Alex Nuttall

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, what I have seen so far from this government, whether in the throne speech or in the motion that was passed before the Christmas break, is not that the government is helping people in need, those earning less than $45,000 a year. What I have seen is an increase in the benefits to those earning $190,000 a year. Those are the people who are reaping the most from the motion the member's government has put forward. To quote my friend and colleague from earlier this day, it is a little bit disingenuous for the government to continually speak out of one side of its mouth, when the people they have benefited the most are those earning $190,000 a year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

As this is my first opportunity to stand in the House, I would like to begin by thanking the people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte for electing me as their member of Parliament this term.

The riding is large and diverse. We have internationally recognized wetlands in the Minesing Wetlands, incredible agricultural production in Springwater and Oro-Medonte, and an urban core in Barrie that resides on the shores of the beautiful Lake Simcoe. It is a downtown that is in transition, growing up and working to help those in our community who are less fortunate.

Moreover, it was an incredibly close election and I would like to formally stand in the House today and congratulate all of the candidates, but particularly Brian Tamblyn, on a hard-fought, respectful race.

Most importantly, I would like to stand to thank my wife Erica, our entire family who supported us, and our amazing children. We had our second child just four weeks before the election was called, which was an incredibly exciting time for us.

For my constituents, I ask the following in holding their team in Ottawa to account. If our office does not respond from a position of service, please demand it. If I talk of our successes without defining new goals and service, please request it. When I speak of being an MP as though it is who I am rather than the position I serve in, please correct it.

As a new generation of MPs was elected to govern and define this country, I take particular notice of the need to reach out to new generations of Canadians. It is, after all, our responsibility to engage Canadians as much as it is their responsibility to vote and elect governments. I am a younger parliamentarian, and my office is looking for new ways to reach out to all generations and create interest in the business that is conducted in the House.

Therefore, I offer the following. It is an honour to stand in the House and address its hon. members, in a place that is full of diverse opinions—some minions, visionaries, and tax spenders—a place that is built on the bedrock of the Canadian shield, that represents from east to west those who keep us safe in our urban core to those who perseveringly work their fields. All that we yield is because of these people, no matter their creed or faith from mosque, to synagogue, to steeple. We strive to take care of our feeble, sick, and weak, and offer a home to those who seek refuge in times and places way too far and often far too bleak.

It is impossible for us to understand that, having grown up in this land, we have won the most important lottery by merely being where we stand. So as I look upon the Speech from the Throne from beginning to end, I relish the tone, but it is the details that I wish to hone. This speech is not merely to reprimand or oppose, but rather the opposite. It is to highlight opportunities; it is to propose.

Where we now engage and debilitate our enemies from the sky, this throne speech seeks to cut and run without explaining a single reason why.

There is no compromise or plan to justify. The government is leaving Canada's allies, refugees who seek home, and our military high and dry.

Even after the events just weeks ago, when our CF-18s assisted in the defence of Mosul, the government refuses to see what we all know, that this mission requires a multi-faceted approach: settlement of refugees here at home, betterment of camps where new refugees go, humanitarian aid, training of soldiers to defend against terrorist raids, and the engagement of CF-18s to stem supply flow.

After all the speeches, glamour, and promises faded, we found out that the government had set expectations without basis, failing to hit its own targets on resettlement, betraying both those who voted for it and those refugees who seek betterment.

Back at home, little is different; the government promised tax cuts that would be cost neutral and middle class spirited. As it turns out neither is true. There is a $2 billion hole in the budget; and if people earn $190,000 a year—guess what—this tax cut really benefits them. For seniors who need to reinvest after being taxed on a RRIF, the government is taking away room in their TFSA only to offer them a legalized spliff.

Like an automobile driving off a cliff, the government proceeded with tax cuts in haste, only to realize that it is the top 10% of income earners who benefit most from the reduced tax rate. Those who are without have been left confused and irate; an entire section of population has been neglected, forgotten, and wondering if real change has lost its fate, or whether it is just going to come far too late.

I stand today asking, not just because I am an MP but because growing up in government housing, on our welfare system, and with help from my community is what makes me who I am. What all of us who have grown up with little crave to see is great employment, more jobs, and incredible opportunity, an economy that is not growing based on how much a government can spend but one that is stable and strong, supported by a government that lends, that sees trends and delivers help to business and employers that are glowing, not arbitrarily blowing money and subsidizing those that leave liabilities on balance sheets growing.

When the Liberal leader believes that transitioning away from manufacturing is his government mandate, he has caused a manufacturing earthquake, like the movement of a tectonic plate in southern Ontario.

While our dollar weakens and there is pain in the energy sector, we ask the Liberal government to listen to its southern Ontario electors. We understand that, for some, this is positive news; for most exporters the low dollar is in fact like sweet nectar. However, if there was ever a time for the government to act and support manufacturing jobs, the time to do so is now, before the opportunity is robbed.

With so much competition for made goods, products, and employment, why has only a single private sector vendor received a repayable loan through a FedDev anointment? Even this was approved by the Conservative government back in July, which raises the question: what is the government not doing for the Canadian workforce and why? I know from experience that, when FedDev invests, the economy digests. It is driven, creates jobs, helps families, and puts back out three times more than it was originally given.

When I look back to those who stood and announced over $4 million in repayable loans from a podium resulting in a Canadian success story, an expansion of product lines, and an increase to over 800 jobs in Oro-Medonte at Napoleon, or the stable funding to help start-ups like gShift in Barrie, I find the fact that the government has not unilaterally invested a single dollar in the private sector in four months with FedDev is scary.

It is correctly written in the throne speech that the economy and the environment are in fact compatible. However, where are there measurable targets that the government has made actionable? I think of the conservation that was introduced across this vibrant land, and in the House was read, or at home the funding that has turned Lake Simcoe back to life. As has been said, if we had done nothing this lake would be dead. Instead, the previous government expanded its focus, doubled the funding, helped Lake Simcoe, Nottawasaga, and southeastern Georgian Bay, even as the provincial Liberal policies threatened to choke us.

If the Liberal government is supporting agriculture, it sure did not show us it does, as there was not a single mention of those who work endlessly to provide our rural and urban areas with food, not a single word of the challenges facing the agricultural industry, specifically those farms that are family owned, or the difficulty transitioning between generations and maintaining the family farm as the family home.

As I look across this incredible building I think of the people, the parliamentarians, and the soldiers whose will and dedication was unyielding, of the mines of history that have been navigated with absolute precision, of the governments that knew standing up for those without a voice was not a choice but an automatic decision. That is where I believe we stand today as the government seeks to form itself in a new way, without a referendum asking those whom it represents if it may. Our democracy is as brittle as we make it if we fail to properly engage it, but it is as strong as our country is vast if we humbly approach the people with humility and ask. I would therefore request of colleagues that they change their course, respect those who have elected them, and not try to take this Parliament with political force.

It is an honour to stand and deliver this speech in prose. As members can see, I have many issues. This is a Speech from the Throne that I must oppose.