This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.
Jim Flaherty Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
Part 1 implements income tax measures proposed or referenced in Budget 2007 to
(a) introduce a tax on distributions from certain publicly traded income trusts and limited partnerships, effective beginning with the 2007 taxation year;
(b) reduce the general corporate income tax rate by one half of a percentage point, effective January 1, 2011;
(c) increase the age credit amount by $1,000 from $4,066 to $5,066, effective January 1, 2006;
(d) permit income splitting for pensioners, effective beginning in 2007;
(e) introduce a new child tax credit of $2,000 multiplied by the appropriate percentage for a taxation year, effective beginning in 2007;
(f) increase the spousal and other amounts to equal the basic personal amount, effective beginning in 2007;
(g) increase the age limit for maturing registered retirement savings plans, registered pension plans and deferred profit sharing plans to 71 years of age, effective beginning in 2007;
(h) expand the types of investments eligible for registered retirement savings plans and other deferred income plans, effective March 19, 2007; and
(i) increase the contribution limits for registered education savings plans and expand eligible payments for part-time studies, effective beginning in 2007.
Part 1 also amends the Canada Education Savings Act to increase the maximum annual grant payable on contributions made to a registered education savings plan after 2006.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act to clarify the legislative authority that allows the Canada Revenue Agency to pay refunds of excise tax directly to end-users, where fuel subject to excise has been used in tax-exempt circumstances. It also amends that Act to repeal the excise tax on heavy vehicles and to implement the Green Levy on vehicles with fuel consumption of 13 litres or more per 100 kilometres. It also provides an authority for the Canada Revenue Agency to pay a refund of the Green Levy for vans equipped for wheelchair access.
Part 3 implements goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed or referenced in Budget 2007. It amends the Excise Tax Act to exempt midwifery services from the GST/HST and to zero-rate certain supplies of intangible personal property made to non-GST/HST registered non-residents. It also amends that Act to repeal the GST/HST Visitor Rebate Program and to implement a new Foreign Convention and Tour Incentive Program, which provides rebates of tax in respect of certain property and services used in the course of conventions held in Canada and the accommodation portion of tour packages for non-residents, and establishes new information requirements in the case where rebates are credited by the vendor.
Part 4 implements other measures relating to taxation. It amends the Customs Tariff to increase the duty-free exemption for returning Canadian residents, from $200 to $400, for absences from Canada of not less than 48 hours. It amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to clarify that when a federal corporation listed in Schedule I to that Act pays provincial taxes or fees, wholly-owned subsidiaries of that corporation also pay provincial taxes or fees. It also authorizes the Minister of Finance to make payments totaling $400 million out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Province of Ontario to assist the province in the transition to a single corporate tax administration. This last measure is consequential to the October 6, 2006 Canada-Ontario Memorandum of Agreement Concerning a Single Administration of Ontario Corporate Tax.
Part 5 enacts the Tax-back Guarantee Act, which legislates the Government’s commitment to dedicate all effective interest savings from federal debt reduction each year to ongoing personal income tax reductions. That Part also commits the Minister of Finance to report publicly at least once a year on personal income tax relief provided under the Guarantee to Canadians.
Part 6 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to set out the amounts of the fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and the territorial formula financing payments to the territories for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2007 and to provide for the method by which those amounts will be calculated for subsequent fiscal years. It also authorizes certain deductions from those amounts that would otherwise be payable under that Act. In addition, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 6 also amends that Act to provide increased funding for the Canada Social Transfer beginning on April 1, 2007, and to provide for the method by which the Canada Social Transfer and the Canada Health Transfer amounts will be calculated for subsequent fiscal years, including per capita cash allocations. It also provides for transition protection.
Part 7 amends the Financial Administration Act to modernize Crown borrowing authorities.
Part 8 amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to permit the Minister of Finance to lend money to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Part 9 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act and the Winding-up and Restructuring Act to allow the Governor in Council to prescribe the meaning of “eligible financial contract”. Those Acts are also amended to provide that, after an insolvency event occurs, a party to an eligible financial contract can deal with supporting collateral in accordance with the terms of the contract despite any stay of proceedings or court order to the contrary. This Part also includes amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Winding-up and Restructuring Act to provide that collateral transactions executed in accordance with the terms of an eligible financial contract are not void only because they occurred in the prescribed pre-insolvency or winding-up period.
Part 10 authorizes payments to provinces and territories.
Part 11 authorizes payments to certain entities.
Part 12 extends the sunset provisions of financial institutions statutes by six months from April 24, 2007 to October 24, 2007.
Part 13 amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to provide the Minister of Public Works and Government Services with the power to authorize another minister, to whom he or she has delegated powers under that Act, to subdelegate those powers to the chief executive of the relevant department. That Act is also amended with respect to the application of section 9 to certain departments.
Part 14 amends the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to allow the Minister of Finance to provide funding to the Agency for activities related to financial education.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-52s:
Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007. For the benefit of the Quebeckers and Canadians who are watching, this is the budget implementation bill, which must be voted on and passed.
Obviously, once again, the Conservative Party needs the Bloc Québécois to see this bill pass, just as it needed the Bloc for the budget to pass. It always makes me smile when other members call into question the presence of the members of the Bloc Québécois, my colleagues here in this House. Once again, this only proves the importance of our presence today. If the Bloc Québécois had not supported this budget, there would be no debate regarding the budget implementation. Lastly, the most important reason for the Bloc's support of this budget has to do primarily with the partial correction of the fiscal imbalance.
If I may, I would like to go over a bit of history with the House. As we all know, Quebec's motto is “Je me souviens”—I remember. Quebeckers certainly remember the Conservatives' excessive spending of the 1980s, which is what drove Canada into debt. I am sure we all recall the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces that the Liberal Party was forced to make, cuts that jeopardized Quebec's entire fiscal balance. I was affected by those cuts—not as a privileged witness, but on the front lines.
My background is in municipal government, so I remember the first deep cuts very clearly because the Government of Quebec had to pass on some of the costs to the municipalities. Those with experience in municipal government will remember the first reform, known as the “Ryan reform”. The entire secondary road network was transferred from the Government of Quebec to the municipalities, which had to pay and are still paying the bill for Sûreté du Québec. Quebeckers are well aware of this when the time comes to pay their municipal taxes. There is a nice little “Sûreté du Québec” item on the tax bill for people in the regions who have to pay for the Quebec provincial police. Obviously, the big cities were already paying for their municipal police forces.
I would just like to remind my colleagues that the Atlantic Accord and the agreements the federal government signed with the provinces are all well and good, but that since the federal government cut provincial transfer payments in 1993-94, it has begun to reinvest.
Perhaps I will have an opportunity to explain to what extent. However, I would like to paint a picture for you with respect to the 2007-08 budget, which is before us today, and the federal government's provincial transfer payment increases. Since 1993-94, when deep cuts forced municipalities and school boards to shoulder many new responsibilities, Quebec has recuperated 55% of what it lost, while elsewhere in Canada, the other provinces have recuperated 66%.
Today in Quebec, despite the restoration of fiscal balance, the Liberals and the Conservatives are at each other's throats. Nonetheless, many agreements, including the Atlantic accord and other natural resource revenue agreements, have been signed with the other provinces. I hope that my colleagues in this House, whether Conservative, Liberal or New Democrat, will never forget that Quebec has always paid for one quarter of all investment in oil, but that the rest of Canada has never contributed to the development of hydroelectricity in Quebec, which is our trademark and which Quebeckers have paid for through their electricity bills.
We received nothing from the federal government. We developed our own energy with our own money even though we paid for 25% of the cost of developing the energy of other Canadian provinces. In addition, they share the resources and the profits from these energy sources that we do not have. Today, the blame is being placed on the resolution of the fiscal imbalance, which is considered acceptable for the 2008 budget. Once again, there is a long way to go, because Quebec wants its due.
With the drastic cuts of the 80's and 90's, and the accumulation of debt by the Conservatives, who put Canada in the poor house, the provinces were the ones to pay. Quebec made a major contribution to repayment of the federal deficit.
Today, Quebec is asking for what it is owed. There is a reason why the Bloc Québécois has always called for a solution to the fiscal imbalance. It was neither the current Conservative government and its Prime Minister nor the Liberals who invented it. It was Bernard Landry's Parti Québécois government that set up the commission. Those who followed the debate in Quebec will remember the Séguin commission that presented its report in 2001 and declared that there was a large fiscal imbalance in Canada. That is easy to figure out. Ottawa has too much money compared to the provinces.
We must realize that the federal government does not look after health, education and transportation. So what does it do? Health, education and transportation are a large part of a citizen's life. The rest—the water from taps, waste and so forth—are municipal responsibilities. The federal government looks after security.
Here again, when we look at the gaping holes in Canada's security, we see that the government has not always done its job. It is not meeting the real, everyday needs of Canadians. It is only natural that Quebec, which feels it has contributed too much in the past, should want to correct this imbalance and have most or all of the 52.8% of taxes that Quebeckers pay the federal government come back to them. We know that the government keeps a lot for itself, but a portion has to come back to Quebeckers, and not in formulas invented for Quebec. We are not asking for anything new.
What the Bloc Québécois asked for and what the federal government has done in part is to modify the equalization formula. It was clear that the equalization formulas had to take into account the revenue of all 10 Canadian provinces, which was not the case previously.
The balance had to be right, and the revenue of all the provinces had to be calculated so that equalization would be fair. That is part of Canada's constitution, the famous constitution that Quebec never ratified, whereby the have-not provinces are compensated by the others.
Quebec would like to be a province that contributes more and that gives rather than receives. That is our goal. Quebec would like to stop seeing the aluminum ingots produced in Quebec taken to make cars in Ontario.
The only automotive industry in Quebec was closed and all the jobs associated with it were eliminated. In addition, we often manufacture our products and offer competitive hydro rates paid for out of Quebeckers' pockets. Here again, nothing comes from the federal government. We make products that are then processed in the other Canadian provinces. The people in those provinces have the good jobs. They think it is only natural that they should have the good jobs.
We are seeing this again with the Boeing contracts. Between 55% and 60% of the aerospace industry is in Quebec. Boeing negotiated an agreement for 30%, while the federal government required that just 15% of the spinoffs go to Quebec. But 55% to 60% of the aerospace industry is in Quebec. As the member for Mirabel, I know what I am talking about. Part of the industry is located my riding and elsewhere in Quebec: in Longueuil, Montreal, and in the greater Montreal area.
Once again, when contracts are negotiated, the Conservative ministers from Quebec stand up and say that private companies have to fend for themselves. They are probably glad because the private sector does more than it is asked to do. They are glad to leave private companies to fend for themselves. The Conservatives wanted 15% of the economic spinoffs to go to Quebec, but Boeing wanted 30%.
I am dumbfounded that such things still go on. Quebec will be penalized and 70% of the industry will go elsewhere with the contracts for the C-17s and the Chinooks. Military investment in the aerospace industry will go to other Canadian provinces and will create jobs. It will also create an even bigger imbalance.
There will always be hon. members in this House who will stand up to say that Quebec is always at the mercy of the rest of Canada. That is why the members from the Bloc Québécois would one day like to leave this chamber and for Quebec to become a country so that it can take care of its own affairs and stop being told it is piggybacking on the others.
When we are gone, they will understand that they are the ones who were piggybacking on Quebec, with its natural resources, its raw materials and all they transform outside of Quebec and for which we pay a good part.
The budget now recognizes the fiscal imbalance the Bloc Québécois had estimated. Indeed, the Léonard committee produced a report ordered by the Bloc and it estimated the fiscal imbalance at $3.9 billion. Even the former Quebec Liberal finance minister agreed with that estimation. So nobody should be surprised by it. That was the amount we requested to resolve the fiscal imbalance and the amount the government is giving us. We gave the Prime Minister another chance after last year's budget. He had said that he needed one year to review, analyze and study the issue and that he would propose a solution to the fiscal imbalance this year. I will remind the House that he promised to hold a first ministers conference. Finally, that never happened because he was unable to do it.
We ended up with the $3.3 billion we now see in the budget to resolve the fiscal imbalance. We asked for $3.3 billion in three years. The Bloc has always been a fair player. It has always showed great openness by acknowledging that this was not easy to do and that there were difficult decisions to make. We gave ourselves a three year deadline to get that issue solved. We got $3.3 billion when we were asking for $3.9 billion in 2003 dollars. No need to say that indexation had not been included. We did not want to risk being accused of all sins in the world. But the fact is that we would have considered $3.9 billion a real solution to the fiscal imbalance. However, the proposed $3.3 billion remains a useful amount and that is why the Bloc Québécois has given its support to the budget.
This started at the time of Bernard Landry's Parti Québécois government with the Séguin commission, which was followed by the Léonard committee, set up here by the Bloc Québécois. The committee used the federal government's numbers. No other party wanted to do it, and none of the parties in Quebec were able to do it because it meant taking a close look at the federal administration's inner workings. The Léonard committee spent a year studying all of the data to justify that figure, which, as I said, has not been challenged yet. So that resolves the fiscal imbalance in part. Fixing the fiscal imbalance for Quebec fixes it for the other provinces. Fixing equalization for Quebec fixes it for the other provinces too.
Thanks to agreements signed by other prime ministers, including the former Liberal Prime Minister, other provinces have received additional revenue. Those provinces want to keep getting the same equalization payments as before in addition to new money. It is never-ending. That is why I am saying that because it is so complicated to understand how Canada works, Quebec would be better off as its own country, taking care of its own business. That would be the ideal solution. It would save the rest of Canada a lot of trouble, and it would save us the eternal frustration of constant recriminations. Quebec is always wrong, regardless of the fact that its natural resources are taken away to be processed in other Canadian provinces, which rake in the cash and refuse to give any of it back. This has to end sooner or later. One day, the other provinces will understand. When Quebec leaves, they will miss us a lot because they will finally understand to what extent our natural resources prop up their economies.
Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders
An hon. member
They can come visit us.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
They will be more than welcome.
That is why, when we feel progress is being made, the Bloc Québécois is always there to defend the interests of Quebeckers. Quebeckers have seen this once again. We do not hesitate to support measures that represent a step in the right direction, and one such measure was to correct part of the fiscal imbalance, to the tune of $3.3 billion.
We also fought for ecotrusts. Quebec demanded $328 million to meet the Kyoto protocol targets. Once again, this is not a simple matter, yet it is not complicated either. Quebec and Quebeckers are ready to meet the Kyoto targets. This should not be so difficult to understand. Why? Because we have invested the necessary money and effort in hydroelectricity and wind power. We are ready. Quebec is ready to go green, while the rest of Canada is mired in tar sands, oil, coal and nuclear power.
That is their problem. We have been investing in new energy sources for a long time, and it has not cost you a cent. That is the best part. Quebeckers have paid through their hydro bills and their taxes. I am not making this up. Zero minus zero equals zero. It is not hard to understand. The federal government has not invested a penny in developing hydroelectricity in Quebec. However, it has invested a few million dollars in wind power in recent years, because it was embarrassed to stand by and admit that it had never contributed anything. Quebec has provided 25% of the $600 billion invested in fossil fuels since 1990. We have paid our share. Today, we are ready. Quebec has reason to demand its fair share.
You are willing to spend money in order to reach the Kyoto targets. Quebec must receive its fair share. The Quebec government's demand was for $328 million. We fought to get it and now it is in the budget. We are pleased to see it. The Bloc Québécois supports this measure. Furthermore, the Bloc has always defended the interests of Quebeckers here in this House. This explains why this file was able to move forward and why this measure is in the budget. Your voices would never have been heard if we had not been here to say that Quebec is prepared to meet the Kyoto targets. Stop all this quarrelling. At least there is one Canadian province that is ready to act. Let it go ahead and act. Watch Quebec. It will lead the way, just as it did in the area of child care. We will also lead the way regarding Kyoto targets, as well as in other areas. We are ready to lead the way and the rest of Canada simply has to follow our lead. It is not hard. This is why we are calling for full control of our taxes and income tax dollars, in order to be able to develop as we see fit. We will be good neighbours and good friends. The only problem is that we are different. We are ready to meet the Kyoto targets, we speak French, we are proud and we remember. I repeat the motto: Je me souviens. We remember the drastic cuts that you made in transfer payments to the provinces. Those cuts were devastating to all municipal administrations and school boards, all health and education networks.
Today we remember that all the times we have asked you for something, to give us part of what we are owed, it is always a big deal, it is always complicated. The federal government always has to make an agreement with another province. It is simple. There are six Canadian provinces with fewer people than the former city of Montreal. It is no more complicated than that to understand. You are good people, we are good neighbours. The problem is that some provinces do not have enough people to provide service networks. I can understand that the provinces would want the federal government to handle child care and education. In Quebec, this has been sorted out for a long time. All we are asking is that when you create a program, that you give use back our money no questions asked, without making us accountable. We want the money. It is as simple as that.
In light of the fiscal imbalance, what we are asking for is fiscal autonomy. We do not want to have to account to anyone anymore. This means that tax fields have to be transferred. Sending transfer payments to the provinces is not enough; Quebec needs its own money. The federal government has to either transfer tax points or offload the GST on Quebec, which would then keep the money. In addition, the time has come to put an end to all the debates and for us to stop looking like beggars coming to you for money all the time, when parts of our economy keep being transferred to other Canadian provinces. That is what has happened in the aerospace sector. We are leaders in that sector, and you are chipping away at it. You want to get your hands on it because, for one reason or another, you are unhappy with the current state of affairs.
One day, you will understand that Quebec should be given free rein. With our natural resources and our own approach, we will grow and we will achieve the Kyoto objectives. We will become the finest francophone land in the Americas, the quickest to comply with the Kyoto objectives. That is the choice Quebeckers have made. It has always been their choice to keep a finger on the pulse of the planet, while the rest of Canada is more in tune with the pockets of multinational companies. That is your choice. One day, you will understand.
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said that he wanted Quebec to get its fair share. I think that is a very wonderful statement that he made.
My question is predicated by his statement. If he believes in that, does he not believe then that the rest of Canada, other Canadians living in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, other Canadians living in Ontario, and other Canadians living in Saskatchewan should be treated fairly?
What I am referring to are the commitments that were made to my province of Ontario under the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program of $6.9 billion. Ontario got $1.4 billion. He said that Quebec asked for $3.9 billion and received $3.1 billion.
What happened to the Atlantic accord? What happened to the Kelowna accord? Does the member not believe that Canadians, wherever they live, whether in the beautiful province of Quebec, Ontario or Newfoundland should be treated fairly?
This budget, as we heard earlier heard from the member from Newfoundland and Labrador, was not fair to all Canadians. Does he believe in fairness right across the country? That is my question.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely nothing against the fact that the other Canadian provinces may find fairness where they think it lies. I have no problem with that. However, there is a problem when the Canadian Constitution provides that equalization is the way to deal with unfairness. Then, if we deal with equalization the way we should, that is by taking into consideration all the revenues of each of the ten provinces, the technicalities result in Quebec always being short-changed. If they have a problem with what is provided in the Constitution, then they can review it and amend it. I have no problem with that. The provincial premiers will simply have to sit down together and discuss the issue. In the meantime, we must play with the cards that we were dealt, the cards that were dealt to us under the Constitution.
We are asking whether it is possible to get a fair share through equalization and achieve a balance. Some gifts are given by prime ministers, some agreements were signed, some royalties on natural resources were paid to some provinces. I do not have a problem with that, not at all. We are not jealous, but Quebec is left with the transfers to the provinces. We just want the process to be fair.
Currently, the federal government is enjoying billions of dollars in surpluses, while Quebec is managing a deficit. That is what the fiscal imbalance is all about. There is too much money in Ottawa and not enough in the provinces. In the late eighties and early nineties, the federal government reduced transfers to the provinces in an attempt to pay down the national debt, the debt that was created by the Conservatives. That is the reality. Now, the federal government should give money back, but it does not want to. It is reluctant, it wants to keep that money, it wants to give presents or do something else. Quebec simply wants its share. It is that simple. So much the better if the others are also satisfied with the arrangement. We supported the Kelowna accord and a host of other agreements for the provinces. We just want what is owed to us. It is as simple as that.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I know that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the Conservative budget. When we look at this budget closely, we see that indeed, some money was given to Quebec as part of the transfers to the provinces. The hon. member says this is not enough and that more money should have been allocated to Quebec. This raises a few questions. Is the Bloc Québécois disappointed? Especially, as my colleague says, since Quebec has a deficit. As far as the problems at the hospitals are concerned, I know that the response will be that this is Quebec's jurisdiction and not the federal government's. However, money is transferred to a province so that it can offer programs that it can manage itself under the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the provinces are responsible for health and education. At the same time, we see that the Charest government is turning around and lowering taxes instead of investing the money in the programs that interest Quebeckers. Tax cuts of some $700 million have been proposed, even though Quebec's health care system is suffering, the same way health care is suffering across Canada and in New Brunswick. People who are hospitalized end up in hallways instead of hospital rooms. The issue of privatization has come up with the new opposition leader, Mario Dumont, who said there should be more privatization.
Do you not think the money should have been invested in those programs, in accordance with the Constitution, instead of voting for a budget that gives money for lower taxes rather than—
Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
I caution the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel that he has less than one minute to answer the question.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I do recognize that my colleague from the NDP has very centralizing views. When the health care system was established in 1960, the federal government was paying 50% of the costs. Had it continued to pay 50% of the costs, there would not be any problems in the health sector in the Canadian provinces. We are talking about a choice that Quebec made.
Not to pay its share, to siphon money from the provinces to pay the federal debt, to tell the provinces where to invest the money given back to them, that is a choice—
Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
Order, please.
I would just like to say that, when the House resumes debate on this bill, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel will have four minutes remaining.
The House resumed from April 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
Mr. Speaker, politicians are citizens that other citizens nominate and elect to represent them and their interests. As such, the bond between them is quite simple: it is called trust.
If and when that bond is broken, there can be no greater disconnect or breach or falling out or betrayal between them. The people are no longer represented. Instead, I would say, they are ruled.
Today we are debating the implementation of the 2007 federal budget, a document that affects the lives of millions of Canadians in thousands of different ways. Some are beneficial and some are not.
My remarks concern themselves today with just one aspect of this and that trust I mentioned between politicians and the people. It is at the very heart of what I wish to say.
In the last election campaign, the man who is now Prime Minister of Canada said over and over again from podiums from one end of this country to the next, including in my area, that a Conservative government would not tax income trusts.
He put it in writing in an op-ed article in the National Post. He directed that it be published in the party's platform, called “Stand up for Canada”.
In short, the man who is now Prime Minister could not have been clearer in his messaging to income trust investors, many of whom are seniors. He told them to relax, saying they would be safe if they voted for the Conservatives because, unlike the Liberals and the NDP, the Conservatives would never attack their income trusts.
Now we know that he lied. The government brought in a tax on income trusts on October 31 of last year, which tanked the stock market and erased $25 billion--
Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie
Order. The hon. member from Halton is not a rookie. He knows that he cannot accuse other members of lying and so I would ask him to withdraw the accusation against the Prime Minister.
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the accusation.
The Prime Minister said one thing and did another. This actually caused investors in this country to lose more than $25 billion in private savings. Most of those people were retired. They could not possibly and will not possibly be able to recoup these losses.
It is the biggest single erosion of private savings ever caused by a single government action.
With that one draconian and, as it turned out, stupid, costly and senseless action, the Conservative leader broke faith with the people. He breached it. He destroyed it. He threw it away.
He is no longer representing the income trust investors whom he asked to vote for him. Now he is ruling them. He is telling them that they must live with the gratuitous pain the government has caused. Now, with this bill, the government seeks to make this breach of faith the law of the land.
That is why I voted against the budget and why I cannot support this enabling legislation. Shame on those who wrote it and seek to impose it upon Canadians.
Today I am not going to add any more of my words to the debate. Instead, I will turn to those of average Canadian investors.
This week on my blog I mentioned that I would have the opportunity to stand here for a few minutes to speak about this issue. I asked individual Canadians if they would send me some messages they would like conveyed to the House. I was overwhelmed with the response.
I would like my hon. colleagues to listen for a couple of minutes to some of the messages.
Mr. Don Bool, of Courtenay, British Columbia, wrote:
For me it's not having the proof of tax leakage. The blacked out pages by the finance department pretty well says it all. I could live with changes to income trusts if it was proven they were not good for the Canadian economy. Just give me good reasons for changing income trust policy and I'll eat the loss. I didn't know much about the particulars of income trusts but when they presented blanked out pages I studied up on trusts and a simple person like me could see the fix was in. I have been taken for a schmuck.
Ron Murray said:
I am a senior citizen that dropped some $30,000 because of the [Minister of Finance's] complete misunderstanding dealing with income trusts. No discussion, no notice, lying to the public--
Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I mean to say “saying one thing to the public and doing another”. Mr. Murray continues:
--refusing to give the background of his numbers on the 'tax loss'.
Mr. Murray said that he sent a letter and states:
I sent a copy to my local MP and was called by him. I went to his office and was muzzled with [the] party line...I am not sure he had a clue what an Income Trust was. The main reason according to [the member of Parliament opposite] was that we were the only country in the world that did not tax income trusts.
Mr. Murray says phooey.
Then we have Tom and Ethna Anderson, who said:
The current government broke its promise not to tax income trusts. These actions have seriously lessened our confidence in the government's ability to govern with honesty and integrity.
Donald Metcalfe of Hanover, Ontario, said:
My wife and I are devastated by the damage the decision of the government to tax income trusts has done to our investments and to our monthly income. We are both seniors and rely on this income...we are down more than $1,200 per month. This is robbery and has affected our living in a major way. I talked to our [Conservative member of Parliament] and he told me [the Prime Minister] would allow him and his fellow MPs no say so why do we elect MPs to represent us when [the Prime Minister] is a dictator.
Again, in sympathy, Mr. Speaker, I will not name the member.
Elmer Sather of Surrey, British Columbia, said:
I am speechless, and in shock over how fast these Income Trusts are being taken over by foreigners.
He said it is staggering.
The Martinson family said that the Prime Minister told people something and did something else, although they used a more descriptive term. They wrote:
The government has successfully made it sound like they get no tax money from businesses involved in the Income Trust structure and people seem to be buying this. I feel it is important that it be made clear to the Canadian public that Governments gets lots of tax money due to Income Trusts.
As of March 31, the Martinson family reminds us that the Canada pension plan had 80 individual income trust businesses in its portfolio. If it was such a bad idea for individual citizens to hold income trusts, as the government would suggest, how could our public pension plan have invested in 80 of them?
Bill Fischer says this in regard to the Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity) who had a town hall meeting in his riding the other day on income trusts. He said:
I attended and here's my comment:
“We worked hard to elect a Conservative government, and were rewarded with betrayal. [The Prime Minister] promised one thing and did another. A 35 billion dollar--
I will not use the word--
--action. Calling manure a rose doesn't change the smell”.
[The secretary of state] spoke a lot of “rose” at the meeting, but few were fooled. He and [the Prime Minister] need to listen to Ralph Klein and recant, repent, and reimburse investors and seniors. You can't reward...politicians by voting for them [when they do not tell the truth]. It encourages them to continue the practise.
I have another comment here:
I don't remember reading in the party's platform anywhere that you had decided to decimate the nest egg of hundreds of thousands of senior Canadians. This is despicable behaviour from a government that touts itself as being accountable. To whom?
Art Moss, another senior says,
My RRSP took a 25% haircut in the aftermath of the Halloween massacre. It has since recovered about 10%.
However, the real pain of this legislation will come in 5 years when I convert to a RRIF. If all goes according to plan...I was projecting distribution income of $2,000/month.
He goes on to say, “the Minister of Finance calls this tax fairness. There is nothing fair about it”.
Mr. Speaker, I have probably 400 comments here. Could I have a couple of hours? If I could get unanimous consent from the House to continue to table these comments from individual Canadians, I would be a very happy guy because I would be able to tell these Canadians that I came here and stood here today, and actually got their voices to the floor of the House of Commons. Could you ask for that consent, Mr. Speaker?
Budget Implementation Act, 2007Government Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie
The hon. member has asked for the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?