Jim Flaherty

[Canadian Forces, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was shocked this morning to read the newspaper report, which I am sure the member opposite read, with respect to the apparent differential treatment of some widows in Canada. Their husbands and their spouses are Canadian heroes. They have lost their lives in the service of our country.

I made it clear to the banks today that I expect them to be generous in their treatment of all widows in our country, and I await their response. I will be pleased to report to the House with respect to their response as soon as it is received.

[Tobacco Manufacturers' Surtax, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of tax fairness. This is a tax that was designed for manufacturers of cigarettes and cigars.

I might add that I thank the Liberal member for Brant for his support on this issue.

[Tobacco Manufacturers' Surtax, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is referring to the tobacco manufacturers' surtax. This is an issue of tax fairness. The manufacturers' tax is just for that; it is for manufacturers of cigarettes and cigars. It is not designed for leaf processors. As a result, we have made a minor technical amendment to accomplish the goal. This tax ought not to have been imposed in the first place. It was a mistake and we have corrected that.

I can add that we maintain our policy against smoking. In fact, when we reduced the GST by one percentage point, we ensured that we raised the excise taxes so that the price of smoking would remain a deterrent in Canada.

[Government Policies, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the president of the Liberal best brains club wants to cut spending against Canadians. I do not know why he wants to reduce spending against Canadians.

I can assure the member for Markham—Unionville and all members opposite that spending has been controlled this year. I know that is an objective with respect to which the opposition is unfamiliar, but we believe in controlled spending, and everyone, including the member for Wascana, will see in the budget that spending has been controlled in this fiscal year.

[Government Policies, February 7th, 2007]

As usual, Mr. Speaker, the premise is entirely wrong. The spending reductions that were made were announced previously. It is just as wrong, really, as the posturing on the other side of the House with respect to the income trusts issue. We know where the Bloc Québécois stands and we know where the NDP stands in support of that issue.

What we have from the Leader of the Opposition is this. He says that he spoke with “my best brains in our team”, the member for Wascana, the member for Markham—Unionville, and the member for Kings—Hants, and “they have ideas, but they urge me for now to not announce anything”.

I am asking the member opposite from Markham, as the president of the Liberal best brains club, to convene a meeting--

[Post-Secondary Education, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we had very constructive discussions with the finance ministers at Niagara-on-the-Lake and in Vancouver in December precisely with respect to this issue. The member is correct. There is a significant degree of agreement among the various governments in Canada that we must do more for post-secondary education in Canada, and we will.

[Taxation, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to reduce transfers to the provinces. In fact, I already wrote to all the ministers of finance in the other governments in Canada recently, outlining the floor, the minimum equalization and the statutory authority that I have now as Minister of Finance, so that all the other governments know what the floor is.

However, there will be more and that will come at budget time.

[Taxation, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member advocates for the transfer of tax points, which is one way of resolving the fiscal imbalance and moving toward fiscal balance. That certainly has been discussed at many meetings between the governments of the provinces, the territories and the federal government.

Many suggestions have been made. There are a number of studies out there that have been reviewed and studied by, I hope, most members of the House.

We will be in a position to announce our proposed changes, from fiscal imbalance to fiscal balance, at budget time.

[Taxation, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there are two points with respect to which Canada's new government is very different from the government that was here for 13 years.

One is that we respect provincial jurisdiction. We believe the federal government should concentrate on its areas of constitutional jurisdiction. It is not the role of the federal government, unlike the previous government, to constantly and persistently interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Second, we are the first government in Canada, unlike the member's government, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, to acknowledge that there is a fiscal imbalance between the Government of Canada and other governments within Canada.

[Taxation, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite will have to await the budget and the announcements in it, as will all members of the House.

We are precisely on track. We said in budget 2006 that we would consult with the provinces and territories. We have done that at great length. We have done it intensely. The Prime Minister has, various ministers have and I have with the ministers of finance of all governments in Canada, including Quebec.

I look forward to announcing the changes that we will be proposing, having acknowledged the fiscal imbalance, at budget time.