Alex Nuttall

[Government Appointments, February 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader cannot answer a question on ethics because he does not know what they are.

This letter was sent on behalf of the Prime Minister of Canada. It is right there in black and white. It is not enough that the Liberal House leader appears to be breaching ethical rules, but the Prime Minister himself is involved.

Will the Prime Minister stand and tell this House how he will fix the obvious ethical breach?

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct, not just with respect to the flexibility that is given through the tax-free savings account for younger Canadians; but it is ideal to take advantage of it because, the older one gets, usually the greater one's salary—there is an increase in revenue earned—and that point in life is the best opportunity to take advantage of an RRSP. That is 100% correct.

I am not sure why our colleagues across the aisle do not realize this. However, if they do not realize it, I can certainly see where the coffers of the government are going in the future.

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the parliamentary secretary trying to put words into our mouths over here. However, with all due respect, this bill exacerbates the issues. It gives tax breaks to those who are earning $190,000. Through the Speaker, I would say to the member that this is the Liberal government walking away from its election promise to help the middle class, because those who get the most out of this are in the top 10 percentile of income earners in this country.

Why did the government not help those in the middle class? Why is the government not focusing on those who earn less than $45,000? Why is the government removing room in the TFSA for Canadian seniors and for young people to be able to purchase their first homes?

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we certainly heard this narrative throughout the election, talking about the middle class. The member is right that we were not told by the Liberals what the middle class is defined as. They have defined it, though, through the tax measure they have brought in. They said they were going to concentrate on middle-class Canadians. They have concentrated on delivering tax relief to the top 10% of income earners in this country. By definition, what I and I think Canadians see is that the Liberal government and my Liberals colleagues across the aisle believe that the Canadian middle class is composed of those earning $190,000 or more.

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. The proposed changes to the act are the following: first, the reduction of room in the tax-free savings account for hard-working Canadians; and second, a reduction in taxes that have been marketed to Canadians as helping the middle class.

To preface any comments regarding these changes, I would like to begin by stating on the record that prior to my election as the representative for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, my career was in finance. From personal, to small business, to commercial finance, I have had experience in planning finances and investment portfolios, with the exception of securities, and reviewing financial statements to understand the solvency of both individuals and businesses.

My remarks today are focused on four clear results of this tax-and-spend Liberal ideology we are seeing. One, the reduction of the tax-free savings account hurts seniors and young people more than anyone else. Two, it discourages Canadians from saving their money for the future. Three, the apparent Liberal tax reduction for the middle class in fact benefits the top 10% of income earners in this country more than anyone else, while doing absolutely nothing to benefit those earning $45,000 per year or less. Four, a proposal that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and Liberal government have touted as revenue neutral will single-handedly be responsible for $8.9 billion worth of deficit over the next six years.

One of the most innovative tools ever delivered to Canadians, specifically seniors, is the tax-free savings account. While I understand that the government is looking at these changes from a theoretical perspective, my goal is to properly communicate what the practical advantages of these changes are. In my opinion, the Liberal government is reducing benefits to seniors and to all Canadians, benefits that were introduced and changed by the previous Conservative government.

For example, a widowed senior is required by the Canadian tax code to transition their life savings from a registered retirement savings plan, known as an RRSP, to a registered retirement income fund known as a RRIF. Upon transition to the retirement income fund, this senior must start withdrawing a minimum amount, which they are then taxed on. A withholding tax of up to 30% is then levied against withdrawals exceeding the withdrawal limits. Since retirement savings plans and retirement income funds are not truly liquid assets, a person may want to transition their savings into a more liquid vehicle, which is where the tax-free savings account comes in. The hitch is that, as stated, this person is being taxed as much as 30%. The idea that his or her life savings can be placed in a vehicle that can grow without tax in the future is ideal in most situations.

However, the government has reduced the annual amount a person can place in a tax-free savings account, which results in one of two things happening for seniors. First, the person is not able to remove as much of their life savings from their registered income fund in any given year. Second, the person is taxed based on a higher amount and then taxed again on the growth they attain in their senior years. I do not support separating seniors from their hard-earned money, which is likely being used to secure independent living, a healthy lifestyle, and to live out the remainder of their days as they see fit. I do not support under any circumstances raising taxes on seniors in our society.

Likewise, I do not support tax increases on young people looking to make the most incredible investment of their lifetime, in their first home. The CBC has stated the following:

With the TFSA, young people and home buyers have another option....

By contrast, withdrawals to the TFSA can be repaid to the plan at any time, following the year of withdrawal. “And unlike HBP [the home-buyers plan], failure to repay amounts withdrawn from a TFSA never result in tax on funds not repaid”....

The Liberal government has made it more difficult for young people to save for their first home. These young people in the GTA, Vancouver, and other hot markets throughout the country are being mandated now to save up to 10% for the down payment. At the same time, the Liberal government is clawing back one of the most effective tools to save that 10%. The government's action forces young people either to be taxed on the growth of their savings or use the home buyers' plan and pay back the money to the plan over the ensuing 10 years. Repayment, in these circumstances, can be difficult, as moving into home ownership is a life-changing situation and new homeowners often find these times challenging. What the Liberal government will do, therefore, is make it more difficult for young people to save and more difficult to purchase their first home.

While the Liberal finance minister travels around talking about shrinking household debt and increasing down payments on homes valued over $500,000, his government's policies are actually discouraging Canadians from saving for that same home. Therefore, why does the Liberal government say one thing and do another? The government believes that these tax hikes for seniors and young people trying to save for their first home are necessary. They are necessary in order to pay for its apparent middle-class tax cut.

Following the introduction of this apparent middle-class tax cut, economists stated that it would actually help those earning $190,000 a year, that is, those earning more than anyone else. In other words, no one would receive more help than those sitting in the top 10% of income earners in the country. How could the Liberal government, Liberal Prime Minister, Liberal Minister of Finance, and the Liberal MPs promote cutting taxes for those earning $190,000 a year on the backs of seniors in retirement and young people starting out their lives, or like the family I grew up in? We fought for years, like many Canadian families, to get and gain in home ownership.

I wish I could stop here. I wish this was where, to quote the member for Papineau, the “nonsensical” behaviour of this government ended, but it is not. Not only did the government raise taxes on seniors and young people, reduce incentives for saving, provide lower taxes to the top 10% of society, but when it did it, it also threw the government into deficit.

It was reported last week that the former Conservative government had left a $400 million surplus in November. In December, the finance minister announced that the Liberals would run a $3.5 billion deficit this year. This means the government has projected to spend $4.1 billion between November and March more than it takes in. One might ask how. It is because the revenue neutral middle-class tax cut is not revenue neutral and results in the 2016 fiscal year coming with a $1.7 billion shortfall, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Furthermore, it will result in a total $8.9 billion shortfall over the next six years.

When Canadians elected this government they did so believing that the middle class would be the great benefactor, that young people would be given greater opportunity, and that seniors would be given a new way to live out the remainder of their days. Based on the promises the government has made, it has shown that it will say just about anything to anyone to get elected. Canadians will hold the Liberals to account for the actions they take, for the actions they fail to take, and in what order they do so.

The government's priorities are transparent as a result of the actions it has taken first. As it stands today, the government has not prioritized seniors, young people, lower- and middle-class Canadians, and our children by its leaving a greater deficit year after year. The government has prioritized tax cuts for the top 10% of income earners in Canada. This what the government will be judged on. This is what it will be known for. This is why, as a Conservative, I cannot support Bill C-2.

[Natural Resources, January 27th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, a Liberal candidate in Alberta said that pipelines make Canada America's dirty gas tank. That candidate is now the chief of staff to the Minister of Environment. Another Liberal candidate from Quebec wants Ontario to transition away from manufacturing. That candidate is the Prime Minister of Canada.

Why does the Liberal government oppose oil sands in the west, energy east, and manufacturing right here in Ontario?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my hon. colleague for his speech today, but I believe that there are some concerns that have been raised and need to continue to be raised.

Actions speak louder than words. Obviously, we have only been here for about four months, but in those four months, one of the actions we have seen is a tax break that benefits those who earn $190,000 while it does not benefit at all those who earn less than $45,000. As the member said, he has heard from his constituents that they liked the throne speech. If governments were judged on words alone, they would continue to be elected over and over again.

Why did the government put a priority on helping those earning over $190,000 a year over those earning less than $45,000 a year?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, first, I congratulate the member for Barrie—Innisfil with whom I had the opportunity and honour to serve on Barrie council for eight years.

I ask a follow-up question on Lake Simcoe. A lot of funding and new dollars as well as other infrastructure items were invested by the federal government, which had a positive effect on Lake Simcoe.

Following 2017, is there a route the hon. member wants the federal government to take in terms of spending the funding or increasing it?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons my family and I grew up in government housing was that my mother was hit by a car and was permanently disabled.

I completely understand where the member is coming from. I also understand that Canada Post is an arm's-length organization, and certainly we need to rely on the experts to make the decisions on the future of that asset.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, obviously this was an issue that I heard much about during the election as I was pounding on doors, attending seniors' residences, et cetera.

One of the things I was proud to speak of during the election was the concept put forward by the Conservative Party that would have allowed widowed seniors and single seniors to take advantage of a new tax cut. That had incredible support in the community. It is something I will continue to support as an elected member of Parliament.

I am certainly open to looking at other options, but that was something that I saw right away would certainly help seniors, who are among the most sensitive in our society when it comes to income.