Jim Flaherty

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, 80% full time.

With respect to the previous question regarding cumulative growth in Canadian living standards, I recommend the hon. member look at the budget plan 2008 on page 36. He will see the graph that shows Canadian living standards have increased by more than 20% since the end of 2001. Household net worth has gone up dramatically in Canada as well from 1990 to 2007.

I know you do not like these statistics because they do not support your case, but you might want to review the business documents that are with the budget plan. Perhaps you will find them edifying, although as I say, they do not support the allegations you are making.

The other thing we have done for households in Canada which is quite dramatic is we have reduced the tax burden. We have reduced not only the personal income tax burden, but also the consumption tax, the GST, by 2%. And very important for pensioners, not just seniors, we are allowing income splitting which has meant a dramatic tax reduction. All of this contributes to household purchasing power and household wealth.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Up.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, in the longer term if we are going to have good fiscal management, of course spending has to be controlled.

This is a very large government. More than 400,000 employees work for the Government of Canada in various capacities. That was something we looked at very seriously last year. We got some good advice from within and outside government. Cabinet approved the creation of an expenditure management system, EMS.

It means that Treasury Board is looking at every government initiative, every program, every department, every agency. It has already looked at more than 15% of them, with these questions: Are we still getting value for money? Do we have a program that still fulfills the objectives for which it was created in the first place? Because programs do tend to take on a life of their own. We ask the departments what is the least important 5% of their spending that has the least priority? Does the department need it for something else that has a greater priority, and if not, can we take it back into the consolidated general revenue fund, use it for other spending priorities, use it to reduce public debt, use it to reduce taxes?

This is a strenuous exercise for the public service and for those elected--

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, we went through a time in Canadian political history, and certainly in the political economy, in the 1970s and 1980s and into the 1990s when it was common for federal governments, and provincial governments as well, to run deficits. The substantial public debt we have in Canada now is the sum of those accumulated deficits over those years. We do not want to go back to those years.

The official opposition in this place is saying it is going to spend an additional $60 billion. It voted for a bill this afternoon in the House of Commons that would require another $10 billion a year. There is $70 billion. How is the opposition going to pay for it? Now we are starting to hear about a carbon tax, as the Liberals call it, a tax on gasoline, a tax on electricity, a tax on home heating fuel, a tax that would have the greatest punitive burden on those with fixed incomes, poor seniors in this country, people receiving minimal pensions, and so on.

We do just the opposite. We allow pension splitting which will save people thousands of dollars this year when they file their income tax returns. The official opposition would do just the opposite. They want to prey on seniors and make it more difficult for them to pay their monthly bills by driving up costs by new taxation. It is not surprising, because the Liberal way of doing government is big spending, big tax increases, running deficits, and accumulating public debt.

For all of the reasons expressed by my hon. friend, this is not in the long term best interests of the country and it is not fair. We should think of the next generation and the generation after that. Why should we be living on borrowed money and asking the next generation to pay the costs? It is not fair intergenerationally. Most people would think it is not fair and would say that we should pay our bills as we go.

That is where we are going as a government. We are paying down large sums of public debt and reducing personal taxes. Every time we do it by means of the tax back guarantee. We intend to continue on that path, not on the path advocated on the other side of the House of high taxation, high spending, and running deficits.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, just so the hon. member has no misunderstanding, the trusts, including the environment trust, are set up by the federal Department of Finance, the trustee, with the provinces of course, but they are not administered by the Department of Finance. That is done by the relevant federal government departments.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

No, Mr. Chair, finance does the trust agreements, I say to the members opposite.

I will say again to the members opposite that environmental programs are not administered by the Department of Finance.

I do note that in the 13 years of Liberal government greenhouse emissions went up 30% and I notice that the member wants to introduce something called a carbon tax. We know what that will do to gasoline prices for Canadians. They will go up dramatically. We know what it will do to home heating fuel. It will go up dramatically.

We know what it would do to electricity. We know what it would do to manufacturing costs and therefore to exports. This massive punitive tax is what that member supports.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for the question. That is a specific scientific question. I will get an answer for the member if I can and report it to him.

I note that during the 13 years--

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I may need to hear the last part of the question again.

With respect to who administers what, these are trust agreements, and of course the trust agreements are negotiated and put in place by the Department of Finance. The administration of the environmental trusts, for example, is with the Department of the Environment, not with the finance department.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, it was 8% on GO Transit alone, the member for Peterborough says. I would call that instant research. He is a multi-talented member of Parliament.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, we can try to get the answer to that. It is a very specific scientific question.

We can try to get the answer for him. We will probably have to go to the Department of Environment, but I will try to get the answer for the member.

I can tell members this, though: that tax credit is hugely popular with Canadians. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians claimed that credit on their tax--