An Act to amend the Income Tax Act

This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.

Sponsor

Bill Morneau  Liberal

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

Sept. 20, 2016 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
April 19, 2016 Failed That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that, during its consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Committee be granted the power to divide the Bill in order that all the provisions related to the contribution limit increase of the Tax-Free Savings Account be in a separate piece of legislation.
March 21, 2016 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
March 8, 2016 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, since the principle of the Bill: ( a) fails to address the fact, as stated by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that the proposals contained therein will not be revenue-neutral, as promised by the government; (b) will drastically impede the ability of Canadians to save, by reducing contribution limits for Tax-Free Savings Accounts; (c) will plunge the country further into deficit than what was originally accounted for; (d) will not sufficiently stimulate the economy; (e) lacks concrete, targeted plans to stimulate economic innovation; and (f) will have a negative impact on Canadians across the socioeconomic spectrum.”.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 1:45 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB

Mr. Speaker, let us get one thing straight. Members of the party opposite hold themselves up as the stewards of the economy. They have all the economic answers for Canada, and nobody else in the country knows what they are doing with respect to economics and the economy.

Let us look at the facts: seven straight deficits, two recessions, the country in deficit. Yes, members opposite like to play the shell game. They say let us throw in the EI surplus, let us sell the GM stocks, let us use the rainy day fund, let us take money from the Veterans Affairs and put it into our budget, so we can pretend we have a balanced budget and we can show a surplus.

Canadians do not believe it. Canadians were tired of it. Let us talk about the tax-free savings account very quickly. As some members may know, I am a business person. I have a hockey background. If we had a program with the Saint John Sea Dogs that 6.7% of Canadians maximized, would we take that program and double it? What kind of economics is that?

I ask if the member opposite would not concede that Canadians made a choice on October 19 for a progressive party. There is not a progressive bone left in that party. They should call them the regressive Conservative Party.

Would the member not agree that Canadians chose real change for the middle class with the tax cut and the Canada child benefit? Would he not agree that is the change Canadians wanted?

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 1:50 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out the record we had. I would say I agree with him that we had a very good record in that we were the top country in the G7 when it came to weathering out the global recession.

We are proud of our record. We are the Conservative Party of Canada. We will continue to stand up for Canadians and we were keepers of our economic fortitude in this country. I will stand on our record of being the best country in the G7.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 1:50 p.m.


See context

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will not let him off that easily. The question asked was as follows: how can the Conservatives justify and defend the doubling of the TFSA limit from $5,500 to $10,000 when only 7% of Canadians were able to make the maximum contribution when the limit was $5,500?

That measure was so expensive that the parliamentary budget officer calculated that 20 to 30 years from now it would cost the equivalent of 0.7% of GDP. The government would give up tens and almost hundreds of billions of dollars for a measure that benefits 7% of the population right now. This is not about abolishing the TFSA. Many Canadians contribute to it even with a $5,500 ceiling.

How can the Conservatives justify calling themselves good stewards and good managers of taxpayers' money when they support a measure that would be extremely irresponsible in terms of public finances and detrimental to the services funded by taxpayers' money?

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 1:50 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the tax-free savings account is that it is something to help our seniors.

One of the ways this really helped was that when a senior sold their home and moved into a long-term care facility, they were able to place money in a tax-free savings account where the money would gain interest from the investments they made with that money, and that money would be tax-free.

That was one of the reasons we were very proud to introduce the tax-free savings account. If it is such a bad idea, why are the Liberals not repealing the entire thing instead of just the top $5,000?

I would say that we should improve it and put a $10,000 limit there so that our seniors can benefit more from this great program.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 1:50 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-2. I am interested in finding out why the Liberals think that someone earning $200,000 a year deserves more tax credits. That is completely irrational and makes no sense.

My riding encompasses Montmagny, L'Islet, Kamouraska, and Rivière-du-Loup, as the name suggests. My riding borders the riding of my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and it includes Rivière-du-Loup and La Pocatière. La Pocatière is the gateway to the Lower St. Lawrence region, which is considered to be the poorest region in Canada. In some municipalities, the people are very far from rich.

Under this bill, Canadians who earn less than $45,000 a year, which represents the vast majority of my constituents, will not get any money at all.

The Liberals are implementing policies to supposedly help the middle class. This party boasts about being the middle-class party, but in reality, it is not helping 99% of middle-class Canadians, who do not earn more than $45,000 a year.

In my riding, family income does not exceed an average of $50,000 a year, which is very low.

As members of Parliament, we earn $167,500 a year, and we will soon earn nearly $170,000. Parliamentary secretaries earn a little more than $200,000. I will not even get into how much ministers earn. The fact remains that people in our tax bracket do not need this. We earn enough money and we do not need this money to justify tax cuts. We are the ones who will benefit the most. That makes absolutely no sense.

I repeat: in my riding, the middle class does not earn $170,000 a year. It earns less than $45,000 a year. I am a business owner, and I can tell you that I do not pay average wages of $45,000 a year if I want to keep my business afloat and continue to invest.

According to the government, this measure should be revenue neutral, in other words, it should not cause a deficit. The parliamentary budget officer said that the deficit will not be $1 billion, as announced, but rather $1.7 billion. It is completely irrational and makes no sense. What is more, that amount is permanent. It will be a permanent item in the budget in the years to come. By all accounts, this measure is ill-conceived and flawed. It needs to be changed. In any case, more than two-thirds of the population will not get one cent from this measure. It is not fair to anyone.

On average, a family might get an extra $6.50 a week. That is totally ridiculous. That is not even enough for two cups of coffee. The government needs to realize that it cannot use borrowed money to put the country in debt for policies like these, just to give a small group of people some extra money that is significant for that particular group. The majority of the Canadian middle class earns $45,000 or less a year. There is no doubt that changes need to be made to this legislation.

The other item is the TFSA. I am a business owner and I invest a great deal in my business. Over the past 10 or 15 years, I did not have the opportunity to take advantage of an RRSP or the TFSA because I invested my money in my business. Not everyone can count on owning a business to save for the future.

This measure allowed people to save $5,000. Then the ceiling was raised to $5,500, and then finally to $10,000. The Liberals just took away the $5,000 we added in our budget.

That is no way to help people save for the future. People have to understand that just because there is a ceiling does not mean that everyone is going to reach it one day.

That is not what that means at all. It means that people are being given tax room so that they can save.

I think it was the member for Hochelaga who said earlier that, in her riding, there are poor people who cannot invest a single penny because the cost of staying in their house or apartment is so high.

That is the reality. It is not just true in her riding. It is the same everywhere. When we develop a policy, we need to do so for all Canadians. Some people are successful and can save money. I forget the exact name, but there are organizations, I think they are called ACEF, that provide education, information, and training on how to save for adults and youth with good incomes. Tax room in the form of TFSAs or RRSPs is needed so that people can save money.

These are programs or mechanisms that allow people to save money. If these mechanisms, this room to save, were not available, people would not save money. People need to save. They need to start thinking about the future when they are young. When they get close to retirement and they have more money to invest, they need to be able to make tax-sheltered investments so that they can live comfortably for as long as possible.

The bill is badly flawed. I repeat: the middle class does not earn $170,000 a year. Everyone agrees that Canada's real middle class, people who earn less than $45,000, will not benefit at all from this bill. It is therefore a bad bill.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague opposite just gave a 10-minute speech that amounted to smoke and mirrors.

I came here after the latest election to work for Canadians and give back to the middle class. That is what we said throughout the election campaign.

What I am hearing is speculation. Let us talk about the UCCB. Things were done at the last minute. There was an election campaign, and that is when people came up with solutions. What happens to the UCCB? The government claws that money back six months later at tax time. That is not helping; that is pretending to help.

What we want to do is help people. We want to help nine out of 10 families. What we give back, we give back with no strings attached. Obviously, we cannot come up with a program that will help 100% of the people. We do not want to give money to the rich. They were the first to give $300 to people earning $200,000 or more. We took that money back. We are making them pay more taxes.

I am very proud that we are walking the talk, as they say. That is exactly what we are doing.

I have to wonder what your interests are. Who are you working for? Are you working for yourself, to get elected, or are you working for the people of Canada?

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2 p.m.


See context

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota

Before I recognize the next member for his reply, I would remind this member that I am not doing much here; I am merely occupying the chair.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. colleague is ready to put his money where his mouth is, because if not, he will have a serious problem.

That being said, based on what he keeps repeating and what he just said, once again, he does not seem to understand what the middle class is. People with household incomes under $45,000 will not benefit from this measure at all. They will get nothing. How can he say that we on this side of the House like to help the rich, and that they are not helping them? It makes no sense. An income of $45,000 is still an income.

I would like the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques to ask me the question. Our ridings are in regions that are not wealthy. These are the people whom we really need to help through meaningful action when new measures are brought in.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2 p.m.


See context

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I agree with many of the things in the hon. member's speech, and that is quite natural because we come from the same part of the country. We have many similar problems.

In response to the Liberal member who just spoke, there has been no mention here of lower taxes for families or the family tax credit. It is not currently in the bill. We are debating a bill that will put an additional $250 in the pockets of people earning $200,000 a year. Someone earning $45,000 or less will receive nothing.

They say it goes along with the future family tax credit. That is not going to help couples with no children, single people, and seniors who do not earn $45,000 a year. The government says that this bill will help the middle class, but it is all smoke and mirrors.

I will ask my colleague a question because I could not ask the Liberal member. What is his definition of the middle class? Is it people who earn $200,000 or people who earn $35,000, $40,000, or $45,000 and who will not get a dime with these measures?

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2 p.m.


See context

Conservative

Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his question. I must admit that I rarely agree with the NDP, but I now have to sincerely agree with my colleague. What is more, we are riding neighbours. It is obvious that the definition of middle class is not people who earn $200,000 or more a year. That does not make any sense. The middle class is families who earn $35,000 to $40,000 a year, somewhere in that range. People who earn $50,000 a year or more are not part of the middle class. The middle class is people who earn small amounts of money for their family in order to survive.

I would like to come back to the question asked by the member for Hochelaga, which is an urban riding. The same problem exists in rural ridings such as ours. People do not make much money and families are having trouble making ends meet each month. That type of reality exists in our ridings.

When we develop policies, we need to do so with those people in mind. That is why the Conservatives lowered the GST twice rather than just once. We lowered it from 7% to 6% and then from 6% to 5%. That put money back into taxpayers' pockets.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota

Is the House ready for the question?

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

Some hon. members

Question.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

Some hon. members

Yea.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota

All those opposed will please say nay.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

Some hon. members

Nay.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 21, 2016, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Andrew Leslie Liberal Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 2:30 p.m.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota

Is it agreed?

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 11th, 2016 / 2:05 p.m.


See context

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota

It being 2:30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday, March 21, 2016, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:06 p.m.)

The House resumed from March 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 21st, 2016 / 7:20 p.m.


See context

The Speaker Geoff Regan

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-2.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 21st, 2016 / 7:20 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Andrew Leslie Liberal Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you shall find unanimous consent to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 21st, 2016 / 7:20 p.m.


See context

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt votes for clarification, but I thought we were voting on Bill C-6. However, I heard you call Bill C-2 and I do not want to vote the wrong way. I just want a clarification.

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 21st, 2016 / 7:20 p.m.


See context

The Speaker Geoff Regan

It is Bill C-2 and if I said Bill C-6, I apologize, but I do not think so. The vote is on Bill C-2.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #33

Income Tax ActGovernment Orders

March 21st, 2016 / 7:20 p.m.


See context

The Speaker Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.