Debates of April 23rd, 2015

Taxation

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Richmond Hill were pleased to see our Conservative government continue to lower taxes for Canadians with our balanced budget. Indeed, families across York Region are looking forward to receiving the benefits from the family tax cut and the enhanced universal child care benefit. These benefits will leave 100% of families with kids with more money in their pockets.

The Liberals and the NDP will take this away. They want high taxes on middle-class families, high taxes on middle-class businesses, high taxes on middle-class seniors and high taxes on middle-class consumers. That is their plan for the middle class.

Our government's plan is reducing taxes for the middle class. The Liberal and the NDP plans would take these benefits away from hard-working Canadian families. We will not let that happen. Our Conservative government will continue to support the people who know best how to raise their children: mom and dad.

The Budget

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, on February 5, the New Democrats proposed to cut small business taxes from 11% to 9%. Together with the Liberals, every single Conservative in this House voted against it, the Prime Minister, the finance minister, every single one. Then, lo and behold, the budget proposed that exact same cut, but just not until sometime after the next election. Who are business owners supposed to believe, the Conservatives who voted against that very cut two months ago or the Conservatives who are now promising it in order to get re-elected?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather amusing that the NDP is trying to take credit for a Conservative tax cut. The NDP leader is kind of like the rooster who crowed when the sun came up and therefore thinks that he made the sun come up.

The reality is our Conservative tax cut will help small businesses. It is the biggest tax reduction in 25 years. It will allow small businesses to hire more employees, grow and expand, and it is only possible because we have restrained spending and balanced the budget. That is our low-tax plan for jobs and growth, and it is working.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, one person who is not crowing about his budget is the finance minister.

Two days after tabling his budget, the Minister of Finance prefers to hide rather than answer questions here in the House. According to him, it is perfectly okay for our grandchildren to pay for the Prime Minister's mess. Let him hide.

Can the Minister of Finance explain to middle-class families why their grandchildren should have to pay for the gifts the Conservatives intend to give to the wealthiest Canadians?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I find it funny that the NDP leader thinks that people who earn $60,000 are too rich for a tax cut.

In fact, 60% of people who contribute the maximum amount to a tax-free savings account earn $60,000 or less. They are the ones who will benefit from our decision to double the amount they can contribute and they will save money as a result.

We are going to lower their taxes. The NPD would increase them.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, here is an irrefutable fact: 85% of the population will not benefit from the tax cuts the Conservatives are proposing. That is a fact.

Leading up to the budget, a senior government minister told Canadians that there was no way the Conservatives would touch the contingency fund. Then the finance minister took $2 billion out of, wait for it, the contingency fund. Then yesterday, we had a rather confused Conservative MP ambling along, claiming that the Conservatives were not touching the contingency fund at all. In this total Conservative confusion, where is the finance minister?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about irrefutable facts, so let me share one with him from the finance department, on page 235 of the budget. There he will find that it states:

...about 60 per cent of the individuals contributing the maximum amount to their [tax-free savings accounts] had incomes of less than $60,000 in 2013....

These are the very people who would benefit from increasing the tax-free savings accounts to $10,000. They are, overwhelmingly, seniors who are taking money from their RRSPs and putting it into their tax-free savings account so that they can have a nest egg for a secure retirement.

Ethics

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister claimed that Mike Duffy was appointed to the Senate on the basis of a signed declaration swearing that he was a resident of Prince Edward Island. However, if we look at the declaration of qualification it does not mention anything about residency requirements. Questions were raised at the time that Mike Duffy did not meet the eligibility requirements. We know the Prime Minister's Office received advice from the Privy Council regarding Duffy's appointment.

Senate appointments are the Prime Minister's responsibility. On what basis did he push Mike Duffy's appointment ahead, despite the clear warning signals that as a resident of Kanata he was not eligible to represent Prince Edward Island?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, again, as I have answered on a number of occasions, the constitutional practice on this has been clear for almost 150 years.

It is disappointing now, of course, to see that the NDP members are trying to make a victim out of Mr. Duffy who faces very serious charges, charges that stem from an independent audit and an RCMP investigation.

At the same time, 68 members of the NDP face very similar types of indiscretions. Almost $3 million worth of taxpayers' money was redirected to illegal offices. I suggest they do the right thing and repay that money to the taxpayer.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, victim. They really are out of touch. The real victims here are the Canadian taxpayers, not the Prime Minister's patronage appointments—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Speaking of which, the Duffy diaries raise all manner of questions about his involvement with Enbridge and the Prime Minister's Office.

The Vancouver Observer found Duffy had numerous meetings with Enbridge executives and yet none of that is in the lobbying register. We have the diary stating the Prime Minister was asking Duffy for briefings on his meetings with Enbridge, and yet all these entries have been blacked out of the diary.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that he did meet with Duffy on Enbridge? Was Duffy the Enbridge pipeline to the Prime Minister?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Duffy faces very serious charges. It is Mr. Duffy's actions that are in front of the court right now.

At the same time, there are 68 members of the NDP caucus, including the Leader of the Opposition himself, who stand accused of redirecting, inappropriately, $2.7 million worth of taxpayers' funds.

The Leader of the Opposition actually owes taxpayers $400,000. I would hope he would do the right thing and start to pay back that money.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will ask members to come to order while other members are answering the questions.

The Budget

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the current Minister of Finance will not be around to fix this.

However, we do not need to wait for the Prime Minister's granddaughter to find out what happens when you double the TFSA contribution limit. The costs of this measure will soon grow exponentially. The wealthiest Canadians are the ones who will likely benefit from this policy and from the income splitting policy.

Why does the government favour the richest Canadians instead of taking measures that will benefit all Canadians equitably?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and the New Democrats talk about the costs of tax cuts. Only those who believe in big bureaucratic programs see tax cuts as costs.

We see tax cuts as savings—savings for taxpayers—and this money is theirs. We are putting money directly into the pockets of Canadians with an income of $60,000, who will benefit from this tax cut and this opportunity to save. The Liberals, on the other hand, would like to take this away from them.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with a contribution limit of $5,500, tax-free savings accounts are generally available to most Canadians.

However, only one third actually participate and less than one quarter of that one third can contribute the maximum. Doubling contributions mostly helps wealthier Canadians at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, support for low-income seniors is cut. The lowest income, most vulnerable seniors will lose $28,000 from their OAS and GIS. Why the double standard?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, for Liberal and NDP members who believe in spending billions of dollars on new bureaucracies, they believe that cutting taxes is a cost.

We believe that cutting taxes is a saving. The difference is they believe the money belongs to the government and the bureaucracy; we believe it belongs to the people who earned it.

Nobody deserves it more than seniors whose average income is $60,000 a year and who are proven to be the biggest beneficiaries.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, here are the government's priorities: cut support for low-income seniors, take $28,000 from the most vulnerable elderly women living alone, and use that so-called saving to pay for more expensive TFSAs for the wealthy, or just do not worry about, let the grandchildren pay for it.

On top of $4,400 in new federal debt already larded onto every newborn child by the government, our grandchildren will be stuck with another $15 billion or $20 billion in TFSA costs, only for the wealthy. How is that fair?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, this is from a party whose leader thinks budgets balance themselves. The same leader said that he defines rich people as those who live off their assets. Seniors live off their assets.

Now, the Liberal Party is standing up in the House to say that anybody who earns $60,000 or less is too rich and should pay higher taxes. Sixty per cent of those people who already max out their tax-free savings accounts, and would benefit from the Prime Minister's decision to double those account limits, are earning $60,000 or less. This is a tax cut for the middle class. The Liberals would take it away.

Ethics

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Mike Duffy's diary shows that in 2012 he repeatedly spoke with top Enbridge executives, followed by conversations with the Prime Minister. However, there are no communication reports from Enbridge in the lobbying registry about these chats with Duffy.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is true that he discussed and requested notes from Mike Duffy about Enbridge or the northern gateway pipeline?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, Mr. Duffy is facing some very serious charges that stem from an independent audit and an RCMP investigation. These are in front of the courts, and it would be inappropriate to comment further.

At the same time, it is very inappropriate for the NDP to try to make a victim out of Mr. Duffy. He is not a victim; Canadians understand this. They also understand that it is inappropriate that the New Democrats utilized $2.7 million worth of taxpayer resources and funnelled it to an illegal office in Montreal. Canadians expect the New Democrats will pay back the $2.7 million they owe.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Mike Duffy's diary shows us the real nature of his work as a senator. He was not working on bills, rather he was lobbying for oil companies. The relationship between Enbridge and the Prime Minister's entourage was quite healthy thanks to Mike Duffy. Nevertheless, the registry of lobbyists does not make any mention of these discreet little meetings between friends.

Did the Prime Minister talk to Senator Mike Duffy about Enbridge's pipeline projects?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Duffy is not a victim.

It is against the rules to use the resources of the House, Parliament and taxpayers for partisan reasons. This member is accused of using over $20,000 for partisan purposes. That is against the rules of the House.

I encourage the member to do the right thing and pay taxpayers back. It is very important.

I would encourage them to repay taxpayers what they owe.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we understand why it was so important to the Prime Minister to have Mike Duffy on the Hill. He was one of the best and hardest-working Conservative senators. Nevertheless, today he is before the courts. He should never have been appointed as a senator for Prince Edward Island. Mr. Duffy was not even living there and did not even have a PEI driver's licence or health card.

Why was the Prime Minister so hell-bent on appointing Mike Duffy as a senator for a province where he did not even live, in violation of such clear rules?