Bill C-2 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to reduce the second personal income tax rate from 22% to 20.‍5% and to introduce a new personal marginal tax rate of 33% for taxable income in excess of $200,000. It also amends other provisions of that Act to reflect the new 33% rate. In addition, it amends that Act to reduce the annual contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts from $10,000 to its previous level with indexation ($5,500 for 2016) starting January 1, 2016.

Income Tax Act

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Labrador for her speech, but I think she neglected to tell Canadians one very important thing.

When the Liberals were on the campaign trail and first talked about this middle-class tax cut, they guaranteed that it would be revenue neutral, so that the money the rich paid would wash out in the wash. What the member has not told Canadians is that this will add to the deficit. It has been estimated by the parliamentary budget officer that it would be $8.9 billion over six years.

When the member was on the campaign trail, did she commit to her community that this would be a revenue neutral tax cut, because clearly it is not?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, what we indicated to people on the campaign trail, and are still indicating to people today, is that the changes we are making in the income tax legislation will allow them to have more money in their pockets.

The former government catered to the wealthiest of the wealthy in our society. It did not reach out to lift up those in the middle class.

We recognize that, and it is exactly what we are doing. We have made changes in a number of pieces of legislation to accommodate this. We are making good on our commitment in the election campaign, and we are ensuring that middle-class Canadians are going to benefit.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the comment from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. This tax cut will cost Canadian taxpayers as a whole $8.9 billion over the course of the next four or five years.

How can the Liberal government condone such an expense when it does not even help those who really need the help most? This may not be a tax cut for the super wealthy, but it is a tax cut for the upper middle class, if not the upper class itself. Those who make $45,000 a year, and there are many, almost 60% of Canadians, will be left out of this tax cut. They will be the ones who will end up paying that $8.9 billion.

I wonder how the government can condone such a tax cut in light of the current situation in our country.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I think we need to realize that the tax cut the government is proposing today is not going to have a negative impact on anyone in society, other than those who may earn over $200,000 a year in income. That needs to be noted.

Maybe the New Democratic Party could tell us if it agrees with the approach in the legislation toward TFSAs. We will be reducing the contribution limit from $10,000 back to $5,500, simply because Canadians in the middle class and lower class were not able to take advantage of the TFSA. We see this as an opportunity for the government to save, not just today but in future generations of governance and taxation.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to this important bill and to welcome all members back to the House on the first day of the resumption of Parliament. I hope all of my colleagues had a good summer and are ready to get back to work on behalf of Canadians in all of our ridings.

Bill C-2 received first reading in the House on December 9, 2015, following the adoption of a ways and means motion. At that time the New Democratic Party voted in favour of Bill C-2 at second reading in order to be able to propose our amendments to make the bill progressive and actually conform to the rhetoric that accompanied it both during the election and in the House at that time.

Despite the support of various stakeholders, our amendments at committee were rejected. Therefore, we cannot support the bill at third reading as it currently stands and will be opposing the bill.

Bill C-2 amends certain provisions of the Income Tax Act, such as the tax credit for gifts, taxation on income splitting, the tax payable by a non-testamentary trust, the refundable tax on investment income, private corporations, the tax on assessable dividends, the limit on TFSAs or tax-free savings accounts, and most important, the tax rates Canadians pay on their income in this country.

The New Democrats stated our position on the two significant elements of Bill C-2: the amendment on the income tax rates and the amended TFSA limit. Our approach was careful and principled then, and it is careful and thoughtful now. Although we support the government's proposal to limit the TFSA contributions to $5,500, we cannot accept the amendments of the Liberal government to the tax rates, which will primarily benefit the wealthiest.

Let me put this in some context. After almost a decade of poor economic growth and misguided management by the previous Conservative government, working-class and middle-class Canadians and their families are working harder than ever, yet falling further behind. What Canada needs now is a government that will fight against this pattern and this direction, against growing inequalities. However, we find, when we analyze the provisions of the bill and the way the government is using tax rates, that the Liberals will do just the opposite.

The Liberals have continually said they have a plan to help Canadians, middle class and otherwise. They promised change: rapid, urgent, and positive change. However, since they came to power, the Liberals have largely ignored Canada's real middle class, and certainly, as I will show hon. members with numbers, they have absolutely ignored Canada's working class and low-income earners with the bill.

Bill C-2 should have been the Liberals' opportunity to move from rhetoric to action. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. The Liberals' tax plan gives nothing to 60% of Canadians. I listened carefully to my friend from Winnipeg on the other side, who invited us to take the bill to Canada's next election. When two-thirds of Canadians do not receive a red penny from these tax changes, and when they see that people earning more than $89,000 in this country receive the lion's share of these tax cuts while over 17 million Canadians do not receive a cent, I would be happy to take this into the election and debate my hon. friend on who the bill really benefits.

The government is proving every day to be one of celebrity, one of rhetoric, one of spin. Let us look at something surprising. Let us look at facts. Let us look at the numbers. The government is proposing to reduce the second personal income tax rate in this country from 22% to 20.5% and to increase the tax rate to those earning more than $200,000 from 29% to 33%.

This is how Canada's tax rates will look as a result of the bill. If people make $45,282 or less of taxable income, the current rate is 15% and the new rate would be 15%. They receive zero tax breaks from the bill. If people make between $45,282 and $90,563, the next bracket of taxable income, they get a tax cut of 1.5%. From $90,563 to $140,388, the tax rate is the same. From $140,388 to $200,000, the tax rate is the same. For more than $200,000, as I say, the tax rate would go from 29% to 33%.

An analysis of this Liberal tax plan reveals that it is in fact the wealthiest Canadians who will benefit the most from the tax reduction program. The Prime Minister's tax plan excludes Canadians who are not in the second income tax bracket, the large majority of Canadians who earn less than $45,000.

No one has to listen to me and we certainly should not listen to the spin doctors on the government side of the House, so let us see what the parliamentary budget officer says. The PBO's office said it is estimated that 17.9 million Canadians who will file income tax returns in 2016 fall within the first tax bracket. They have taxable income and will report taxable income of less than $45,282, and will, therefore, fall below the threshold set by the Liberals to benefit from any tax adjustment. Therefore, the Liberal tax proposal excludes the lowest 60% of wage earners, anybody making under $45,282.

According to the latest statistics available from Statistics Canada, the average Canadian income is $40,000, while the median income is $31,000. That means 50% of Canadians make $31,000 or less. Canadians in this country most in need, those whose incomes are equal to or less than the median or average incomes, will not benefit in any way from this Liberal plan. In fact, only people in the first, second, or third income deciles will see a drop in their taxes.

My hon. colleague on the other side of the House from Winnipeg North also mentioned that the best thing we can do for small businesses is to provide them with consumers. Every economist in the world will say that the people who spend the most of their disposable incomes are the working poor. They cannot afford to save. Every dollar given to a working poor Canadian is a dollar that will be circulated in the economy and spent at every business in our communities, yet the government has not given a penny to two-thirds of Canadians to spend in their communities or in small businesses. Why the government thinks that this proposal is going to stimulate small business, when two-thirds of Canadians will not have a penny in their pockets to spend in their communities or in small businesses, is beyond me.

Let us look at it the other way. Canadians whose income ranks in the highest 30% will be the main beneficiaries, while the wealthiest 10% of Canadians will pocket most of the money from these tax reductions. Even with the income tax increase for those earning more than $200,000, the Liberal plan still offers benefits that are three times higher for people earning $210,000 or more a year than for people earning $50,000.

An income tax reduction for the middle class should benefit a larger proportion of Canadians, in New Democrats' view. That is not the case with the bill. Full-time workers earning less than $23 an hour, which in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway is most people, will get no tax reduction, while those earning $100 an hour will get the maximum tax reduction. That is a funny middle-class tax plan from the Liberals.

Using numbers from the Government of Canada's job bank, let us turn again to another objective source that has illustrated who would benefit from these changes.

An office worker who has a median hourly rate of pay of $19 an hour would get zero from this tax plan. A hairdresser who has a median income of $13.25 an hour would get zero from this tax plan. A fish plant worker who averages $12.50 an hour in median income would get zero from this tax plan. A bank teller who averages $17.20 an hour in median income would get zero from this tax plan. A school bus driver who averages $20 an hour would get zero from the Liberals. A child care worker who makes $17.35 an hour in median income would get zero from the Liberals. The Prime Minister's nanny, who makes $18.20 an hour, would get zero from the Liberals. Even the Prime Minister's assistant chef, who makes $20 to $21.68 an hour, would get nothing from the Liberals.

Let us see who does get money from the Liberal tax plan. A lawyer who averages a median hourly income of $53.91 would get $679.22 courtesy of the Liberals.

A member of Parliament, who is hardly middle class when we make $170,000 a year base income, will receive $679.22. Let us stop and contrast that. A member of Parliament gets money back from the government, almost $700, and officer workers, child care workers, and school bus drivers get nothing.

That is the proposal from the Liberal government to make Canada's tax system fairer. I do not believe that any Canadian who hears those contrasts will agree that it makes our tax system any fairer.

Contrary to what the Liberals claimed during the election campaign, the revenues generated by the tax increase for the very wealthy will not be enough to finance their plan.

I notice that the Liberals consistently refuse to answer questions put by the Conservative opposition and the New Democrats to actually hold them accountable for the promise they made to Canadians during the election.

On this side of the House, at least, we believe that candidates ought to tell the truth to Canadians during elections. What the Liberals said to Canadians was that if they were elected, the tax cuts for the middle class would be revenue neutral and would be paid for by a tax increase for the wealthiest Canadians. They told Canadians that directly.

After the election, it turned out that the Liberals were out by billions of dollars. It has been estimated that some $7 billion of excess money will have to be borrowed to pay for the tax cut, because in fact, the Liberal math was wrong.

In terms of Vancouver Kingsway, I have done my homework. According to Statistics Canada figures from 2010, in my riding roughly 70% of individual income earners will see absolutely no benefit from this cut, because they do not report income over $45,282. In my riding, we have 25,635 people who reported income of over $45,000 and 58,480 who reported income of under $45,282. The median income in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway is $22,614, and the average income is $30,639.

I think my riding is typical of most members' ridings across this country. Let us forget the spin about the middle class and the spin by the Liberal government that everyone is going to do better. The numbers tell the truth, and that is that most Canadians will actually not see a dime from this tax proposal, but wealthy Canadians will.

I want to just turn to something that has not been mentioned, which is the gender impact. It is well known in this country that women, still in 2016, earn significantly less money than men do. It is well known in this country that women who work full time earn less than their male counterparts.

The numbers I found for Vancouver Kingsway bear that out. The median income for men in my riding is $25,532. It is $20,303 for women. It is a full $5,000 less. What that means is that this bill, which exacerbates the inequity between wealthy Canadians and poorer, working, and middle-class Canadians, is going to have a disproportionately bad impact on women.

I was at a conference a couple of days ago when the Prime Minister stood up and said, “Poverty is sexist.” That is true, but then his government, in this House, puts a bill in that will change the tax rates in this country that will disproportionately give advantages to men and disproportionately harm women because of the skewed nature of the tax changes.

I want to mention the changes to the TFSA contribution limit. On this, the NDP does agree with the government. The Conservatives wanted to raise the annual TFSA limit from $5,500 to $10,000. The Liberals, to their credit, campaigned against that during the election, and the New Democrats agreed with that. There are a number of reasons for that. The bottom line is basically that the TFSA, by increasing the amount of money individual Canadians can shelter from taxes, is a cost to the treasury. A cost to the treasury means that it takes revenue from the government needed to pay for much-needed programs that the New Democrats will fight for in this Parliament, like pharmacare, child care, and health care.

Moreover, it has been shown that because investors in our country can take already established investments and shift them to TFSAs, most people, by and large, putting money into TFSAs are not making new investments. They are simply shifting investments.

Finally, I do not know too many Canadians who have an extra $10,000 this year they can put into TFSAs.

I want to comment a bit about the New Democrats' plan and what we would do.

If we really want to make a difference in the country, we have to make an adjustment to the first tax rate. What the New Democrats proposed during the election, and what we suggest to this government, was that we would reduce the income tax rate for the first $45,282 of income from 15% to 14%. That way, 83% of taxpayers would see a change in the amount of tax payable. According to the parliamentary budget officer, nine million Canadians would benefit from this proposal who do not benefit from the proposal of the current government. This solution would not only benefit more taxpayers but the cost difference would be minimal. The difference, we would argue, could be easily recovered through a very slight half-percentage point increase in taxes for large corporations.

I would point out that the Liberals are indistinguishable from the Conservatives on this score. Canada already has an extremely low corporate tax rate of 15% for large, profitable corporations, and neither of those two parties proposes altering that at all. If we were to increase that by half a point, from 15% to 15.5%, for companies like the Royal Bank and Imperial Oil, large profitable companies that are making a lot of money in the country, we could actually put more money in the hands of working-class Canadians, who would then circulate that money in the economy and help stimulate small business, which, the New Democrats believe, deserve a corporate tax cut. That is not what the Liberals and Conservatives believe, though.

David Macdonald at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Nicolas Zorn of l'Institut du Nouveau Monde, Stephen Gordon, an economics professor at Laval University, and Luc Godbout, professor and holder of the research chair on taxation and public finance at the University of Sherbrooke, are all absolutely ad idem on this issue. They have all crunched the numbers, and they all say the same thing: this amendment to Canada's tax laws would benefit the wealthy, would do nothing for the poorest Canadians, and is bad economic policy.

The New Democrats will stand in the House and continue to fight against this bad policy and fight for the millions of Canadians who deserve some tax relief and support from the government, as opposed to spin and rhetoric from a government that is more interested in celebrity and style than in actually helping the millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are suffering in this economy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is not doing himself or his party a favour in the way he portrays the legislation or the Government of Canada's agenda. The budget came forward and Bill C-2 came forward. Bill C-2 specifically deals with a tax cut, between the brackets of $45,000 and $90,000, from 22% to 20.5%. It would also implement a tax increase, for those who make over $200,000, from 29% to 33%. What we are going to be voting on is that aspect.

The member wanted to focus on the fact that the Government of Canada has left out others. We see in the budget the Canada child benefit, which helps most of the individuals he says the Liberal government has fallen short on. His facts are just not correct, when we look at the budget combined with the legislation. The issue is whether the member supports the middle class getting a tax decrease and those making more than $200,000 an increase. That is the essence.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny. My hon. colleague seems to think that every person in Canada has a child and a family. They do not, do they? Pointing out this incredible inequity in the change of tax rates by saying “We have given Canadians a child tax credit” does nothing for low-income Canadians who do not have children. I take it that my friend would probably agree with that.

I guess what he is saying is that low-income Canadians with no children get nothing, but wealthy Canadians will benefit from this Liberal government. That is skewed logic.

I want to quote the parliamentary budget officer, who said directly that benefits of this tax cut will skew to higher-income, higher-wealth households.

David Macdonald from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, using data from Statistics Canada, demonstrated that middle-class families earning between $48,000 and $62,000 would gain only $51 a year, while families earning between $166,000 and $211,000 would receive $813.

My friend can keep saying the words “middle class, middle class, middle class”, but what the numbers tell us is that middle-class Canadians, whether they make $48,000, $62,000, or less than $45,000, will see hardly any money from this, but people who make $150,000 plus will. That is not the New Democrats' definition of “middle class”.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to something that both the member and I have alluded to. On the campaign trail a year ago, we remember hearing the commitment from the Liberals on the tax cut they were going to provide. They very clearly said that it was going to be revenue neutral. We now know that there is a big “oops” in that calculation.

I wonder if he could talk a bit about the math behind it and who, ultimately, is going to actually have to cover this tax reduction.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my hon. colleague. She is absolutely right. I may be old-fashioned, but I come from the school of thought that says that candidates, during an election, should tell the truth to the people they want to get votes from. I also think it is very important to create integrity in the system so that when people vote for a certain party, they can actually expect that the politicians will be true to their word.

The Liberals directly told Canadians during the election that their middle-class tax cut, as much as we can still call it “middle class”, which I think is not really accurate, would be paid for by a tax increase for the wealthiest Canadians. They were out by only a billion dollars, I think, and over the years many more billions of dollars. The problem with that is that when we are deficit financing, the government is effectively borrowing money to give to wealthy Canadians that Canadians of all income levels will have to pay for.

This was not just a one-off mistake. The Prime Minister also said during the election that we would have three modest $10-billion deficits, and he would balance the budget in the fourth year. With the very first budget tabled by the government, we have a $30-billion deficit, six more years of deficits, and no plan to balance the budget whatsoever.

They did not bring in 25,000 refugees by the end of the year. They did not bring in 25,000 government-assisted refugees. They are not restoring mail delivery to homes in Canada. I could go on and on with the broken promises of the government, but we have a whole session to do that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I read an interesting opinion piece in the paper a couple of days ago by Robin Sears. He said that one of the great facts of Canadian political life is that Liberals “always break progressive hearts”.

I did not come to this House to give myself a tax break, yet this bill is going to give me and everyone in this chamber $679. That is not the middle class I was sent here to represent. It is not the middle class I came to fight for.

Our friend across the way from Winnipeg North likes to keep talking about the child benefit. Yes, it pays out a maximum of $6,400. What he neglects to tell this House is that child care costs in British Columbia are double that, and there is a lack of affordable spaces.

I know my friend from Vancouver Kingsway is a great member of Parliament for his region, and I know that he has received feedback on this and many other Liberal bills. I would love to hear some of the feedback he has received from his constituents on the wrong direction the Liberal government is taking.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, who is doing an outstanding job for his constituents on Vancouver Island, for that question, because it allows me to raise the very critical issue of child care.

The Liberals, in previous governments, promised Canadians a national child care plan. In fact, I have often, in this House, heard Liberals blame the New Democrats for the Liberals not bringing in a national child care plan. How that is the case when they had 13 years of majority governments to do so is beyond me, but I have heard that.

Here we are. The Liberal government is a majority government. I challenge the Liberal government to actually bring in a national child care plan that makes sure that every single parent in this country can drop off his or her children at a quality, accessible, affordable child care. Let us see if the government can produce that instead of bragging about throwing money at families that is not sufficient for them to actually take care of their children.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House. I hope everyone took the time this summer to reconnect with their constituents to find out what was happening in their ridings. I also hope they took a bit of time to enjoy our very short summers in Canada.

It is interesting that we are back here today debating Bill C-2. I noted an article yesterday in which it said that the Liberal government had the most unproductive Parliament in two decades in what it had managed to move forward with. Perhaps Bill C-2 is an example.

Bill C-2 was introduced in December of last year and we are now at third reading. That really illustrates the Liberals' inability to move what they say are important pieces of legislation through the House. However, I would rather have no legislation than bad legislation, which Bill C-2 is.

Because it has been so long, as a quick refresher, Bill C-2 contains a number of measures such as the change in the marginal tax rate, the TFSA reduction in limit, and of course some other things. There are general clean-up measures dealing with such things as charitable donation tax credits and income earned by trust, among others. Clearly what we will hear from the debate is that those clean-up measures are relatively uncontroversial. Really the issues around the marginal tax rate and the TFSAs are the most problematic.

Again today the debate has predominantly focused so far on the Liberals proudly proclaiming that their middle-class tax cut was a significant move forward. However, the Liberals really forgot to tell Canadians two very important things. One is that they never have clearly defined the middle class. I think most Canadians, as they listen to this, might be thinking that as the middle class, members of Parliament will see $700 where people who earn $23 an hour will see nothing.

I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

We have a very poorly defined middle class, and I do not think many of us would really call members of Parliament middle class who are deserving of the biggest tax cut. As Conservatives, we certainly support tax cuts in whatever form, but the bigger problem is that tax cut and what it would actually do. The government had a big oops in its math. The Liberals went to Canadians and said they were going to give this tax cut and that it was going to be revenue neutral because they were going to increase taxes for higher income earners. That was the commitment and the promise the Liberals made to Canadians. Lo and behold, they are in government and it is “wow, we've made a really big math error in that particular calculation”. That is an $8.9 billion error that will be over six years. The mistake the Liberals have made is over $1 billion a year.

We also had a commitment that they would have a $10 billion deficit. It has gone to $30 billion now. This is just one of the measures that has added to the deficit that will create problems into the future.

This is not a promise kept. This is a promise that has been broken to Canadians because it is not revenue neutral. It has been said in the past that debt is deferred taxes. For the $600 or $700 to someone who earns $160,000 a year, their children and grandchildren will have to pay. To be quite frank, the government is irresponsible to put that kind of debt and deficit on our children and grandchildren when it is not necessary. It is quite shameful.

The other piece I want to focus some comments on is the tax-free savings account. There really is no justification for the way the Liberals have structured their marginal tax reduction. They have reduced the ability to contribute to a tax-free savings account from $10,000 down to $5,000 plus a bit of change.

Let me talk about what the tax-free savings account is all about. This is from a Department of Finance document that looks at tax expenditures and evaluations.

It states:

Ensuring that the tax system provides meaningful incentives to save supports a more efficient allocation between current and future consumption. In particular, the accumulation of personal savings allows Canadians to improve their living standards and better align income and consumption when planning for important life events such as retirement [or purchasing a house]....[It is] increasing the funds available for capital investment, which leads to a higher capacity to produce goods and services.

The evidence from the program shows that Canadians have taken advantage of these tax-saving opportunities. It is a popular means of saving for Canadians of all ages. I would commend to anyone who is interested in the TFSA and its impact. This is an excellent document, and it certainly talks about the benefits.

What is the Liberals' argument with respect to why they had to reduce the tax-free savings account? They said that it was only benefiting the rich, that not everyone could put money into it and therefore it was not a good thing to do.

There are 440,000 GIS recipients who have put $4.3 billion into their tax-free savings accounts. That gives us a really good example. I think anyone could imagine that living on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement is a challenge for any senior. However, let us say that there are seniors who have a house but really no major means of support. They then sell their houses and have tiny nest eggs that they can put into their tax-free savings accounts and have the interest that they make to support them during their retirement and very difficult times. Having that allocation is a very important mechanism for seniors putting a little from the sale of a house into a GIS, or young people in Vancouver or Toronto. Right now we know how difficult it is for young people to get into the housing market. Therefore, it is a real step backward and a real shame to see the measures the government has taken in that area.

The Liberals do not like allowing us the personal freedom to make choices about our own money. They want to enforce an increase in the Canada pension plan, which will not only enforce increased contributions from individuals but also employers. They like a plan that the government controls. For some reason they are adversely opposed to plans that Canadians control. Perhaps if people do not want to put extra money into the CPP, they see the TFSA as an opportunity to put money into their savings. Therefore, there is not a one size fits all.

I am very concerned that the government is showing a massive predisposition toward spending taxpayer money that it does not have, deficits, debt, and creating a one-size-fits-all government-run program that is not good for meeting the needs of Canadians in all of their diversities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there is a natural question that should be asked when a Conservative member speaks to a tax-reducing legislation. We need to make it very clear that Bill C-2 does give tax relief to millions of Canadians. Traditionally, I would have thought the Conservatives would have supported a tax cut. The core of Bill C-2 is just that: a tax cut to Canada's hard-working middle class and those aspiring to be a part of the middle class.

Therefore, as a member of the Conservative Party, does she not believe she should be supporting tax cuts? I would have thought that would be a given. How does she justify to her constituents that she does not support them getting a tax break?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point. We do support tax cuts in many forms, but we also put a high priority on a balanced budget. Again, debt is deferred taxes. Liberals are taking a tax cut now and moving it to future generations. Our government worked very hard to see Canada through the global recession and get back to balanced budgets. The Liberal government spent $8 billion over the summer on gazebos and assorted items. It has miscalculated the money the tax cut would cost. Liberals have a huge spending problem and we need to be very concerned.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be taking part in this debate because I am worried about the working class. People work so hard, but, unfortunately, they still have trouble making ends meet.

The Liberal government is not really doing more for the middle class. Canadians earning $31,000 per year, the median income, will not benefit from this tax cut, which is really for those earning between $89,000 and $200,000 per year. The people who are having the toughest time making ends meet are not the ones who are going to benefit the most from this tax cut.

It is sad to see this kind of measure from the Liberal government after it promised to work for the middle class and those who need it most. That is not what it is doing. We were also told the plan would be revenue neutral, but, unfortunately, revenue will drop.

Who will once again end up paying for this poor fiscal management?