Jim Flaherty

[Income Trusts, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that the provisions with respect to changing the tax rules for income trusts do not come into force for some four years for trusts that were trading on October 31, 2006. This is a long period of time. There will be time for context and perspective. It was done similarly to what was done in other places because other places, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, have made it clear that this type of economic instrument was not in the best interests of a competitive, productive economy going forward. That is in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Income Trusts, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what can I say? Many sources in Canada disagree terribly with what the member opposite has just said. For example, the Toronto Star editorial board said:

But the [Finance Minister] nevertheless deserves much credit for doing the right thing by plugging a tax-avoidance loophole that he rightly described as “a very bad thing for Canada”.

I invite the members opposite, if they truly believe it is the right thing for Canada to have an income trust economy, to go ahead and vote against the motion. Those members know and I know that when--

[Income Trusts, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians, and I am sure even some of the members opposite, saw what was happening in 2006. We saw the income trust sector increase by some $70 billion. We saw the telecommunications sector, first one and then another company, decide in a capital intensive section of the economy that it felt obliged to go the income trust route.

We were going to see more. There were more that were being talked about. If members opposite and the member for Wascana truly believe that an income trust economy is in Canada's best interests, then go ahead and--

[Income Trusts, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if we look back one year and see how this issue was not addressed and then was attempted to be addressed, we would see that it was bungled by the party opposite. I do not expect the party opposite to understand that a government, albeit a minority government, is obliged to look after the best interests of the country.

As commentators from coast to coast have said, what is in the best interests of Canadians? What is in the long term interest of Canada and the next generation? What is in the interests of our Canadian economy? Do we want to become a sleepy economy? The answer has--

[Income Trusts, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if it is the position of the Liberal Party, then I say to the member for Mississauga South that I gather it is the official position of his party, which is as follows:

It was absolutely the right thing, and we had started on this track to protect the tax base, to ensure tax fairness and to work for the productivity of the nation.

The member for Mississauga South is wrong. He should turn around and say it to the author of that statement, the official critic who is sitting behind him, the member for Markham—Unionville.

[Income Trusts, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Liberal Party thinks that large corporations should not pay taxes in Canada. I know that the Liberals apparently plan to vote in favour of the position that this economy should increasingly put the burden for health care, education and infrastructure that we need on individuals and families in Canada.

We do not share that view. We do not share the view that is apparently the view of the party opposite. We think all Canadians, including corporations, should pay their fair share of taxes.

[Income Trusts, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let me try to understand the position of the Liberal Party on this matter.

Two weeks ago, on October 18, the critic for finance, the member from Markham said that we had no definite position on this issue. Then the other day, with the leader I gather, they decided in some kind of knee-jerk reaction that they would vote against seniors and vote against pensioners on this bill. The reason seemed to be that it was absolutely the right thing. It went something like “We had started on this track to protect the tax base, to ensure tax fairness, and to work for the productivity of the--

[Income Trusts, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the intention was always to provide income security for seniors which we are doing through the splitting of pension income. For pensioners with $40,000 worth of income, instead of paying at the current $40,000 marginal rate, they will now pay at a $20,000 marginal rate each which would be a saving for them of $2,500. At the $60,000 level the savings would be about $2,700. These are direct savings for pensioners in Canada commencing January 1, 2007. I am surprised the Liberals are not going to vote in favour of the bill.

[Income Trusts, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about muzzling a critic. Here is another view, “It was absolutely the right thing and we had started on this track to protect the tax base, to ensure tax fairness and to work for the productivity of the nation”. That was the member from Markham yesterday afternoon on television. Perhaps the member opposite would like to muzzle his own critic.

[Income Trusts, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what is confusing is the position of the Liberal Party on this matter. This is a file that it bungled last year. This is a matter that it failed to address. It has now been addressed and addressed clearly.

If the member opposite is interested in what corporations, business leaders and economic columnists in Canada think about this, he can read the press from coast to coast that is almost uniformly recognizing that this was the right thing to do, people like Domenic D'Alessandro, the CEO of Manulife, who said, “I think it's the right thing. I agree with the--