Evidence of meeting #16 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rate.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Members have the motion before them. I'm sure you all have a copy of the bill, so you'll see that the amendment deals with replacing line 1 on page 1. You can follow it there.
Now we'll turn to Mr. MacKinnon.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are going to vote against the amendment. Some of what my honourable colleague has had to say contradicts the promises we made to Canadian men and women during the election campaign, with regard to tax reductions. Indeed, that topic was the main issue in many debates. Of course, this was something that was at the heart of our electoral program and our commitments to Canadians, and I dare say influenced the choice of many electors.
We also heard Mr. Zorn earlier, as well as other witnesses. Mr. Zorn talked about this and mentioned a series of other initiatives that will be taken by this government. This tax cut will contain inequality in Canada, and will reduce it.
However, there is something even more important. The member would like us to reduce the first tax bracket from 15% to 14%. It is important to remember that many people in that bracket already do not pay income tax. In fact, I believe the majority of those people do not pay any tax, for different reasons. For instance, there is the GST tax credit, the child tax credit, and others, and these are measures that reduce taxes for these people to zero. And so we oppose this amendment, for the reasons I have just listed.
I would add one last point. The reduction of that tax rate would have a very negative effect on people in that bracket. The tax rate used is the same as the one used to calculate the tax credit for medical expenses, the tax credit for persons with disabilities, and so on. These people would then benefit from fewer tax credits because of the reduced tax rate.
For all of these reasons, we will oppose the amendment.
I will yield the floor to my colleagues.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll turn to Mr. Caron in a moment.
I neglected to mention that there was a paper handed out by the clerk today, which does not have a title at the top. There were a number of questions that members has raised with Finance officials and other witnesses when they were before the committee. The paper that was handed around relates to responses to the questions asked by members on April 12. Because it has no heading, I am just saying this so that you're aware of it.
We'll go back to your amendment, Mr. Caron.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
From what I understand, Mr. MacKinnon considers that most of the people with incomes between $25,000 and $45,000 pay little tax because of all of the measures he mentioned. At this time, several of the measures available are non-refundable tax credits. I would like to point out that most of these people already pay some tax and are probably among those Canadians who could most benefit from fiscal relief. They need it more than those who earn $210,000 a year and who will benefit from a tax cut on top of that.
Furthermore, I invite my colleague to walk around his riding and talk to those who earn less than $45,000. He could check whether they had the impression, during the election campaign, that they would be entitled to the tax cut. I can tell him, from my impression and that of many of my colleagues, that they are having quite a strong reaction. People with incomes between $30,000 and $40,000, who consider themselves to be in the middle class, thought they were going to benefit from a tax cut. They have been extremely surprised, however, since the beginning of the year, to see that their paycheque has not changed.
Honestly, I didn't hear any debates during the election on the fact that the 22% rate would be reduced to 20.5%. Aside from that technical aspect, people understood that if they were in the middle class, they would be entitled to a tax cut. However, that is not the case for most of those who could be defined as belonging to the middle class.
And so I propose that all of those who consider themselves in the middle class be entitled to a tax cut, and that the tax cut for those with incomes of more than $200,000 be abolished. For these reasons, I wish to maintain my amendment.
April 21st, 2016 / 12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Grewal Liberal Brampton East, ON
With all due respect, Mr. Caron, the entire campaign was centred around the middle-class income tax cut. It was clearly stated in our party's material, with examples based on someone's income, based on how many children they had, how much money they would be saving on these taxes. It was unequivocally clear what the government was going to do.
Liberals were clear what they were going to run on, and this bill is basically fulfilling a campaign promise that we were elected on, a platform to cut taxes for the middle class and to invest in the Canada child benefit. Much of the material throughout the campaign clearly illustrated this.
More importantly, we also pledged that we were going to run deficits to stimulate the economy, which your party was not prepared to do.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
At the end of your statement, I believe, you went a little beyond the amendment.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Grewal Liberal Brampton East, ON
It goes to the heart of the amendment in the sense that it would increase the expenditure of the government. If they were in government today, they would not be able to do his exact amendment.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll cut you off there, because we're off what the amendment is about.
Is there any further discussion?
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The question has been called. All those in favour of the amendment proposed in NDP-1 please signify.
Do you want a recorded vote?
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It's a recorded vote, Madam clerk.
When your name is called, answer yea or nay.
(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We are now on the original clause.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
From clause 2 to clause 10, there are no amendments.
Do you want to deal with them as a block, or do you want to go separately with each?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
What did you say? Did you say, “I would vote Bloc”? That's funny.
12:40 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That was Mr. MacKinnon. He said he'd prefer to deal with them in a “block”, not vote Bloc.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It was, Madam Raitt, a matter of interpretation, I assure you.
(Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to)
Shall the title carry?
12:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.