Jim Flaherty

[Finance, June 21st, 2006]

What we are not going to do, Mr. Speaker, is what members opposite did when they were the government, and that is to have these surprise surpluses and then interfere in provincial jurisdiction and meddle in provincial jurisdiction with these surprise surpluses that were not authorized by Parliament.

What we are going to do is look at the issue of intergenerational equity and ask how we can more fairly distribute that surplus over the generations in Canada so that young people are treated more fairly than they were by the members opposite when they were the government.

[Finance, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising the IMF issue. The report the IMF did with respect to our budget and our efforts on the Canadian economy was quite complimentary last week.

On the issue he raises with respect to the CPP and the QPP, that is an issue we referenced in the fiscal balance paper that was published with the budget. I am sure the hon. member has read it. It is an issue of intergenerational equity with respect to taxation, which we do intend to discuss with the finance ministers next week when we gather.

[Goods and Services Tax, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know that July 1 will be a day of mourning for the members of the GST club opposite. That is the day the rest of Canadians will be celebrating the 1% reduction in the GST, which will come into force on July 1. I understand that the bill is passing through the Senate today.

I thank the members opposite for permitting the budget bill to pass through the House on unanimous consent. It gives me a warm feeling of collegiality at the end of the session.

[Securities Industry, June 21st, 2006]

No, Mr. Speaker. I want to favour Canadians. I want to protect investors who invest in RSPs, who invest in pension plans, who invest directly in the market. There is a significant market in Montreal in the derivatives section that can certainly be accommodated in our discussions.

As I say, the point is not a provincial jurisdiction point. The point is the best interests of Canadians who need protection in our securities markets.

[Securities Industry, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is as part of our economic federation whether it is in the best interests of Canadians across Canada to have one common securities regulator. The issue is not whether it needs to be a federal regulator or a regulator that is created by the provinces.

The point of the discussion which we hope to have with the finance ministers and the ministers responsible for securities regulation next week when we meet together is to address that issue in terms of making sense of our economic federation and protecting investors in Canada and having adequate enforcement, whether it is in our best interests to have one common securities regulator.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

moved:

That Bill C-3, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing subsection (2) with the following:

“(2) Before recommending that a regulation be made under subsection (1), the Minister shall, if in the opinion of the Minister it is necessary having regard to all the circumstances, consult with the other levels of government that have jurisdiction over any place where an international bridge or tunnel is situated and with any person who, in the opinion of the Minister, has a direct interest in the matter.”

[Finance, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of helping the environment. That is why we want a transit pass that will allow people to take public transit, with about two months of free transit per year. We also want to help children be more physically fit. What could be more important for the next generation? We also want to help students and apprentices with tools and textbooks.

We are for public transit. We are for students. We are for our young people.

[Income Trusts, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about the interests of investors. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we need a common securities regulator in Canada. We need to protect Canadians who invest through RRSPs, through pension plans, those who invest in mutual funds, those who invest directly through the market, pensioners and others in Canada, not only with respect to the issue raised by the hon. member but also more broadly with respect to enforcement issues in Canada.

I look forward to having those discussions with the securities ministers next week, particularly with a view to establishing national standards and a national securities regulator in Canada.

[Income Trusts, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, there was a bit of a mess that occurred during the last government, relating to income trusts. That is still a matter of some police investigation in Canada.

The question relates to a question I was asked earlier in question period about securities regulation in Canada. The regulation of income trusts presently is with the provincial securities regulators. It is an issue that I know they are reviewing with the income trusts and it is an issue that probably we should discuss further when the finance ministers meet next week.

[Taxation, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal situation of the governments in Canada is better today than it was several years ago. Most of the provinces are in balance now. The federal government will not have surprise surpluses as we saw opposite. We are accurately reporting to the people of Canada.

As I say, we only have two governments in Canada now that are not operating in surplus and those are the Government of Ontario and the Government of Prince Edward Island. Substantial progress has been made already moving toward the fiscal balance of the federation.