Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2017

Opposition Motion—Taxes on Health and Dental Care Plans

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I need to correct the member opposite because $900 a year is not really that much. It works out to about $60 a month. For seniors in Ontario who are living on a fixed income, Kathleen Wynne just increased their hydro bill by about $200. Therefore, that is simply not enough for people on a fixed income. I do not know why the government would not know that. Gerald Butts was the brainchild behind the system that caused the price to go so high so our seniors could not afford to pay for their heat. Let me correct you on that one.

With respect to the price on carbon, I am aware that other provinces have models in place. We are not talking about that. We are talking about adding on to the burden. The last thing the government needs is more revenue that goes into its wasted programs that are not creating any jobs.

On the carbon footprint, am I happy about helping the planet? I want to help the planet, but does the member understand that Canada's whole footprint is 1.6% of the carbon footprint of the planet? We can eliminate the whole thing and it will not solve global warming. Sixty per cent of the footprint is the U.S., India, China, and Europe. China is building 24 coal plants. The U.S. has just said that it is reintroducing coal. India just built the biggest coal plant on the planet. If we are really serious about helping the planet, we should leverage Canadian emissions reduction technology to those other people to help them resolve their huge carbon footprint problems. That would really help the planet and that would create Canadian jobs.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I go to questions and comments, When the hon. member said “let me correct you”, I did not realize I had made a mistake. I am sure she meant the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I just wanted to clarify that.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. One of the questions I ask myself most often when I hear the Liberals talk about the middle class is just how sincere the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are. They talk about middle-class people and they say they want to help them, when both of them are very far removed from the experiences of the middle class, particularly when we know that the Prime Minister spends his free time with billionaires.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the sincerity of the words we hear from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, a man who comes straight from Bay Street, when it comes to the help they want to offer the middle class and their understanding of the day-to-day lives of middle class Canadians.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

When it comes to the middle class, I agree. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have no idea who the middle class are because they fraternize with billionaires. It is very suspicious to me as well when I hear that the finance minister has dealings with a business called Morneau Shepell, which is hugely into dental and health benefits are things that are involved in pension plans, and that he is involved in striking up legislation. That speaks of conflict of interest to me. Therefore, I do not think they are in touch with the middle class or with conflict of interest rules.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my people of the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke in this unfortunate debate regarding the latest tax target of the federal government, the 13.5 million Canadians who have private health care plans.

Increasing the tax burden on ordinary working Canadians represents a fundamental shift from the tax policy of our previous Conservative government. Under a Conservative government, the policy was to decrease the tax burden on ordinary working Canadians, particularly Canadians in the low to mid-income range.

While giving lip service to the middle class, Liberal policy favours wealthy Canadians, the type who can afford to pay the high admission cost to the pay-to-play fundraisers used by lobbyists to gain special access for preferential tax treatment.

The tax changes in the last Liberal budget resulted in the maximum tax break going to individuals with income between $89,000 and $200,000, with some people with an income over $200,000 seeing their taxes reduced also. So much for believing anything this government says when it comes to tax fairness. The Prime Minister's vapid talking points on the middle class is another fake promise from a party that wrote the book on fake news.

One of the first acts of our government was to create the parliamentary budget officer. The PBO is a non-partisan agency with a mandate to provide financial information to parliamentarians and all Canadians in a factual manner. The PBO has documented for all Canadians the fact that low and middle-income earners benefited the most from Conservative tax policy. Conservatives returned billions of tax dollars back to Canadians, and we did so with a balanced federal budget.

Those tax changes included reducing the GST for all Canadians, a tax reduction that has been wiped out by the federal carbon tax and the decision by the Liberal Party to increase the tax burden on families by eliminating Conservative family-friendly tax credits. Our tax changes, as noted by the non-partisan PBO, were progressive, benefiting low and middle-income earners the most.

The PBO identified low and middle-income earners as households where the annual income was between $12,200 and $23,300 a year. Those incomes are much less than the $90,000 the government thinks is middle class. The irony is that the wealthy friends of the Liberal Party, who attend the Liberal pay-to-play fundraisers, are some of the high-income earners who fled the country with their capital when the Liberals took office, in the largest flight of capital since records began to be kept.

Low to middle-income earners enjoyed a real increase in their after-tax income at a rate higher than the richest 10% of Canadians, with Conservatives in government. Conservatives are the best friends of millions of everyday Canadians with just an average size paycheque.

Canadians, for the first time, are net creditors of the United States and have much to lose by the amateur way the government is conducting relations with our largest trading partner.

The Liberal tax targeted at health plans is the latest example, like the elimination of the family-friendly tax credits, and demonstrates, once again, the Liberal Party appetite for new taxes is insatiable. It will not stop until every last dollar in the pockets of taxpayers has been gobbled up.

The latest tax target, the subject of today's supply motion, is employer-sponsored health plans. The Liberals are looking to treat health plans as income, and tax them as income.

Health plans cover important preventive care measures like vision care, mental health services, prescription drugs, and physiotherapy. Taxing health plans could very well end up costing taxpayers money in addition to health care costs. As health care is a provincial responsibility, it is a sneaky way of implementing a tax grab and then downloading the social cost of this tax policy onto the provinces. It is sort of like the carbon tax two-step the feds just negotiated with the provinces, so the provinces would get blamed for their new tax on everything carbon taxed.

When the Province of Quebec began to tax these health plans, companies cut back and the number of people with additional health coverage dropped. With an aging population, the last thing we need is for Canadians to have less health coverage.

Just as with the Netflix tax, the Liberals are trying to spin this new tax by saying it is about fairness. For Liberals, the fair solution to any problem is for everybody to pay higher taxes.

Once again, the reckless spending of the Liberals is putting Canadians' health at risk. We need to tell the Prime Minister that health plans should not become the latest Liberal tax target. Liberal plans to tax employer-sponsored health plans will be especially painful for retired Canadians on fixed incomes.

Some companies still offer health benefits to retired employees. While more companies require pensioners to pay for portions of their health benefits, they still provide large tax-free benefits. According to a Conference Board of Canada report, the average cost to a company to provide a plan is about $8,330. Depending on how much pensioners contribute to their health plans, they could have an additional tax burden of $800 to $1,600 per year.

For pensioners on fixed incomes in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, already facing the January 1, 2017, federally mandated Kathleen Wynne carbon tax, this new health tax could wipe them out financially. If they opt out of the health plans to avoid being hit with this tax, they put their health at greater risk.

Seniors' health is already being put at risk by energy poverty. They do not have the luxury of avoiding the cold by spending a lavish holiday on a private island paid for by a wealthy friend in the Bahamas, as the Prime Minister did. The Liberal Premier of Ontario wants seniors in my riding to spend their winters in a cold, dark house, because the high cost of electricity means they are afraid to turn on the lights or the heat.

Retired Canadians paid tax all of their working lives, and much of it went to pay for Pierre Trudeau's reckless spending. Having worked hard their whole lives, now they will be punished for the son's reckless spending.

If this new health tax could hurt any of the Canadians who are listening to this debate, I ask them to share this information with anyone else they know who could suffer from this tax as well. We can stop the Liberals from sneaking this new tax into this budget, but only if more Canadians know about it and speak out.

The Liberal scheme to tax employer-sponsored health plans would disproportionately harm employers. The Liberals have never been fans of small businesses. They attacked them during the election. The Prime Minister cancelled planned cuts to the small business tax rate, and is now telling some businesses, such as family-owned campgrounds, that they are too small to qualify for a business tax rate for small business. If that is not enough, taxing health plans might hammer the final nail into the coffins of many employees of many small businesses.

When Quebec started taxing employer-sponsored health plans, it saw a 20% drop in the number of businesses providing coverage. Broken down by size, 26% of the companies with fewer than 20 employees stopped providing health plans, while only 7% of the companies with 500 or more employees dropped their health coverage.

After hearing from a number of small business owners who are worried about being the latest Liberal tax target, it is easy to understand why this tax will burden small businesses more than large corporations. Small businesses that can afford to provide health benefits do so by purchasing group insurance plans. The more employees enrolled in the group plan, the cheaper it gets to provide coverage to each employee. A minimum number of employees is required to qualify for a group plan, and it could be that if someone opts out the minimum level for a plan would be too low for anyone in the business to be covered. What is worse, if the health plan gets more expensive, the Canada Revenue Agency, which the Minister of Finance empowered in the last budget to raise billions more in taxes by increased tax enforcement, might argue that the value of the benefit has increased and tax those left in the plan even more. If the tax rate goes up, more people drop their plans, and the group plan costs go up, on and on in a downward spiral until the company drops the plan altogether.

Just like the Liberal carbon tax, a tax on private health care and a Netflix tax will raise prices for Canadians while undermining innovation and leave us at an economic disadvantage.

Bad spending does not justify tax increases. The time has come for the current government to quit mortgaging the future of our young people.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems fairness is allowing the member to present her alternative reality.

We were quite clear yesterday that the tax on the health plans would not be coming through. I wonder what other ideas she has of what we are going to do that we have no intention of doing.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that one cannot trust a Liberal promise, and it was only said in passing. We are going to hold them to what they said. As the tax rate goes up, more people drop their plans.

Many small business owners told me how proud they were when their business had reached the point where they could provide additional health coverage to their employees. As in most small businesses, the owners work alongside their employees day in and day out. They are friends, and in many cases, like family. They worry about the choices that they might be forced to make. Will they have to cut the health plan and pay payroll taxes, or keep the plan and lay somebody off? Healthy employees are good for business.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I think she gave a very good answer to my Liberal colleague’s question.

In light of what was announced yesterday, how can we rely on a single word that comes out of the mouth of a Liberal minister or a government member, when, from one day to the next, they deny what they say, they renege on promises, and they change their minds without giving anyone any notice?

The government’s word certainly took a heavy hit yesterday, when the Liberals announced that they were not going to keep one of their clearest and most solemn promises of the election campaign: to change the electoral system. I know that my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle is also very familiar with the subject of electoral reform.

Does my colleague believe that we can rely on the Liberals’ word when they announce they are going to do something or they are not going to do something?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a Liberal government can never be trusted. The Liberal government's spending is so out of control that the finance department released a report days before Christmas projecting federal budget deficits until 2050. Two years ago, under a Conservative government, that same finance report said that Canada could have its entire national debt paid off by 2050.

With deficits as far as the eye can see, it is no wonder Liberals are trying to find new things to tax and new ways to tax them. Previously, the latest Liberal tax target was foreign digital streaming services like Netflix. The Liberals would like to force Netflix to start charging us HST on our monthly bill, and they are claiming it is all about fairness. They claim that, because Canadian companies like Bell have to charge HST for digital streaming services, foreign companies should charge HST too.

Of course, Liberals think the fair solution is to raise taxes rather than cut taxes for all Canadians.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is studying every tax credit. Does the member think it would be a good idea to cancel the public transit tax credit, the volunteer firefighter tax credit, and the tax credit for charitable donations?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleague would not give the Liberals any more ideas on where to raise taxes. Of course, they are going to find it somewhere. If they are not going to be taxing health plans, they will tax dental plans, or they will start taxing pop and fruit drinks. Even the people who avoid the sin taxes are swept into the net tax as well.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Oakville North—Burlington.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his motion. As the Prime Minister clearly stated yesterday in the House, the government is not considering taxing health care and dental plans. However, I am delighted to take this opportunity to speak to some of the measures we have taken to support and strengthen Canada's middle class since we took office in late 2015.

Our government is committed to growing the middle class, as we believe that a strong economy that works for everyone starts with the middle class. That is why building an economy that works for middle-class Canadians and their families is the government's top priority. Budget 2016 introduced measures that built upon the progress that we launched with the middle-class tax cut, which I will return to shortly. In particular, budget 2016 announced the introduction of the new Canada child benefit. The CCB is simpler than the system it replaced. It is fully tax free, more generous, and targeted more effectively to those who need it most.

Nine out of 10 families are receiving more in child benefits than they did under the previous system. For the 2016–17 benefit year, these families will see an average increase in benefits of almost $2,300, or about $190 extra per month.

The first CCB payments were issued last July. More than 3.2 million Canadian families receiving these monthly payments now have increased means with which to raise their children. With the introduction of the CCB, about 300,000 fewer children will be living in poverty in 2017, compared with 2014. This translates into a reduction of about 40% in overall child poverty, which is a major step forward toward the goal of ensuring that all children in Canada have a fair chance at success.

Finally, by indexing the CCB to inflation, starting in 2020, we will ensure that families can continue to count on this support over the long term.

Even before budget 2016, one of the first actions we took after becoming a government was to introduce a tax cut for the middle class. This tax cut is already benefiting nearly nine million Canadians. By reducing the 22% federal income tax rate to 20.5% for 2016, and subsequent taxation years, single individuals who benefit will see an average tax reduction of $330 every year and couples who benefit will see an average tax reduction of $540 every year.

To help pay for this important tax relief for the middle class, the government raised taxes on the wealthiest Canadians by introducing a new top income tax rate of 33% for individuals with a taxable income of more than $200,000 per year.

We also undertook further measures to ensure that the tax system is fair for middle-class Canadians. For instance, we introduced measures to address underground economic activity, tax evasion, and aggressive tax planning, as well as measures to improve the government's ability to collect outstanding tax debts.

Budget 2016 announced legislative and other actions on both the international and domestic fronts to enhance the integrity of Canada's tax system.

Also, to ensure the tax system is fair for Canadians, efficient, and fiscally responsible, we are undertaking a review of the tax system to determine whether it works well for Canadians, with a view to eliminating poorly targeted and inefficient measures.

Our government also wants to ensure that Canadians who work hard all their lives are rewarded with a secure and dignified retirement; so we are helping Canadians realize this goal. Budget 2016 increased the guaranteed income supplement, or GIS, top-up benefit by up to $947 annually for low-income single seniors, who are much more likely to be low income than seniors generally. This enhancement more than doubles the current maximum GIS top-up benefit and represents a 10% increase in the total maximum GIS benefit available to low-income single seniors. We also cancelled the previous government's increase to the eligibility age for OAS and GIS benefits, which will put thousands of dollars back in the pockets of Canadians as they become seniors.

We also took steps to enhance the Canada pension plan. Last June, the federal government and our provincial and territorial counterparts came to a historic agreement to enhance the CPP to ensure that future generations of Canadians can count on a strong public pension system in their retirement years.

At maturity, the CPP enhancement will increase the maximum CPP retirement benefit by about half, which in today's dollars will represent an increase of nearly $7,000, to a maximum benefit of nearly $20,000. Because of this, more Canadians will spend more time with their grandkids, rather than worrying about how to pay their rent. The Government of Canada looks forward to the provinces issuing the necessary orders in council to bring the legislation into force shortly.

We have made important progress, but we have more work to do. Canada must look to the future and provide middle-class families with the confidence, tools, and opportunities to ensure that they have a real and fair chance at success. Our government will build on the successes of the past year or so, and we will continue to make smart and necessary investments to spur long-term growth and strengthen the middle class.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear yesterday's announcement that the Prime Minister is not considering taxing health and dental benefits, but why should we believe that? The reason I am asking that question is there have been many times when the government made commitments to the people of Canada, such as the 20,000 steelworkers in Hamilton the government said it would use every tool in the tool box to help, but so far it was been missing in action.

The government boasts and brags about its commitment to the Canada pension plan enhancement, but it has now turned around and excluded the dropout periods for child-rearing and for people with disabilities, which is a very important provision in the enhancement.

Yesterday we found out that the government is now reneging on its promise to Canadians on electoral reform, even though it has been mentioned 1,813 times.

Could the member tell us why we should believe the government now when it has broken promises before?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our government, as stated in my speech, has in fact delivered on many of the commitments we made.

Right away our first actions were on the Canada child benefit. It is more fair for Canadians. It is tax-free and does more for families. Another thing we did is we introduced a middle-class tax break.

In terms of the CPP dropout provisions, I have to be clear it is contrary to what my hon. friend is saying. The minister acknowledged and said he would raise dropout provisions with his provincial and territorial counterparts. We are committed to helping the middle class and those working hard to join it.

The actions this government has taken in just over a year have delivered on those principles.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague was around when these measures were actually taken, but the previous government under Prime Minister Harper initiated the largest single increase in the GIS for seniors in 25 years. We increased the age exemption twice. We increased the personal exemption three times. We introduced pension income splitting. The late Jim Flaherty introduced the shared pension plan, which somebody could voluntarily opt into in order to have a secondary source of pension income. As well, of course, there was the TFSA which was the single greatest enhancement of pension income since the RRSP.

With all of that said, the initiative that the Liberal government is taking is to increase the deficit by 300% more than what it said it would. Who does the member think is going to pay for that when that debt finally becomes due? Does the member realize that the youth who are growing up right now are the ones who eventually will pay for that?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct in that I was not here during the previous government when it made those changes, but I was a member of a municipal government previously in Pickering in the riding that I represent. I often heard from seniors who had to choose between paying for their medication or paying their rent or electricity bill. The measures which the previous government took were not working. The previous government was out of touch with what ordinary Canadians were concerned about with respect to the expenses they had to choose between.

The previous government also promised to balance budgets and it never did so. Middle-class Canadians were being left behind. Our government committed to fixing that. I am proud of the changes that we have made to the previous government's initiatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I rise to debate the motion advanced by the Conservatives. I expected there might have been a change to their plans overnight, given the comments from the Prime Minister.

It is an interesting process. The Conservatives like to give a bit of a scoop, that the Liberals will do this or the Liberals will tax that, but they have really lost the theme of what this government has been telling Canadians. Maybe I should remind them.

One of the very first things this government did was to make it clear that we are here to serve Canada's middle class and those who are striving to become a part of Canada's middle class. That was demonstrated very clearly in the very first piece of legislation we introduced, which was to implement that tax break. It is interesting to note that the Conservative Party voted against the tax break for Canada's middle class.

The Conservatives can say what they will, but whether we are talking about our health care workers, many of our factory workers, many of our first time responders, Canada's core middle class was given a tax break. That tax break put money into the pockets of Canadians, and the Conservatives voted against it.

I would suggest that we do not have to take any advice from a Conservative Party that has lost touch with what Canadians are thinking and what Canadians want. I truly believe that the Conservatives have lost touch with Canadians. At the end of the day, if we look at the overall presentation that this government has made on budgetary policy, the biggest benefactors will be Canada's middle class through that tax break. There is also the Canada child benefit plan for our children, the additional dollars that are being spent on that program. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance expanded on that quite well, I think. We are going to lift tens of thousands of children out of poverty because of that plan.

We could talk about the GIS, something which I have spoken about in the House on numerous occasions. Again, there is a substantial increase in what some of the most poor and vulnerable seniors in Canada from coast to coast to coast are receiving. For poorer seniors, there is in excess of $900 a year more going into their pockets.

That covers just a few initiatives that were presented by this government in the last year.

On the other side, the Conservatives now realize they kind of blew it on this health tax idea, and personally, I think they were the ones who were thinking of it. It had nothing to do, from the best that I can tell, with the Government of Canada looking into it, and the Prime Minister made it very clear yesterday that we are not moving ahead with any sort of tax on health and dental plans.

Having said that, they brought in a friendly amendment, which was accepted by the Conservative Party. It was an internal change that they made and accepted. Now they want to focus on small businesses. The Prime Minister just finished going to town halls across Canada. I had the good fortune to have him show up in Winnipeg to participate in one of those town halls. That is real accountability. Please correct me if I am wrong, but can the Conservatives tell me when the former prime minister, Stephen Harper, did anything of that nature?

The former prime minister was inside a glass bubble and Harper did not go outside of it. Now we have a Prime Minister who is not scared of accountability, who believes in transparency. We have seen demonstrations of that ever since the last federal election back in October 2015.

What we hear is very real, because it is coming from Canadians. It is not only the Prime Minister of Canada who has town halls. He has challenged all members, particularly members of the Liberal caucus, to stay connected with their constituents. We do that in many different ways.

I will now reference something that I have commented on in the past. The Conservatives and New Democrats talk about small businesses. If we were to ask small businesses what they want more than anything else, they would say they want customers. The best way to get them more customers and more consumer spending in their stores is to ensure that they have more disposable income. That is, in fact, what this government has delivered through its tax breaks to Canada's middle class and those striving to become part of it. Hundreds of millions of extra dollars are going into the pockets of Canadians that are allowing them to increase their disposable incomes just through that program, not to mention the other two programs I mentioned.

Combined, the billions of dollars that are now in the Canadian economy are a direct result of this government's policies to put more money in the pockets of the middle class, which allows more money to be spent in the economy. Liberals believe that, ultimately, if there is a healthy middle class, there will be a healthier economy. That is, really and truly, what Canadians want. If the Conservatives would go outside of the former Harper bubble, or possibly the Ottawa bubble, and actually consult with constituents, they would find that the important issues before us today that people are really concerned about are issues like jobs and the economy, which continue to be of the utmost importance for this Prime Minister and this government.

The Minister of Finance, now with the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, has done a phenomenal job reaching out to Canadians in many ways to ensure that the ideas being generated for discussion in cabinet, in the Liberal caucus, or within the chamber are ideas being generated by average Canadians. That is why I believe that we will be able to deliver a budget in due course that will reflect the wants and needs of Canadians.

We talk about tax fairness. There is no doubt that Canadians, as a whole, want tax fairness. I have heard members from the New Democratic Party talk about it, in particular. The last budget recognized, as I believe most of Canada's wealthiest people recognize, that they, too, have an obligation to pay for the many different programs that Canadians expect to be put in place and supported. That is why we increased the tax on Canada's wealthiest.

What I find most interesting about all of this is that even though there are substantial increases in taxes, in other cases substantial tax decreases, and, as I just referenced, an increase in tax on Canada's wealthiest, which we on this side understand and take that holistic approach, time after time, members across the way vote against these types of initiatives. If we listen to members across the way talk about tax fairness or dealing with the inequity of the distribution of wealth in Canada and then look at the actions of this government, it is somewhat confusing as to why they would not, at the very least, support some of the actions in a more tangible way.

A number of members on the Conservative side have talked about the deficit. The best way I can reassure all who might be listening is for them to realize that no one added more to the debt than former prime minister Stephen Harper, a total debt well in excess of $150 billion. We do not need to take lessons from the Conservatives. When Mr. Harper took office he actually had a multi-billion dollar surplus. He converted that awfully quickly to a deficit, and he never did get to a surplus position.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words from the other side. They are very comical at some points.

I want to talk about the travelling road show the Prime Minister went on after he got caught going to a private island. We heard the tearful pleas of a woman in Buckhorn, formerly in my riding, Kathy Katula. “I now not only work 75 hours a week, I stay and work 15 hours a day just so I don’t lose my home”.

She is the mother of four, with three grandchildren. She asked the Prime Minister how she was supposed to afford a hydro bill that has risen above $1,000 a month, and asked him to justify the federal government's planned carbon tax. His answer was that hydro matters are a provincial matter, and the government's plan to put a price on carbon pollution was necessary to fight climate change.

Talk about out of touch. The government's one-sided solution, government knows best, is taking more money out of people's pockets, giving them less and less to live. How is taking away options for people to make educated choices on matters that pertain to them a good idea? How is taking more money out of people's pockets a good idea?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member across the way made reference to the travelling road show. I can assure the member that the thousands of Canadians who participated in the national town hall tour the Prime Minister took saw the value of it. They got engaged. I suspect even the individual the member just made reference to appreciated the fact that she was able to pose the question directly to the Prime Minister. It is something Stephen Harper never did.

On the issue of the price on carbon, I am always happy to talk about it. I am fearful though, Mr. Speaker, that you are going to stand up right away and I will not be able to provide the details. However, suffice it to say that not one dime from the price on carbon is coming to Ottawa. That money is actually going to the provinces, and if the provinces wanted to, they could do whatever they want. They could give additional tax breaks to their citizens if that is what they so choose. I think that would be positive.

What we are seeing is strong national leadership on the environment file. The Prime Minister should be applauded for that.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the government brings about whenever things get a little hot in this place and they are in trouble. I would suggest that the government got caught in its plan to pick the pockets of taxpayers with this proposed health benefit tax. If they truly wanted to do something to advance health care, to make sure that Canadians have the proper health care they so richly deserve, they would look at pharmacare. There are no plans to look at pharmacare. There is nothing but a lot of noise and wind.

When it comes to these town halls, last summer the government encouraged all of us to have town halls regarding electoral reform. I had such a town hall, and of the people who gave up their Sunday afternoon to come and talk to us, 85% of them very clearly said they wanted proportional representation. They wanted electoral reform. Now, it is all gone.

Twice, the taxpayers' pockets have been picked. Number one is with this proposed health tax. Number two is with these town halls, which cost a great deal of money for no purpose at all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is wrong in her assessment. The Prime Minister made it very clear yesterday. The Conservatives and NDP can conspire, whether alone or jointly, that the Liberals are going to put a tax on this. The reality is, there is no tax on the health benefits. Both sides actually know that. One would think they would stop saying it, but it is up to them if they want to continue to do so.

With regard to the health care issue, our government does not need to apologize one iota in regard to its sense of commitment to health care, which has been lacking in the last 10 years. When the health care accord of 2004 expired and the Conservatives did absolutely nothing it was the Liberal Party, as a third party, that spoke out loud and clear about how important it was to achieve another health care accord. Today, we have a health minister who is working diligently with each province to try to do just that.

Canadians value our health care system. Our government understands that because our government, unlike the former government, is listening to what Canadians have to say, and we are working very hard to deliver the type of health care system that we believe Canadians want to see.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today. I will make one solemn promise to the House that I will not scream and yell as I give my statement today on the motion. The motion says:

That, given the average middle class Canadian is already overburdened with taxes, the House call on the government to abandon any plans it may have to in any way tax health and dental care plans.

Make no mistake, this is and was the plan of the government in spite of what the Prime Minister said yesterday. I will acknowledge that he stood up here and said that there will be no tax on health and dental care plans, but given the events of the last couple of days I find it very hard to believe, as do many of the colleagues on this side of the House, anything that the Prime Minister says.

It is kind of ironic as well that today is Groundhog Day, because we are talking about Liberal tax increases and the potential thereof. Those of us who live in Ontario and those of us who represent Ontario understand full well the impact that the Ontario Liberal government has made with respect to tax increases and service cuts. I will remind everybody again that Ontario is the most indebted sub-sovereign borrower in the world. To think that we are not on that path with the current government is foolhardy, naive, and a mistake on all of us not to recognize that. Ontario is $315 billion in debt; $22,500 per person is the share of the debt. That is 50% more than California's per person share of debt.

The Liberal government has spoke about debt and deficits. The Liberals promised a balanced budget by 2019. We now see that is not going to happen. In fact, the debt, as projected by the finance department, is going to be $1.5 trillion in 15 years, which is going to work out to about $42,000 of debt per person, per Canadian. Let us think about that. Let us think about the young people, and there are some in the gallery today, who are going to be shouldering the burden of that debt. By contrast, the Conservative plan for debt was that it would have been gone by 2038, and there would have been a $1.7-trillion surplus by 2015 and a balanced budget by 2055.

The reality is this. We have seen this in Ontario and it should come as no surprise to anybody in Ontario that this is happening federally. There is one person who lurks in the shadows of the Prime Minister's Office who has initiated a lot of the failed policies in Ontario, and his name is Gerald Butts. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If 1,000 people do something stupid, it is still stupid. The policies of the current Liberal government that it is following with the Ontario Liberals are going to put us in a position of bankruptcy, in a position of significant debt. Those numbers are not numbers that I am taking out of the air. They are numbers that are quantifiable.

Here is what happens. Taxes go up, services go down. We are already starting to see that. In fact, I know that the Liberals talk about the budget in 2016. Here are some of the losers of that budget: the children; arts and fitness tax credits; the Liberals have cut the education and textbook tax credit; new mortgage rules making it harder to get approved for a home loan; a national carbon tax has been announced; Canada pension plan tax hike; cancellation of the small business tax cut; and elimination of the hiring tax credit.

The thing that really bothers me is that one tax credit because I come from a riding where there are a lot of single-income families. In fact, prior to being elected to Parliament, I was one of those families. The fact was that I was able to split my income with my wife by $2,000. The Liberals eliminated that. Therefore what the Liberals give, the Liberals take away.

I will remind the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

The Liberals give with one hand and take away with the other.

I have said many times in the House that effectively, what the Liberals are perpetrating on Canadians is middle-class tax fraud.

Why are we here today? It is because we hear this narrative all the time: the middle class and those working hard to join it. The reality is that when they pile on debt and deficit the way the Liberal government is, how are the middle class and those working hard to join it ever going to get to that point?

We have also heard that the finance minister cannot even define middle class, so how do the Liberals know what the middle class is? It is a pure talking point. If they say this narrative over and over again, it will somehow be true.

We talk about the potential for tax increases, in this case the employer health benefits and dental benefits tax, but there are others the Liberals could look at as well. I am talking about tax credits for employee stock options, a public transit tax credit, the Canada employment tax credit, the volunteer firefighter tax credit, the dividend gross-up tax credit, partial inclusion of capital gains, and the mineral exploration tax credit.

Do members know what buzz words the Liberals' use, again, as part of this narrative? They talk about it in terms of fairness and simplification. What does that actually mean? It means taking money out of Canadians' pockets. Hard-working, middle-class Canadians are having money extracted out of their pockets under the guise of fairness and simplification.

Aaron Wudrick, of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said, “Unfortunately, there are worrying signs that [Minister of Finance]'s real intent is to use 'simplification' as political cover to hike taxes by stealth for millions of Canadians”. In the case of this particular tax increase, it could potentially affect 13.5 million Canadians.

The truth is that there is only one party that protects the middle class, and there is only one party that has protected the middle class for as long as I have been an adult. The Conservative Party is the only true party that protects the middle class, and it is the reason I am a Conservative.

The Liberals often talk about taxing the top 1%, but again, this is more false information. That tax increase on the 1% was supposed to be revenue-neutral. The reality is that in six years, there will be a deficit of $8.9 billion. Who is going to pay that? Services go down, taxes go up. Ultimately, the middle class ends up paying for that.

What is interesting, and I have said this here before, and I know that the member for Winnipeg North has argued this, is the reality that those who benefit the most from the Liberal so-called middle class tax increases have been every one of the 338 members of this Parliament. It is actually those I would classify as upper middle-class Canadians, those earning $160,000 to $200,000, who have benefited the most from this. Those earning $45,000 have received nothing. I urge members across the way to stop this false narrative and tell Canadians the truth about what is going on.

There are other broken promises. There was electoral reform. We heard about that yesterday. There were going to be deficits of less than $10 billion annually. We know that story. There was going to be a balanced budget by 2019, but it will not be until 2055. They were going to save home mail delivery, another broken promise. They were going to immediately invest $3 billion over four years in home care. They were going to reduce the small business tax from 11% to 9%, another broken promise, and scrap the F-35 program. I could go on, but I know my time is short.

By the time the Liberals are done with the middle class, the Conservatives will have to clean up the mess and build the middle class back up, just like we did before. The Conservatives did this the last time a Trudeau was the prime minister, and we will have to do it again.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, my wife and I made a fairly different amount of money. I was a parliamentary staffer, and she was not making a lot of money. We could not take advantage of the income splitting the member for Barrie—Innisfil defends so strongly, but he could take advantage of the full $2,000 as a member of Parliament. I wonder if that is his idea of tax fairness for the middle class.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to answer that question, because as a professional firefighter, I was making what I would classify as a middle-class income, and my wife did not work. There were a lot of families like mine that I worked with who took advantage of that. It helped in keeping my spouse at home and keeping my spouse looking after our children instead of having those daycare expenses. I had no problem with that. Removing it affected millions of Canadian families like mine.

It gets to the point, as I said earlier, that the Liberals should not go around saying that they are giving all of these tax breaks to people, when they are sucking it back from the other side. It is disingenuous to those families. It is a false narrative, and it is something they need to stop doing.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. While we do not necessarily share the Conservatives’ views on the tax base and taxation, we find their motion interesting. They highlight the contradiction in what the Liberal government is doing: it gives something with one hand and takes it away with the other. Middle-class Canadians were promised that their tax burden would be lightened, but everybody earning less than $45,000 is getting nothing. They are not getting one cent. In addition, they are being told that they will have to pay taxes on health, so more money is going to be picked from their pockets. I would like him to talk about Liberal hypocrisy when it comes to the promises made to the middle class.