Cathy McLeod

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to the announcement by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs on May 10, 2016, that the government intends to adopt and implement the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: (a) did the Minister undertake consultations prior to reaching this decision; (b) if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, (i) which stakeholder groups were consulted, (ii) which individuals from these groups participated, (iii) where did the consultations occur, (iv) what travel costs did the government cover, broken down by stakeholder, (v) what per diem costs did the government cover, broken down by stakeholder, (vi) what accommodation costs did the government cover, broken down by stakeholder; (c) did the Minister receive any unsolicited views from stakeholder groups, and if so, from which stakeholders; and (d) has the Minister received communications from individual Canadians related to this decision?

[Income Tax Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance has an excellent report on the uptake of Canadians and how the TFSA has been a very important vehicle for them. Again, whether it is for young people perhaps who want to save for their first home, whether it is people in the middle class who are looking to save toward retirement, the argument that because they cannot put $10,000 a year in is not a good argument. There are some years where people can put in $10,000. To have that limit has been a very important vehicle for all.

[Income Tax Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that we agree with the NDP, but my colleague has some excellent questions. We talked earlier about the math problem the Liberals had with the execution of their middle-class tax cut being $8.9 billion, over a billion dollars a year of math problems. They also have a definition problem. They have never been able to clearly articulate what the middle class is and why they are defining and giving the biggest benefit to those making between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. I am sure most Canadians if asked if that were the middle class would clearly say this is not what they expected in tax cuts and in revenue neutral.

[Income Tax Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point. We do support tax cuts in many forms, but we also put a high priority on a balanced budget. Again, debt is deferred taxes. Liberals are taking a tax cut now and moving it to future generations. Our government worked very hard to see Canada through the global recession and get back to balanced budgets. The Liberal government spent $8 billion over the summer on gazebos and assorted items. It has miscalculated the money the tax cut would cost. Liberals have a huge spending problem and we need to be very concerned.

[Income Tax Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House. I hope everyone took the time this summer to reconnect with their constituents to find out what was happening in their ridings. I also hope they took a bit of time to enjoy our very short summers in Canada.

It is interesting that we are back here today debating Bill C-2. I noted an article yesterday in which it said that the Liberal government had the most unproductive Parliament in two decades in what it had managed to move forward with. Perhaps Bill C-2 is an example.

Bill C-2 was introduced in December of last year and we are now at third reading. That really illustrates the Liberals' inability to move what they say are important pieces of legislation through the House. However, I would rather have no legislation than bad legislation, which Bill C-2 is.

Because it has been so long, as a quick refresher, Bill C-2 contains a number of measures such as the change in the marginal tax rate, the TFSA reduction in limit, and of course some other things. There are general clean-up measures dealing with such things as charitable donation tax credits and income earned by trust, among others. Clearly what we will hear from the debate is that those clean-up measures are relatively uncontroversial. Really the issues around the marginal tax rate and the TFSAs are the most problematic.

Again today the debate has predominantly focused so far on the Liberals proudly proclaiming that their middle-class tax cut was a significant move forward. However, the Liberals really forgot to tell Canadians two very important things. One is that they never have clearly defined the middle class. I think most Canadians, as they listen to this, might be thinking that as the middle class, members of Parliament will see $700 where people who earn $23 an hour will see nothing.

I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

We have a very poorly defined middle class, and I do not think many of us would really call members of Parliament middle class who are deserving of the biggest tax cut. As Conservatives, we certainly support tax cuts in whatever form, but the bigger problem is that tax cut and what it would actually do. The government had a big oops in its math. The Liberals went to Canadians and said they were going to give this tax cut and that it was going to be revenue neutral because they were going to increase taxes for higher income earners. That was the commitment and the promise the Liberals made to Canadians. Lo and behold, they are in government and it is “wow, we've made a really big math error in that particular calculation”. That is an $8.9 billion error that will be over six years. The mistake the Liberals have made is over $1 billion a year.

We also had a commitment that they would have a $10 billion deficit. It has gone to $30 billion now. This is just one of the measures that has added to the deficit that will create problems into the future.

This is not a promise kept. This is a promise that has been broken to Canadians because it is not revenue neutral. It has been said in the past that debt is deferred taxes. For the $600 or $700 to someone who earns $160,000 a year, their children and grandchildren will have to pay. To be quite frank, the government is irresponsible to put that kind of debt and deficit on our children and grandchildren when it is not necessary. It is quite shameful.

The other piece I want to focus some comments on is the tax-free savings account. There really is no justification for the way the Liberals have structured their marginal tax reduction. They have reduced the ability to contribute to a tax-free savings account from $10,000 down to $5,000 plus a bit of change.

Let me talk about what the tax-free savings account is all about. This is from a Department of Finance document that looks at tax expenditures and evaluations.

It states:

Ensuring that the tax system provides meaningful incentives to save supports a more efficient allocation between current and future consumption. In particular, the accumulation of personal savings allows Canadians to improve their living standards and better align income and consumption when planning for important life events such as retirement [or purchasing a house]....[It is] increasing the funds available for capital investment, which leads to a higher capacity to produce goods and services.

The evidence from the program shows that Canadians have taken advantage of these tax savings opportunities. It is a popular means of saving for Canadians of all ages. I would commend to anyone who is interested in the TFSA and its impact. This is an excellent document, and it certainly talks about the benefits.

What is the Liberals' argument with respect to why they had to reduce the tax-free savings account? They said that it was only benefiting the rich, that not everyone could put money into it and therefore it was not a good thing to do.

There are 440,000 GIS recipients who have put $4.3 billion into their tax-free savings accounts. That gives us a really good example. I think anyone could imagine that living on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement is a challenge for any senior. However, let us say that there are seniors who have a house but really no major means of support. They then sell their houses and have tiny nest eggs that they can put into their tax-free savings accounts and have the interest that they make to support them during their retirement and very difficult times. Having that allocation is a very important mechanism for seniors putting a little from the sale of a house into a GIS, or young people in Vancouver or Toronto. Right now we know how difficult it is for young people to get into the housing market. Therefore, it is a real step backward and a real shame to see the measures the government has taken in that area.

The Liberals do not like allowing us the personal freedom to make choices about our own money. They want to enforce an increase in the Canada pension plan, which will not only enforce increased contributions from individuals but also employers. They like a plan that the government controls. For some reason they are adversely opposed to plans that Canadians control. Perhaps if people do not want to put extra money into the CPP, they see the TFSA as an opportunity to put money into their savings. Therefore, there is not a one size fits all.

I am very concerned that the government is showing a massive predisposition toward spending taxpayer money that it does not have, deficits, debt, and creating a one-size-fits-all government-run program that is not good for meeting the needs of Canadians in all of their diversities.

[Income Tax Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to something that both the member and I have alluded to. On the campaign trail a year ago, we remember hearing the commitment from the Liberals on the tax cut they were going to provide. They very clearly said that it was going to be revenue neutral. We now know that there is a big “oops” in that calculation.

I wonder if he could talk a bit about the math behind it and who, ultimately, is going to actually have to cover this tax reduction.

[Income Tax Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Labrador for her speech, but I think she neglected to tell Canadians one very important thing.

When the Liberals were on the campaign trail and first talked about this middle-class tax cut, they guaranteed that it would be revenue neutral, so that the money the rich paid would wash out in the wash. What the member has not told Canadians is that this will add to the deficit. It has been estimated by the parliamentary budget officer that it would be $8.9 billion over six years.

When the member was on the campaign trail, did she commit to her community that this would be a revenue neutral tax cut, because clearly it is not?

[Income Tax Act, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I clearly recall that when the Liberals were campaigning approximately a year ago they talked about the middle-class tax cut, but they never did define “middle class”. I know that the member opposite is in the tax bracket that would benefit most from this tax break, and I do not think that many Canadians would look at members of Parliament and say they are part of the middle class.

Therefore, I would ask the member this. Could he define “middle class”, and would he suggest that the members of this House are the ones who should be benefiting the most from this initiative, which is what the Liberals have done?

[Indigenous Affairs, June 15th, 2016]

Again, Madam Speaker, this is a decision that has been coming for a long time. It came down about two months ago. We are no further ahead in understanding than we were two months ago in terms of the response to a very important specific decision.

Regarding medical benefits, are they in or are they out? Natural resource projects are very complicated already and we are again no clearer in terms of how we will integrate the Métis and non-status into the decisions around natural resource projects.

The Liberals are very quick to come forward in terms of accepting, for example, the 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but they are very slow in terms of what they are doing with the Daniels decision, and more importantly, showing it both to the Métis and non-status Indians, and to all Canadians.

[Indigenous Affairs, June 15th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to follow up on a question that I asked with respect to the Daniels decision.

On April 14, a very important decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada. For the first time, our Métis and non-status Indians got some clarity that they had long been waiting for, that is, that they are Indians under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act. This really has significant, immediate, and important consequences. There are approximately 200,000 Métis and 400,000 non-status Indians who really have been left in limbo for a long time.

We did note at the time that the minister said that she welcomed the decision, respected the Supreme Court, and was really glad to see that there was some important interpretation put around it.

My concern is this. The government always likes to suggest that we are not respectful of rights, that we are indifferent, and that we are not concerned about the significant challenges our indigenous communities have over the years. There is nothing that is further from the truth. However, it is our responsibility, and the government's responsibility, to share with Canadians the consequences of many important decisions.

I will provide a quick example. At the time I had said that because the government members knew the decision was coming down they should have been anticipating how it would end and have a plan in place: plan A if it goes in a certain direction and plan B if it goes in a different direction. Instead, they sort of acted surprised, as though they received this decision and had not contemplated anything in terms of how they were going to respond to it, other than saying they welcomed it.

There is a simple example that was immediate. I believe it was the son of Mr. Daniels, or it might have been another person, who was interviewed at the time who said that they have an expectation that they will have the rights to the health care benefits that status Indians have. If members are not aware, those are simple things like dental and pharmaceutical coverage. That is an expectation. Therefore, we asked the government at the time if it had thought about it and whether it would be providing those kinds of supports. It responded that it welcomed the decision and that we were wrong to ask the question. It said, “Don't ask the question because that's inappropriate.” Therefore, we are trying to find out what analysis the government has done and where it will go next.

This is not the first time that government members sort of jump in and have great glowing words but actually do not do a good job, such as when, all of a sudden a year ago in June, they said, “We are going to implement the 94 recommendations”, but did not have a plan.

What continues to concern us is that there was this significant decision and we are now two months later. Therefore, perhaps tonight we will get a bit more detail, other than the general statements that we always get, in terms of what the government will do in response to this very important decision.