House of Commons Hansard #157 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberal.
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, when the party opposite was last in office, a long, long time ago, the deficit in this country was $40 billion a year and rising out of control year after year.
It is this party that defeated the deficit. It is this party that balanced the budget. It is this party that has filed eight consecutive balanced budgets and we will keep going.
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Mr. Speaker, the legacy of this party is one of missed opportunities and mismanagement. As well, the colossal corruption uncovered by Mr. Justice Gomery is one legacy that will follow this government into infamy.
That should be bad enough, but the government is not satisfied. Now it wants to spend the government into oblivion. Can the minister give us assurances that when a Conservative government takes over next year, there will be more left in this town than just the paintings on the wall and a few boxes of paper clips?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that such an assurance is not necessary because there will not be a Conservative government in this town next year or the year after that or the year after that or the decade after that.
I would like that party to tell me what it opposes in labour market partnership agreements. What does it oppose in rectifying the historic wrongs of residential schools? What does it oppose in health and education for aboriginal people? What does it oppose in $755 million for farmers? What does it oppose in supporting softwood workers? What is it against?
Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, what I should tell my excitable friend is that we oppose Liberal Party corruption.
The Liberals are asking Canadians to please ignore that little $100 million larceny thing by showering potential voters with billions of dollars in announcements, with well over $10 billion in new spending so far this week, most of it without plans attached. This is a real recipe for waste and corruption.
Why does the minister not just admit that this is nothing more than the corrupt, old, tired Liberal Party masquerading as a government?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that this minister, this Prime Minister and this government oppose corruption wherever it is found. The government has acted in the most decisive manner in Canadian history to deal with a serious problem and to deal with it in a transparent way.
On the fiscal side, I would point out to the hon. gentleman that if he would spend five minutes reading the fiscal update rather than his press clippings, he would find in that fiscal update the reference to the job that needed to be done for aboriginal people and that it would be provided in the fiscal framework, and the same with labour market agreements and the same with the aid to farmers and the same for softwood--
Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, we are glad to see that the Minister of Finance has finally accepted the Conservative Party position that we need to cut the taxes on dividends to level the field on income trusts. It is too bad the minister had to knock billions of dollars off the value of people's portfolios before he did it.
However, yesterday the parliamentary secretary to the minister said on television that the government also plans to impose a tax on income trusts. I was sitting with him when he said it. Why is the government continuing to threaten income trust holders with more taxes?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that is untrue. In fact, he contents himself with dealing in the realm of political fluff.
I would prefer to quote the Canadian Association of Income Funds, which says it is “pleased with the federal government's decision to take a practical and even-handed approach in leveling the playing field”, or the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, which says, “Kudos to the federal finance minister”, or the Real Property Association of Canada, which says we are to be congratulated for the serious work that we have done on this file.
Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, the camera does not lie. I am not so sure about the Liberals.
It says here that the trusts will be--
Income TrustsOral Questions
The Speaker
In putting his question, the hon. member will want to remember the lectures he has had from me on parliamentary language and will want to stick with pertinent details.
Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Here is what the parliamentary secretary said, “The trust will be taxed going out or starting I think around 2007”. Then he went on to give a very detailed explanation of how this new tax would work.
When will the minister admit that the second part of the Liberal plan on income trusts is to impose a new tax on income trusts if the Liberals get re-elected? Is it not just the Liberal hidden agenda?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, it is very strange to see how everybody else in the country can understand it, but this one finance critic from the Conservative Party cannot understand it.
I quoted the real estate association. I quoted the income funds association. I quoted the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. Let me quote from BMO Nesbitt Burns, which states that this result “doesn't penalize the existing trusts and gets rid of a high rate of double taxation on dividends. I see this as a very positive move...”. Goodman & Company says, “This is outstanding”. The Yellow Pages Group believes “the decision to cut the taxation on dividends will make Canada more competitive”.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we saw the true colours of the Liberals. After voting in favour of the bill put forward by the Bloc Québécois, asking for full retroactivity for seniors who were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement, the Liberals rejected the Bloc's proposal to proceed to passage of the bill. Seniors in need have been waiting for this money for many years.
The government agreed to fast-track several bills through the legislative process. Why will the Prime Minister not do the same for a bill designed to help low income seniors?
Tony Ianno LiberalMinister of State (Families and Caregivers)
Mr. Speaker, as was discussed earlier in the House, the government has put in $2.7 billion for low income seniors. This is the first time since 1984, other than a cost of living allowance, for this. That is a $433 increase for all low income seniors, 1.6 million of them, and we will continue to do more to ensure that our low income seniors live with the dignity they deserve.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at second reading, the Liberals voted in favour of full retroactivity on the guaranteed income supplement. That was very clearly recorded yesterday.
We are asking that we proceed with this bill as we have done with others and pass it immediately. But the Liberals refuse. They are the only ones. The Conservatives agree, as do the New Democrats. Is it not true that a new height in hypocrisy was reached yesterday? The Liberals want to go to the electorate saying, “We agree”. But there has been no action to match the rhetoric. They will not admit to that. But now they have been exposed.
Jean Lapierre LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, speaking of the heights of hypocrisy, that is precisely where the Bloc Québécois is going today. A vote took place yesterday. The Liberals voted in favour of the bill. The Liberals increased the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. They have made sure that the maximum number of seniors are eligible for this supplement by implementing advertising programs and ensuring that all seniors have access to the GIS. We are increasing the income of seniors. This is not mere rhetoric, and we are not playing petty politics on the backs of seniors, unlike the leader of the Bloc Québécois.
Marcel Gagnon Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Speaker, my political career is coming to an end and, yesterday, I saw the House at both its best and worst.
Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that his party voted in favour of the bill to make the guaranteed income supplement retroactive and then, two minutes later, refused to pass it at final stage?
Jean Lapierre LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to wish the hon. member a happy retirement and tell him that the seniors he informed of the guaranteed income supplement were able to apply for and receive that supplement. He did this, along with all the Liberal members and all the members in the House who are helping to educate the public about the government's programs.
All members have the duty to do this. What is important is the amount that seniors are getting and, with this in mind, this government has increased the guaranteed income supplement for seniors more than any other government has. This also needs to be said.
Marcel Gagnon Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Speaker, that answer is unacceptable. Seniors in need of the guaranteed income supplement have been deprived of $3.2 billion over the past 12 years.
Even if the Liberals increase the GIS, seniors who were deprived of it in the past are still living in poverty. The money is sitting in the government's coffers.
Tony Ianno LiberalMinister of State (Families and Caregivers)
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well, as we have said in the last year and a half, that our interest in ensuring that our seniors live with dignity will continue to be enhanced with the many policies we are bringing forward.
The hon. member knows that this is an immediate relief process with over $6,000 per year in the guaranteed income supplement for seniors in need. It is an immediate relief program. That is what we continue to work on to ensure, with the rent supplements, affordable housing and RRAP, that these programs will continue to allow our seniors to live with the dignity they deserve.
Ed Broadbent NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, 16 years ago today the Prime Minister and his party committed themselves to the abolition of child poverty by the year 2000. In the subsequent years, child poverty increased almost every year, while the finance minister was boasting of an accumulated surplus of $60 billion.
With the new figures out today showing that more than a million kids are in poverty, how can the government justify this disgraceful broken promise?
Eleni Bakopanos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)
Mr. Speaker, we welcome the report of Campaign 2000. However, I would like to remind all members here what it recommended in 2005 and what the government has done. We have an effective child benefit system with $12 million in the national child tax benefit.
We have a universal accessible system of quality early learning and child care, something that the government has done. In fact, we signed our 10th agreement this morning with New Brunswick.
We have a significant increase in affordable housing. We have more affordable housing today, thanks to the minister of housing. There are more good jobs. There is no other government's--
Ed Broadbent NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have about half of those new commitments because the NDP forced the government.