quebec. Because of the way the motion is written, transactions in capital dividend accounts, such as a dividend paid, done in January, before June 25, or even before the budget was presented, could be impacted. The way the year of that June 25 is taken into account could apply to a capital dividend account. I think it is undesirable and I think it is even unwanted. I hope that the next version of the bill will eliminate that element.

My third concern stems from the fact that this is the first time that a $250,000 protection has been granted to individuals. There will no longer be a perfect symmetry between the taxation of capital gains for individuals and for corporations. This creates a problem of overtaxation, when an attempt is being made to be neutral with regard to corporate and personal revenues. I am not saying that companies should be offered $250,000 in protection as well, but I would point out that this leads to a bigger over-integration problem after June 25.

In closing, since time is running out, I will address one last point. The $250,000 in protection provided to individuals should be indexed. If the tax schedule is indexed and the lifetime capital gains exemption is indexed, the $250,000 amount should be indexed for subsequent years.

With that, I thank you for your attention, and I remain at your disposal for questions and discussions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Professor Godbout.

As an individual, we have Mr. Stefanec, please.

[Larry Stefanec, Plumber/Business Owner, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Larry Stefanec. I'm 50 years of age and work as a plumber and a business owner in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Thanks for allowing me to be a witness at this committee.

I do not reside in a Liberal riding currently. However, I did reach out to the elected Liberals in Manitoba and my elected MP, Marty Morantz. Marty returned my call and although he did not promise I would be a witness, he directed me to this forum to share my thoughts.

Thanks very much. It was nice meeting you, Marty.

I see that Terry Duguid is online, which is great because he's a Manitoba Liberal. Hopefully, I can talk to him sometime after this meeting.

I'm having a hard time understanding why the current capital gains tax is being increased. I started my career in 1992 at the age of 19 as an apprentice plumber working in B.C. I was a journeyperson by 1996. I continued to work and evolved into a supervisor and a manager of a large company until relocating to Manitoba in 2003. Once in Winnipeg, I found employment at a small, six-person service company that I ended up purchasing in 2010.

Since then, we have slowly grown and currently employ and support 20 people and their families.

Being a worker in the private sector all my life, I soon realized two main things. The harder I work, the better future I would have. Nobody is helping me and my family, so I'd better figure out things for myself, including savings and investments.

Part of this future pension investment, by design, was to look at the current tax implications in order for me to be financially safe into my retirement. This was not without risk. I had to purchase a business, hire employees, manage my finances and balance a family.

I have been lucky enough to align myself with professionals smarter than me to design a structure of investment so I can create my own pension plan. I understand that we all have to pay our share. I could live with a 50% capital gain structure, but now I hear it's going up to 66%, for no reason other than the government needs more money. I'm just a regular, everyday person who happens to be a plumber running a business and trying to live a good life. Why am I being penalized for hard work?

I just do not understand how the current Liberal government got so out of touch with the people. I sit as a board member on the Mechanical Contractors Association of Manitoba. I also belong to a local entrepreneurs group. There's chat around the table. Why can't the government realize that we're not rich people? I'm a small, hard-working business owner just living next door.

I have to ask the question to myself, why did I work so hard? Why did I risk it all to buy a business? Why didn't I stay a worker, sole proprietor? That way I would be somehow treated differently. What would be the incentive going forward to the younger generation?

If I was a coach or a mentor to a younger, up-and-coming generation, I would have to say to them to work harder and you can pay more taxes because the government isn't smart enough to make things more efficient, trim waste and self-innovate. You should look elsewhere to make sure you're living in a place that respects your hard work and a government that realizes an honest day's pay for an honest day's work.

At the end of the day, I really think the people we elected should rethink this decision and roll it back. I am frustrated. I feel that this is a quick shot from the hip, with no thought for regular, everyday people like myself.

Thank you for listening. I really hope this makes a difference.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Stefanec.

Now we will hear from the Canadian Labour Congress and President Bruske, please.

[Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you so much, Chair and committee members.

My name is Bea Bruske. I'm the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. The CLC represents national and international unions, with more than three million members from coast to coast to coast in virtually every sector and industry in this country. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of them and to let you know that the CLC strongly supports the government's decision to more fairly tax capital gains.

Most Canadians assume that a dollar of income is a dollar of income, whether you earned it at a job or through a productive investment, but that's not the case when it comes to taxes. When you earn your income by flipping burgers 100% of that income is taxable, but when you earn your income by flipping stocks only 50% of that income is taxable. We don't think, quite frankly, that's fair. How can anyone justify that a dollar earned through your hard work should be taxed at a higher rate than a dollar reaped through ownership and investments?

Let's look at a real-life example. My first job was at a grocery store. In 2020, in the toughest days of the pandemic, before workers even knew what they were dealing with, they had to go to work at grocery stores so that we could keep on eating, while many of us had the opportunity to work from home. Those grocery store workers, whom we are grateful for, bravely working on those front lines, for a few months in 2020 got an extra $2 per hour in “hero pay”. Every single cent of that dollar of hero pay was taxed. That same year, a Canadian billionaire bought and sold shares in one of our country's largest forestry companies, netting capital gains of more than $9 million. Only half of that windfall was taxable. That billionaire pocketed $4.5 million tax-free. That's $4.5 million in tax-free capital gains. That's more money than the average worker will see in their lifetime.

When we put ourselves in the shoes of the average working person for a minute, we have to understand that is not fair. Canadians work hard and they pay taxes on their earnings. Those taxes that come off our paycheques support the schools for our kids, health care for ourselves and our loved ones, roads and public transit, parks, libraries and every other vital public service that we rely upon. Working people want and need strong, good-quality public services. We deserve safe, healthy and vibrant communities, and we are very much prepared to do our part to support that. What we insist on, however, is that everyone pay their fair share, that income is treated as income whether you're taxing a worker flipping burgers for a living or a CEO flipping stocks to make millions more.

Over the past few years, working people in Canada have struggled to keep up with the rising cost of living, and they know perfectly well that not everybody else is struggling as well. Canadians can see corporate CEOs and wealthy investors profiting from price gouging, and it's extremely frustrating to know that CEOs are ripping off ordinary people while getting preferential tax treatment on top of it. To know that our tax system taxes capital gains more lightly than workers' wages is infuriating. For many workers, the unfairness in the tax system adds insult to injury.

Opponents of this important but modest tax change are trying to distract with stories about family farms and family doctors. Make no mistake that the vast majority of untaxed capital gains are collected by people like the billionaire I mentioned earlier. Canadians know that the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes, and the data proves that. A recent study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives shows that, once all forms of income and taxes are accounted for, those receiving the top 1% of income in this country pay a lower tax rate than those in the bottom 99%. The treatment of capital gains is an important reason for that unfair outcome. For working people it's very obvious that we need fair tax rules. Those who have the means need to pay their fair share. Fair taxes for the ultrawealthy are essential for making life more affordable for everyone else, and that's why we support the changes to the capital gains inclusion rate.

I urge all parliamentarians to ask themselves a simple question: Do you think it's fair that a worker flipping burgers is taxed on 100% of his or her income while a CEO, making millions from flipping stocks, is taxed on only 50% of that income? If you don't think it's fair, then you need to support the small measure of tax fairness. If you do think it's fair, then please do not tell me that you are on the side of working Canadians.

Thank you, and we're pleased to answer questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you. Ms. Bruske.

Now we hear from Canadians for Tax Fairness, Silas Xuereb.

[Silas Xuereb, Researcher and Policy Analyst, Canadians for Tax Fairness]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Canadians for Tax Fairness welcomes this important step to make our tax system more fair. These changes to capital gains taxation will lessen inequality and raise revenue that can be used to fund important public services, new affordable housing and a just transition.

As you're all aware, currently only 50% of capital gains is subject to income tax, while in contrast, 100% of income from employment is taxable. As the Carter commission noted, this differential taxation leads to, “an enormous incentive for the taxpayer to try to transform 'income' gains into 'capital' gains.”

This creates uncertainty for taxpayers and inequities in the tax system. This measure would be a step towards closing this loophole.

Who currently benefits from the exclusion of 50% of capital gains from taxation? According to data from the Longitudinal Administrative Databank, over half of personal capital gains accrue to the top 1% of market income earners each year and over one quarter of capital gains accrue to the top 0.1%. This means that the top 1% of income earners benefit over 250 times more from the current reduced inclusion rate on capital gains than the average Canadian.

As Ms. Bruske mentioned, a recent report we co-authored with the CCPA showed that when all taxes are taken into account, including sales taxes, these top earners have the lowest tax burden of all Canadians, in part due to this capital gains exemption.

This measure also affects the inclusion rate on corporate capital gains, which will be increased to two-thirds, and this measure will largely affect the largest corporations. Among non-financial industries, real estate corporations earn the most capital gains. This was over $23 billion in 2022, so this measure will reduce the incentive for large firms, such as real estate firms, to use their income for passive investments, incentivizing instead investments in new jobs, buildings, machinery and equipment.

Of course, this measure is not new in Canadian history. From 1988 through 2000, the capital gains inclusion rate was at least two-thirds, and for most of this period, it was actually 75%. In contrast to concerns being raised that raising the rate could decrease productivity, there was no drop-off in productivity or business investment during this previous period with a higher capital gains inclusion rate. In fact, relative to the early 1980s, business investment actually increased during the period with a higher capital gains inclusion rate. Moreover, a recent report showed that rates of labour productivity growth, which are the subject of much discussion today, were higher during the 1990s than they are today, under the lower capital gains inclusion rate. That is not to say that this change is going to increase investment or productivity, just that there is little relation between capital gains rates, tax rates, business investment and labour productivity.

On the other hand, we know that the revenue raised through this measure can be used to fund much-needed public investments in housing and a just transition. Award-winning economist Mariana Mazzucato has convincingly shown over the past decade that targeted, mission-driven public investment in sectors like renewable energy actually incentivizes private investment in the same sectors. This measure will allow us to democratically decide how and where to direct these much-needed investments.

We also know that this measure will, at least to a limited extent, work to combat income inequality, given its targeted nature at top earners. Combatting inequality is an important end in and of itself. There is even evidence that income inequality is linked to lower productivity since low wages can make workers unmotivated. Moreover, decades of research have shown that across countries, higher inequality is correlated with lower life expectancy, higher homicide rates and more school bullying, among other negative outcomes. We need to remember that the economy is just one part of the larger society we live in.

More new work needs to be done to address income inequality in Canada and ensure that resources are more equitably distributed, not only through the tax system, but through measures that affect the pre-tax income distribution. However, this change to capital gains taxation is one small step towards improving tax fairness and reducing inequality without a discernible effect on investment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Xuereb.

Now we'll go to Centre for Future Work and Mr. Jim Stanford, please.

[Dr. Jim Stanford, Economist and Director, Centre for Future Work]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and other members.

The 2024 federal budget had three noteworthy features, in my view. First, it allocated modest new resources to several important initiatives, including the school lunch program, affordable housing measures, the rollout of the dental care program and the new disability benefit.

Second, the budget reaffirmed its commitment to previously stated fiscal targets expressed in terms of a falling ratio of debt to GDP.

Third, in order to make those first two add up, the budget also contains some revenue measures, the most important being the capital gains reforms we're discussing today. I mention this because it's as important, in my view, to consider what the new fiscal resources are being used for as to consider how they are raised. Those new programs will make Canada a bit fairer and healthier. The fact that they will be funded with new revenues collected primarily from high-income Canadians—by narrowing a lucrative and unfair tax loophole—makes this combination of tax reform and the new programs the revenue will be used for a double-barrelled boost for fairness in Canada.

From my perspective as an economist, let me briefly highlight two important aspects of the capital gains reform. The first is the very unequal distribution of the gains and associated tax savings, and the second is the lack of connection between capital gains taxation and business capital spending.

First, there is no other tax loophole more closely targeted at high-income Canadians than the partial inclusion of capital gains. In 2021, the latest year of Revenue Canada data, 61% of taxable capital gains were claimed by Canadians with total income over $250,000 that year. That group makes up only 1.5% of tax filers, yet it claimed 61% of all the taxable capital gains and an even larger share of the tax benefits from partial inclusion, since they receive higher marginal tax savings than other Canadians. Of that group of high-income tax filers, 56% reported capital gains, on average, of $180,000 each. That was just the taxable part.

In contrast, seven-eighths of tax filers reported income below $100,000 that year. Fewer than 10% of them reported any taxable capital gains at all, most of them very small, and combined, they received just 15% of all capital gains and an even smaller share of the tax benefits. Capital gains are concentrated precariously among the highest-income households, as are the favourable tax benefits offered by the current tax system.

The vast majority of Canadians will not be affected directly by this change. Most do not receive capital gains at all, and most of those who do receive gains well under the threshold for the higher inclusion rate. However, those Canadians will benefit from the new programs I mentioned that these revenues will help fund.

Second, some argue that reducing capital gains exemptions will discourage business capital investment, but the economic evidence shows no connection between capital gains exemptions and rates of business investment in new capital, research or productivity. Canada's business investment, especially in machinery and equipment, has been declining since the 1990s. Business and capital taxes have been significantly reduced in that same time. In the 1990s, when the capital gains inclusion rate was 75% and the federal corporate tax rate was 28%, Canadian business invested 5.6% of national GDP in new machinery and equipment. In the last 10 years, with the inclusion rate at 50% and a 15% corporate tax rate, investment averaged 3.5% of GDP, two full percentage points of GDP lower. Research and development spending has also declined in the same period, as has productivity growth. Many complex factors determine business investment, and reversing this decline is an urgent economic priority. I have published my own research on the causes and consequences of slow investment.

It is clear that tax factors are, at most, a second-order determinant of business investment, and it is not credible to blame taxes for the poor performance of Canadian business investment in recent years. Indeed, in some ways, excessively favourable capital gains taxation can undermine corporate investment spending by distorting the choice between different capital structures and encouraging cash flow stripping from corporations.

In sum, this reform is important for improving the fairness of Canada's tax system, reducing distortions that encourage tax avoidance and underinvestment and, just as importantly, helping fund new programs from the federal government that will make a positive difference in the lives of millions of Canadians. I recommend the passage of this legislation.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Stanford.

Now we'll hear from the Wheat Growers Association and Mr. Jochum, please.

[Günter Jochum, President, Wheat Growers Association]

Thank you, Chair and committee members. I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

My name is Günter Jochum. I farm about 20 minutes west of Winnipeg with my wife and daughter.

I'm also president of the Wheat Growers Association. We are a volunteer-based farm advocacy organization dedicated to developing ag policy solutions that strengthen the profitability and sustainability of farming and the agricultural industry.

The average age of a Canadian producer is over 55 years old and over 98% of those farms are owned and operated by Canadian farm families. We are very concerned about the changes to the capital gains inclusion rate that was announced through budget 2024. While we acknowledge that the proposed increase to the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1.25 million recognizes the accelerating appreciation of farmland values, we are concerned that the introduction of a two-thirds inclusion rate on capital gains makes it more expensive for young farmers, like my daughter Fiona, to take over the family farm.

As farmers retire over the next decade, many of these farms will be transferred to the next generation. While this will secure retirement for thousands of farmers, the transfer will also incur capital gains. Under the proposed changes, nearly every grain farm across Canada will be impacted by a two-thirds capital gains inclusion rate. This is because the $1.25 million lifetime capital gains exemption is too low to account for rapidly appreciating farm values. Many will have already expended their exemption by the time they sell their farm, meaning that most farms will have gains subject to the two-thirds inclusion rate.

Furthermore, most Canadian grain farms are structured as corporations and do not benefit from the 50% inclusion rate for the first $250,000 of capital gains. When I consulted my tax accountant, he estimated that I will pay 30% more taxes. These numbers are staggering. If the capital gains inclusion rate is increased for family farms, it will impose a substantial tax burden on new farmers, such as my daughter Fiona, at the beginning of their careers.

Budget 2024 emphasized fairness for every generation, yet the proposed changes to capital gains exacerbate farm transfer challenges and make these transfers more expensive for the next generation of young farmers.

Furthermore, budget 2024 described that differences in taxation rates between income earned from wages, capital gains and dividends currently favour the wealthiest among us. This policy inadvertently targets farmers who produce food to meet domestic and global demand. As small businesses that are family run, they do not represent the wealthiest among us.

General succession planning is a cornerstone in the agri-food sector, particularly in farming. Currently, fewer than 1% of Canadians are involved in farming—a percentage that is likely to decrease over time. By making farming financially less attractive, the number of farms will continue to dwindle, leading to greater consolidation and fewer family-owned farms.

Farmers are known for their ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit, and many have accumulated significant assets. However, farmers are often asset-rich and cash-poor, meaning they possess valuable assets such as farmland, quota, equipment and livestock, but lack liquid cash. This becomes especially challenging with changes to the capital gains taxes. Often, farmers sell a portion of their land or assets to facilitate intergenerational farm transfer. They might realize a substantial capital gain, forcing them into difficult financial positions and requiring them to find ways to generate the necessary funds to meet fiscal obligations.

Increased capital gains taxes could complicate estate planning and succession as the tax burden on asset transfers may be higher, which could lead to more family farms being sold off or broken up to pay taxes. All this flies in the face of what budget 2024 calls “fairness for every generation”.

Thank you for your consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Jochum.

Now, members and witnesses, we're moving into members' question time. In the first round of questions, each party will have up to six minutes to ask questions.

We're starting with MP Morantz for the first six minutes.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Stefanec, I particularly want to thank you for being here. It's always nice to have a fellow Winnipegger at committee.

I remember very well when you phoned me. You and I had never spoken before or even met. You phoned me just a couple of days after the budget was tabled.

Is that correct?

[Larry Stefanec]

Yes.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Your concern was over the increase in the capital gains inclusion rate.

When you bought your business, you were basically looking for a way to work hard, save for your retirement and make sure you had a secure retirement and life for your family.

Is that correct?

[Larry Stefanec]

Absolutely.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

You don't have a public sector pension like members of Parliament or high-paid civil servants get.

Is that right?

[Larry Stefanec]

No.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Your only source of retirement income is the money you've accumulated in your company. That's right?

[Larry Stefanec]

That's correct, yes.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

The company owns a building, I think.

Is that right as well?

[Larry Stefanec]

Yes. It was part of the purchase.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

One thing that I think is inherently unfair.... We heard one of the other witnesses talk about this. It's ironic that the budget was called “Fairness for every generation”, but it's not so fair for your generation.

When you bought your business, you decided to incorporate. The policy the government's putting forward actually excludes corporations from the $250,000 exemption at 50%.

Do you think that's fair?

[Larry Stefanec]

Absolutely not. I should have stayed a sole proprietor.

The whole thing is that you plan for the future based on what is current.

I have a problem with people talking about this tax being something.... The one lady talked about billionaires. I'm not a billionaire. I am boots on the ground...a hard-working Canadian. I feel that when politicians talk, they're talking about myself, but when someone's trying to use a narrative to state their case with regard to studies, surveys and reports...I can tell you there are a lot of people in my situation who are your next-door neighbour.

It's frustrating to all heck because when you when you start talking surveys and reports, that tells me you haven't lived my life. I'm sitting here listening to it and it's very frustrating.