House of Commons Hansard #119 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was bank.
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister previously stated that the safety of women had improved due to an increase in peace officers who patrol the streets.
Are we to understand from the minister's remarks that she wants to transfer funds from Status of Women Canada to public safety to improve services to women? Is this the new strategy of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women?
Bev Oda ConservativeMinister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women
Mr. Speaker, as we have reiterated, this government believes that we have to help women directly in their daily lives. Therefore, any application for funding and support that will do that in every community through organizations will be supported if they qualify.
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals took office, they inherited a $42 billion deficit and they cleaned up this mess. When this government came to office, it inherited huge surpluses.
How can a government that is swimming in money increase taxes, cut social programs, reduce transfers to the provinces and refuse to help industries and workers in need?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question there.
I agree with the hon. member opposite that Canadians are overtaxed. He said it this weekend. I agree with him. We took great strides last year in budget 2006 with $20 billion in tax reduction for Canadians over the course of two years. There will be more tax reductions as we move forward with budget 2007.
I agree with the member for Markham—Unionville. Canadians are overtaxed.
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, not even a raving socialist finance minister would raise income tax when he is drowning in money, but when the--
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Order. The hon. member for Markham—Unionville seems to have got into some difficulty by using the word “raving”, so perhaps we could avoid this kind of adjective and just proceed with the question and we would have less noise, if I may use that term. The hon. member for Markham—Unionville has the floor. We will have a little order, please.
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, when the tax hike is imposed by a man who says Canadians are overtaxed and who far from being a socialist is a neo-conservative who wants to jail the homeless, then one is truly at a loss to explain such bizarre behaviour.
Does the minister of gimmicks regret that he ballooned his already massive surplus by raising income tax?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I insist that the member opposite apologize for calling me a raving socialist finance minister. I have family; I have children. This cuts to the bone.
I do agree with the member for Markham—Unionville that Canadians are overtaxed. We are working to fix that.
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, the behaviour of the minister of gimmicks grows even more bizarre. Why do he and the Prime Minister claim that they cut income tax when every Canadian who is filling out his or her income tax form this year knows that the tax rate went up, not down? Does he think that Canadians are stupid?
The government axed programs that supported the most vulnerable, literacy and youth programs, as well as those that helped minorities, such as the court challenges program. Will the finance minister promise to reinstate funding to these programs?
Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON
Ralph, relax, we are going to deal with it. I am going to answer the question.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Whether the minister is going to answer the question or not is not the issue. He will respond, but he will address the Chair, I am sure, in his remarks, rather than the former minister of finance.
Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON
Mr. Speaker, not only did we reduce income taxes last year so that every Canadian in every tax category would pay less income tax this year on average than they did in preceding years, but also we reduced the GST by a full percentage point and we also created a $100 payment for each child under the age of six across the country, all of which are most welcomed by Canadians.
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the Minister of Finance keeps on misleading the House. He increased income tax rather than reducing it.
The government may be laughing all the way to the bank, but it refuses to use any of this cash to invest in communities across Canada. This is a shortsighted approach and will have long term consequences. The government is awash in cash, but women, youth and minorities have been excluded from the government's right-wing ideological agenda.
Will the finance minister promise there will be no more neo-con ideological cuts to the program?
Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the member for Markham—Unionville says I am a socialist and that member says I am a right-wing something or other.
The important thing for Canadians is that we continue to reduce taxes of every kind that Canadians are called upon to pay. We did that in budget 2006 by reducing consumption taxes, reducing income taxes, reducing corporate taxes, reducing excise taxes, reducing every kind of tax that the Government of Canada takes from the people of Canada.
We believe in Canadians. We believe in Canadian families. We are going to continue to try to help them by reducing the tax--
Fabian Manning Conservative Avalon, NL
Mr. Speaker, Canada's Fisheries Act is 139 years old and needs to be updated. Our government has put forward changes to the act. However, last Friday the new Liberal fisheries critic, who promised to be constructive, moved a six month hoist amendment. He said it was to allow for more consultations on the new fisheries act.
I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to tell this House what actually happens if this hoist amendment is adopted.
Fisheries Act, 2007Oral Questions
St. John's South—Mount Pearl Newfoundland & Labrador
Conservative
Loyola Hearn ConservativeMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, the fisheries critic moved the amendment on Friday under the instructions of his House leader and leader, none of whom know anything about the fishery, which effectively would kill the bill if it is passed. If this amendment is passed, the bill will die. It cannot be introduced again into the House in this session, much to the delight of the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor and the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, “Kill Bill” and “Kill Bill II”.
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Democratic Reform has contracted out the issue of electoral reform and closed the door on a truly open citizens consultation. Under-represented groups need to have a say on the electoral system, but he does not want special interest groups hijacking the process.
Could the minister explain who those special interests are? Who does he not want to hear from: women, first nations, parliamentarians, ordinary Canadians?
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether parliamentarians are an over- or under-represented group in this country.
However, what I can say is that the way this study is fashioned is so that a representative sample of Canadians is asked to participate, not people from special interest groups but rather a cross-section of Canadians. It should be representative of the population in terms of women, in terms of aboriginals, in terms of regions, in terms of income, in terms of ethnicity. Across the board we should have representativeness and that is the best way to conduct an open consultation.
Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC
Mr. Speaker, the minister said that he did not even know the people to whom the contract went. Let me introduce him to his new friends, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a neo-Conservative think tank against the idea of climate change. The want a private health care system. They like the idea of bulk water exports. They think trans fats are okay. Guess what? They are opposed to electoral reform. A special interest group has already hijacked the process.
Could the minister explain how a think tank that opposes reform has been put in charge of it?
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, this was a wide open competitive process. I do not believe anybody should be barred from participating because of their views.
What I want to know is why the member's party, the NDP, barred Canadians from participating in a consultation by the parliamentary committee. A motion was put forward allowing for additional consultations to take place, allowing the parliamentary committee to do its study. That was put forward by a Conservative member of Parliament. It was the NDP and the other parties that voted down that consultation process.
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the Liberals the government inherited one of the largest surpluses in Canadian history.
The Minister of Finance promised students there would be money for them in the last budget, but he let them down with only a paltry $80 for books when the cost of books runs in the hundreds, even thousands of dollars.
Students need money in September so they can pay for tuition and groceries. Will the finance minister guarantee that he will do more to put money directly in the pockets of students than the paltry $1.50 per week he came up with last year?
