Garth Turner

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend began her speech in a stirring way by talking about the work that had been done to build our country by our ancestors. I am wondering if she has a word for our ancestors, some of whom are alive today and who we call parents, grandparents and senior citizens, on why the budget did not address the situation of the taxation of income trusts. The government has erased some $25 billion in private savings because of the taxation of income trusts.

Could the hon. member explain to us why the taxation of income trusts is included in the budget? Could she also explain why it is linked to the income tax fairness package which prevents any member of the House from having a say on an issue such as pension splitting without also guaranteeing that we are robbing parents and grandparents of the assets that she talked about of $25 billion, the greatest theft of private wealth by a government in Canadian history?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague with much interest and congratulate him on his speech on the budget.

I have a question for my friend. It relates to the premier of the province of Quebec, Jean Charest. Of course today an historic election is being held in the province of Quebec, which could yield an historic result if the polls are correct. Immediately after the budget, funds were transferred to the province of Quebec, funds in excess of a 34% increase over what had been sent to that province previously. Monsieur Charest declared in a speech that he would be using $700 million of those funds for a personal tax cut for the citizens of the province of Quebec, presumably if he is returned as premier tonight.

Could my hon. friend comment? Many of my constituents have been in touch with me and have said that it seems quite unfair to them that constituents of my riding of Halton in Ontario did not get an income tax cut from this budget. They felt it was rather unfair, in fact, that income taxes were raised in the first Conservative budget of 2006 and that the lowest tax bracket was raised, not lowered, as many people had thought.

There was no income tax break whatsoever for the people of my riding or the people of Ontario or in fact the rest of Canada in this federal budget, yet Monsieur Charest is taking the increased transfer payment and using it to drop taxes in the province of Quebec. How does my hon. friend justify that? If he could give me an answer I could relay to my constituents to help justify this situation, it would be helpful.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Answer the question.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend's comments with some interest. I have often thought that the transition from citizen to politician is complete when a person is elected and goes to Ottawa then all of a sudden turns around to tell his riding, his voters and province what they should think and argues passionately in the House of Commons for less for his particular region, voter or people. That typifies the hon. parliamentary secretary's comments. He is now arguing for less for his people and his province and is justifying a federal government formula which his own province violently opposes.

I have two questions for the hon. member.

First, would he comment on two things that were published in the media the other day, in a Canadian press report, which was carried in his province? One is the comments of Premier Calvert pointing out that the budget imposes this cap on equalization payments. Maybe he could explain it me. I am from Ontario and we do not need all that stuff, but as far as I know Saskatchewan does. Mr. Calvert says that regardless of which formula is used, the province only gets $226 million this year, not the $800 million for which the province had hoped.

Second, could the hon. member comment on some of the comments made by one of his provincial colleagues the other day, another member of the House, who called Premier Calvert a liar? His colleague actually said the premier was “lying through his teeth”. Does the hon. member agree with that? Is the premier of his province a liar or is his hon. colleague on that side of the floor a liar?

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2007]

I think what Canadians want us to talk about is them, not us, Mr. Speaker, and I will do exactly that.

If the markets are right and if mortgage rates go up by just half a point on a $300,000 mortgage in Whitby or Calgary, the average payment per year will go up by $960, which more than wipes out the benefit for a family of four.

Does the finance minister not get it?

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, although that is not relevant to the question I asked, I did offer my resignation.

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of this budget the Canadian dollar has soared by a full cent. The Conservatives might not get it but currency markets know that the minister's budget is inflationary and it will lead to higher interest rates. Higher mortgage rates threaten the housing market and can quickly wipe away the entire benefit of a year's cuts.

Does the minister not get it? Does he not realize the damage this can do to working families? What third rate economist did he consult with, the Prime Minister?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to qualify the statement he just made. He said that “real Canadians” will understand the literature that has been distributed. As opposed to what? Are people on this side of the House not real Canadians? Do we perhaps care more for Taliban prisoners than we do for Canadian troops--

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend campaigned with me, actually as a Conservative, in the winter of 2005 and in the first month of 2006. I recall at that time there was a lot of criticism within the Conservative ranks of the spending habits of the then Liberal Prime Minister and the fact that the Liberals had a budget that increased spending past the point of $200 billion.

How does she feel now that her own Minister of Finance has increased spending by a substantial amount and now has the greatest amount of money being spent in any budget ever in history under the watch of a Conservative finance minister: $236 billion? Never before have we seen that kind of spending.

We have had increases now in this budget which will double the rate of inflation in this year. Program spending alone, without even debt interest payment, will be in excess of $200 billion in the fiscal year 2008-09. How does the parliamentary secretary justify that? How does that jive with the fact we were all slagging the former Prime Minister for spending far less money? How can she justify this particular expenditure and call it conservative?

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague, who is an esteemed economist, what his view is on the spending in this budget.

I believe $236 billion will be spent in this budget, which is the largest amount of money ever spent by any Minister of Finance in history. Is this consistent with the Minister of Finance's background as a right wing, conservative ideologue, as a guy who has gone around this country from one end to the other saying that less government is good government and lower taxes are better taxes? Is this consistent with that man's philosophy or not?