Jim Flaherty

[Minister of Public Works and Government Services, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the minister was simply referring to the markets and the fact that there was some volatility in the markets yesterday. That was to be expected.

The realistic view which many people on Bay Street and on St. James Street in Montreal expressed is that one should take the time to look at the fact that there is a four year grandparenting of the changes with respect to income trusts, and that people should have perspective with respect to all of the changes that were announced on Tuesday.

[Income Trusts, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is what one would expect from a party that is against reducing the GST, that voted against reducing the GST, that is against allowing pensioners to income split in this country, saving, for example, $2,500 on a single pension household of $40,000, and that is in favour of letting corporations not pay their fair share of taxes. On every tax issue, on every fairness issue for Canadians, that party opposite is wrong.

[Income Trusts, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that intellectually bankrupt party opposite had no idea of how to deal with this issue. As the Globe and Mail said, Canada in becoming an income trust economy “would be less competitive, less productive, and less innovative than it needs to be in the global arena”.

The Globe and Mail gets it. The members opposite do not get it. Not only did they not get it, they do not get it now. They bungled it last year.

We have done what is fair for Canadians. The Liberals think the phone companies should not pay taxes. We do.

[Income Trusts, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the party opposite seems incapable of handling this file. The Liberals had no plan for the file. Their critics said they had no position on the file. Then, when they addressed it last year, they bungled it.

I can say that the government has support from Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta. Most Canadians and most governments in this country understand the long term interests of the Canadian economy, as does the Globe and Mail, as does the Toronto Star. Those who look at--

[Taxation, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important issue in terms of having fairness in the tax system. I am happy to review those issues.

[Taxation, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, we are interested in tax fairness as a fundamental principle and expanding the tax base. We believe, unlike the former government, that all Canadians, including corporations, should share in the tax burden fairly. That includes, legitimately I think, review of treaties with respect to taxation as well to ensure that all Canadians are accepting their fair share of the tax burden.

[Income Trusts, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there was a substantial commitment to provide security for seniors in this country. Yesterday we made a very important announcement with respect to an issue that has been outstanding in this country for more than 40 years, and that is the question of income splitting for pensioners.

I know the Liberals opposite do not think it matters much for pensioners. However, if we look at a pensioner now receiving a pension of $40,000 for one spouse and the other spouse not receiving any pension, the tax savings will be $2,500 for that couple.

I know Liberals do not think that is much money but it is a lot of money for a lot of Canadian pensioners.

[Income Trusts, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is not investigating my Department of Finance but it is investigating the member's department of finance.

There were no leaks, no emails and no deals with friends on Bay Street. There was confidentiality, deliberation and the provision of certainty for capital markets in Canada.

Finally, there was an effort to create fairness for individual taxpayers and their families, while the member protects the big--

[Income Trusts, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, after 13 years in government and some time in opposition, as of October 18 this year, the member for Markham—Unionville said the following about his party's position on this important subject for all Canadians, “We don't have a definitive position on this”.

The former Liberal government offered confusion while we have provided clarity. It offered more confusion for independent families and their tax responsibilities. We offer balance in terms of corporations paying their fair share of taxes going forward in Canada.

[Income Trusts, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite would never go over the top. I know--