Jim Flaherty

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:

a) On average, individuals with total income less than $8,500 would have paid $315 in GST in 2007 had the tax rate stayed at 7%.

b) If an individual would have paid $315 in GST at 7%, the one-percentage point reduction would reduce his/her GST by $45, on average.

c) On average, those with $200,000 income would have paid $6,285 in GST in 2007 had the tax rate stayed at 7%.

The responses to questions a) to c) were estimated by Finance Canada using the Statistics Canada Social Policy Database and Model.

d) to h) The information necessary to answer these questions can be found in the Statistics Canada publication: Income Trends in Canada (Catalogue no. 13F0022XIE), which is available at the following web-address: http://www.statcan.ca/registered/IPS/Z2aZdU6u5bgfs/english/13F0022XIE/00004/products.htm

i) This information can be found in the Statistics Canada publication: Labour Force Historical Review 2005, (Catalogue no. 71F0004XCB), which is available at the following web-address: http://www.statcan.ca/bsolc/english/bsolc?catno=71F0004X

[Taxation, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, finally a good question about a happy subject for Canadians, reducing taxes for all Canadians by reducing the GST by a full percentage point.

I know the members opposite are probably the last members in Canada of the save the GST club. They are hanging on. They only have another week or so until we get to that great day, July 1, Canada Day, when the GST will be reduced by a full percentage point for all Canadians, including the one-third of Canadians who do not pay income tax. It is truly a tax reduction for every Canadian.

We are keeping our commitment to Canadians.

[Oil and Gas Industry, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what the member describes is far from what is happening in the oil and gas industry. The revenues to the people of Canada and the Government of Canada from that industry last year were $5 billion in taxes. That is compared to only $2.1 billion two years earlier. That is almost 15% of the total corporate tax revenues to the Government of Canada. We are proud of our oil and gas industry. It is growing. It is great for the future wealth of our country and for Canadians.

[Equalization, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there are many proposals on the table.

Speaking of being honest, I am sure the member opposite remembers some of his colleagues who actually look on the bright side, the sunny side of the budget, like the chief economist at RBC Financial Group, who said, “The pleasant surprises we saw--reductions in income taxes, continued reduction in debt and more focus on tax relief--are all positives in today's budget”. That is from the chief economist at RBC.

I thank the members opposite for agreeing with the chief economist at RBC and supporting the budget at third reading today.

[Equalization, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I refuse to answer the question about anyone being a loser on the other side. I think that would be improper and I will not do that.

I think the question relates to the report that Mr. O'Brien and his colleagues have delivered. It is a very helpful report and I commend it to all members and Canadians to read. It makes various recommendations with respect to equalization. It is another report. There are other reports, as the member opposite knows.

All of those reports will be taken into consideration when the finance ministers meet at the end of the month and as discussions take place among Canadians. The reports are not conclusive with respect to the ultimate result. As the member opposite knows, there is a wide divergence of--

[Equalization, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have read the report. In fact, I have read both reports. There are separate reports with respect to the provinces and an additional report with respect to the territories. There are many ideas expressed in the report. As I said, I thank Mr. O'Brien for the lucidity of the report. I commend it to Canadians. I hope many Canadians will read it. It affects our relationship together as Canadians and how we share the wealth in this country.

[Equalization, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to the O'Brien report which has been released today. It is a report to the Minister of Finance commissioned by the former government. I thank Mr. O'Brien and his panel for the very dedicated work they did over the course of many months listening to more than 200 Canadians and providing, and I think most members will agree when they have an opportunity to read it, a lucid and understandable report. We are going to consider it in some detail and respond in the future.

[Municipalities, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the party opposite when it was the government did not consult with municipalities concerning fiscal imbalance was that it did not even recognize that there was a fiscal imbalance.

Now we have this confusion on the other side where some of them say there is a fiscal imbalance and some of them say there is not.

Our government is clear. There is an issue to be addressed. We are going to move toward fiscal balance in the federation.

[Municipalities, June 5th, 2006]

It is just the opposite, Mr. Speaker. In the paper that we put out with the budget dealing with the issues of fiscal balance, we referred repeatedly to the three orders of government and consulting the three orders of government in this country, something the party opposite never did.

[Privilege, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of personal privilege.

On May 18, 2006, the member of Parliament for Ajax—Pickering stood in the House and accused me of using my position as Minister of Finance to benefit a family member. The member stated as fact that I had adopted a capital cost allowance for forest bioenergy in the 2006 budget in order to benefit Dorset, a small industrial chemical company that is owned by one of my brothers.

Referring to environment programs, the member for Ajax--Pickering said:

It is time for the government to listen to Canadians. Instead of slashing valuable programs like EnerGuide and keeping only the program that benefited the finance minister's brother, the government needs to focus on the priorities of Canadians, honour our Kyoto commitments--

I call upon the member to apologize. I would table the letter from the Ethics Commissioner declaring that there is no conflict of interest.