Jim Flaherty

[Securities Industry, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member to understand clearly that what has been discussed and what has been put forward in some of the reports, including the report by Purdy Crawford which had representations from across the country, is not a federal securities regulator. It is a common securities regulator for our country, with representatives, equal representation from the provincial governments and from the Government of Canada.

[Securities Industry, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as part of our discussions with respect to fiscal balance and the state of the economic union in Canada, the finance ministers have discussed issues relating to mobility between the provinces in Canada of goods, services and people. We have also discussed the reality that we have 13 securities regulators in the country which impedes the movement of capital. There is a plan among the provinces relating to the passport system that has some merit and with respect to which there has been some activity. I look forward to having further discussions concerning the efficacy of a common securities regulator with the finance ministers in December.

[Tourism, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government invests more than $300 million each year in the tourism industry in Canada.

This particular GST rebate was not being used by many people. It was being used by 3% of the 35 million visitors to Canada and was a very inefficient way of raising taxes.

Having said that, we are committed to the tourism industry in Canada. I look forward to further discussions with that industry as we move toward preparation of budget 2007.

[Income Trusts, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have received lots of emails, as the department has. I have meetings planned with people. I have discussed the issue of income trusts with people.

I welcome the member opposite to think about the best interests of Canada: to think about who is going to pay the taxes next year and the year after that; to think about tax fairness; to think about the duty of corporations to pay their fair share of taxes in Canada; and to think about Canada's place in the world and our economy being competitive with other economies in the world. This is the Canadian duty, the duty of a Canadian government that dealt with the issue fairly--

[Income Trusts, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I assume the member opposite is referring to his party's handling of this issue last year in terms of a disaster, of emails, of RCMP investigations, of half measures, of market fluctuations. We dealt with the issue clearly, decisively and without public disclosure, which is the way it had to be dealt with.

There have been a lot of concerns expressed. John Manley, for example, who used to be the minister of finance, acknowledges that this was the right thing to do.

[Taxation, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the only income splitting of which we have spoken was in the tax fairness plan announced a few weeks ago, to come into force January 1, 2007, not just for seniors who are pensioners, but also for pensioners who are not yet seniors. It is a major change in tax policy for pensioners and seniors, particularly for them, and it was supported by the member opposite, and I thank her for her support, and by her party.

[Taxation, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows, since I had these discussions with her prebudget, we increased the funding for families with children with disabilities in budget 2006, fulfilling the recommendations from the technical committee in that regard.

We also appointed a panel, which will be reporting shortly, to study the issue of some sort of tax deferred savings plan for families with children with disabilities.

I believe the hon. member supports those initiatives.

[Transfer Payments, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, forgive me for trying to figure out which one of the Liberal budgets the member opposite is speaking about. Was it the budget that was first announced in the House, or was it the NDP budget that followed along? Was it perhaps the announcements that were made in November last year?

One can select from three sets of figures that the former government had about potential transfers to real Canadians. We prefer our solid numbers in budget 2006, which are all increases in transfers to the provinces.

[Transfer Payments, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have fully funded the trust transfers for post-secondary education, for infrastructure, for aboriginal and off reserve housing and for public transit. We are providing $2.5 billion per year directly to children and families through the new universal child care benefit plus $250 million for child care spaces.

In addition to the transfers that I have already spoken about, which members opposite do not seem to understand, it increases from $40 billion to $49 billion over the course of the fiscal years to 2011.

[Transfer Payments, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite apparently is confused about the fiscal situation in Canada as between the provinces and the federal government. In fact, the total surpluses in the provinces this year are $13.4 billion. In addition, the level of accumulated debt in the provinces is lower than that in the federal government.

The surplus in the provinces is higher than the federal surplus of $13.2 billion. Nevertheless, we know we have to move forward on transfers to accomplish fiscal balance in Canada, something that the former government always denied existed.