Jim Flaherty

[Post-Secondary Education, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows we have had lengthy consultations for more than a year now with the other governments in Canada with respect to issues dealing with equalization and also dealing with the important transfers, post-secondary education and infrastructure transfers. We look forward to the budget, to come soon, to be able to be specific in that regard.

[Financial Institutions, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, not only did I have a lively conversation on the subject of the banks, but also I am meeting with them in about two weeks to discuss this subject, among others.

[Financial Institutions, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I did write to the banks, as I indicated in the House that I would. I have had fairly lively conversations about the subject with the banks.

I have made clear to them that we believe in choice and competition, and certainly the credit union networks in Canada do provide that choice and competition with respect to this particular issue of non-customer use of ATM machines in Canada.

[The Economy, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in October we unveiled our economic plan for Canada called Advantage Canada, including the knowledge advantage that we intend to create for the people of Canada. It was well received.

Claire Morris from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada said this:

The federal government clearly recognizes that a highly educated workforce and investments in research and innovation are fundamental to economic growth.

Our Advantage Canada plan is fundamental to knowledge generation and economic growth in Canada. It has been well received by the education establishment in this country.

[Canadian Forces, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, this issue was raised in the House yesterday. I said that I had written to the financial institutions and I would report back to the House as soon as I heard from them.

I have heard from the financial institutions. I am pleased to advise the House that the Canadian Bankers Association has confirmed that in most instances the policies, which are underwritten by insurance companies, do not include any war related exclusions and where such exclusions exist, the banks are waiving the exclusions for soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

I have received similar confirmation from Manulife that it will not rely on such clauses to deny otherwise valid claims.

[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--