Finance Committee on April 16th, 2008

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Who didn't follow it, though, Minister, civil servants or your office?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Well, the administrative procedures were not followed. I'm not going to say.... I'm not an expert on what every procedure is, but certainly they were not followed in my office by my exempt staff, as they're called.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

They were not followed. Okay.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

On that particular contract.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Thank you.

The budget has a provision in it to send a train to Mr. Del Mastro's riding. I'm a bit curious. Can you explain why that decision was made?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

I think you're familiar with the Greater Toronto Area. I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that there are 41,000 automobiles travelling that route now. I'm sure you're familiar with the environmental needs that we have in this country to reduce those kinds of emissions.

I'm sure you're aware that we have GO Train service along the lakeshore corridor, and we have GO Train service into your riding in Georgetown. But do we have a commuter service using the existing track? It was discontinued in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Why was it discontinued? It was discontinued because the government of the day felt it had insufficient resources, not because it wasn't being used. There's a railway line there. It can be used now. That part of Ontario is one of the fastest growing regions in North America, not only in Canada but in North America. What's wrong with using the trains to move people?

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

I was just asking why it was that particular riding, because VIA Rail said it was uneconomical.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

It goes through 22 ridings, most of which are held by Liberals.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

They said it was uneconomical. I don't know why you're bringing partisanship into this--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Because...I don't mean to confuse you, since you've been a member of many parties.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Without being snide, do you think you could answer the question? VIA Rail said it was uneconomical. Why do you think it will be economical? Do you think this is going to be a candidate for--

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

No, I think I just explained to you, Mr. Turner, that the discontinuance of the service was not on economic grounds. It was because of a restraint in spending by the Government of Canada of the day.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

I have a question on the tax-free savings account.

We've heard a number of witnesses...and by the way, I think the premise of it is good and I did recommend to you back in April 2006, as you know, that you do this, but as a retirement vehicle. You've chosen not to do it as a retirement vehicle.

We've had a number of people testify before us that this change is pretty significant because it alters it now into a tax-avoidance device for the wealthy. People who have maxed out their RRSPs or who have sizeable pension income can now shelter this income from capital gains.

Does that concern you at all, Minister, that this could be costing the Government of Canada a significant amount down the road and only be benefiting people as a tax avoidance device?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Of course it's going to cost the Government of Canada money down the road. It's a tax savings plan. We're going to forgo tax revenue on significant amounts of money. But the money belongs to Canadians; it doesn't belong to the government. If people save, that's a good thing, and I hope people will be able to be more self-reliant in this way.

I thank you for saying back in February 2008, “The centrepiece is an after-tax savings plan, which is a good idea.... It's something I have long advocated for”. I would have just said “long advocated”, because you don't need the “for” there. But it was good of you to say that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

With that, we want to thank you. Time is gone from this hour. So I want to thank the minister for his time here at committee.

With that, we'll suspend for a couple of minutes as we ask the department to come forward.

Point of order? Yes.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I propose that we immediately adopt the motion I tabled on Bill C-50, rather than after hearing from the witnesses, in an hour. It's the second item on the agenda, “Committee Business”, “Notice of Motion from Paul Crête”.

I move that we adopt the motion right away, which is much more relevant to the minister's evidence, and then we'll have dealt with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

It's on the agenda. What you're asking is to accelerate it on the agenda?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I move that we adopt it, that we debate it now.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

It's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

It's a point of order, but I think we would need the consent of the committee to move that way.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I ask for consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

If it is, I don't see any problem with it.

So you're asking for the consent of the committee?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Oui.