Hansard, Trudeau: "Mr. Speaker, for 10 years the member opposite and the Conservative government, under Mr. Harper, kept giving tax breaks and benefits to the wealthiest Canadians in the hope that would lead to growth and opportunity for all Canadians."
A broad reference. It invites us to consider exactly what tax breaks and benefits the Conservatives implemented (or prompted, in the case of the lowering of the bottom rate in 2005) which were primarily aimed at individuals. The 2006 election was preceded by a Conservative promise (going from memory here) to lower the bottom rate from 16% to 15.5% and then 15% in successive years; the Liberals immediately (prior to the election, in late 2005) lowered it to 15% and then claimed the Conservatives were going to increase taxes. The Conservatives lowered the GST in two steps (7% to 6%, and then 6% to 5%). Some minor non-refundable income tax credits (eg. child fitness, Canada employment amount, transit passes) were added. The basic exemption amount was increased significantly in 2007 ($8839 to $9600 - large relative to customary increases). The lowering of the bottom rate, the GST cuts, and the basic exemption increase are all examples of breaks that benefit low-income Canadians; and each one of them dwarfs the value of the "boutique" cuts (some of which - Canada employment amount, transit passes - are worthwhile and accessible to low-income earners). The value of the GST cut to low-income earners was, by PBOs reckoning (
see here, Macleans article from 2014), overshadowed only by the value of the WITB.
Hansard, Trudeau: "Yet again, Mr. Speaker, we see proof that the Conservatives simply do not understand that low-income families do not benefit from tax breaks because they do not pay taxes."
Another broad reference, including the first "do not pay taxes" quotation. Importantly, it asserts simply that low-income families "do not pay taxes". This is true only for those which have no taxable income, whose refundable GST credit exceeds the value of their liability in a given year, and pay no other taxes.
Hansard, Trudeau: "Mr. Speaker, non-refundable tax breaks do not benefit low-income families."
Finally, a specific reference to non-refundable tax credits. But, as already mentioned above, there are non-refundable credits which benefit low-income earners. The basic exemption, for example, is essentially a way of setting a "0% bracket".
I can guess what was in Trudeau's mind: he was thinking of things like the "children's fitness" and "children's arts" credits - you have to be able to spend the money (and have a net taxable income) to claim them. But they always were, and are, utterly trivial weighed alongside everything else. His final waffling qualification is essentially ridiculous.
As for "That is why we changed the Conservatives' way of sending tax breaks to millionaire families and instead giving the money directly to families that needed it." - what tax breaks were aimed at millionaire families?
