Tom Lukiwski

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I reject the premise that Canadian corporations are more vulnerable because of this decision. In fact, I would suggest, and I think the record would bear me out, that there are far more examples of Canadians taking over foreign investments, or in other words, taking over foreign companies, than the reverse.

To perhaps set the record straight as well, I think the member referred to some member from Edmonton—Strathcona. If she was referring to me, I note that I am from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. I know the member would not purposely misrepresent my home riding, and I know she was confused.

Quite simply, I reject the premise of the question from the hon. member for Halifax, who is suggesting that in some way tax policies by this government make Canadian corporations more vulnerable to foreign takeovers. I absolutely reject that premise and I think the record will show that I am on pretty solid ground.

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there are two issues that my hon. colleague brought forward. Let me deal with them both.

First, he talks about income trusts. I will go back to the example I used during my initial presentation. On the one hand the hon. member is saying that all Canadians should be critical of the Conservative government because the Conservatives said during the campaign that they would not tax income trusts and now they have.

Yet after the former minister of finance said, “I will not tax income trusts”, the Liberals are coming forward with a proposal to tax them. How do we square that circle? How can they be critical of a government because it decided to tax income trusts when they themselves are saying that very thing?

With respect to the second question my hon. colleague had on tax havens and double-dipping, what the Minister of Finance has said and continues to say daily is very clear. He wants to be in a position to offer tax fairness to all Canadians. To do that, he has to ensure, and I think all Canadians would agree with him, that everyone, including corporations, is on a level playing field when it comes to paying taxes.

He is talking merely about eliminating double-dipping and eliminating tax havens, a position which the former revenue minister in the Liberal government agrees with.

How can those members be against tax fairness? How can anyone disagree with a position that makes sure all corporations pay their fair share of taxes? Their position makes no sense.

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Thank you for your wisdom in that ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, the point, as the hon. member knows quite well, is that I am trying to establish the lack of credibility that the party opposite has on any motion it brings before this House. I think we have established that. Of course the members opposite do not want to hear this and I do not blame them for not wanting to hear it. If I were in their position, I would not want to hear this story again either, but Canadians do want to hear it, so let me go back to the point I was attempting to make.

The Leader of the Opposition is flip-flopping on positions. The point I am making is that if he flip-flops in the examples I am about to give, how can we count on him to be sincere in the motion the Liberals have brought before the House today? Clearly we cannot.

On Kyoto, we do have the quotes. The leader of the official opposition has stated that we cannot make our Kyoto targets. He is on the record as stating that. He was the environment minister in the previous Liberal government and he has stated on the record that we cannot meet our Kyoto targets.

What do we hear today? Time and time again, criticisms are leveled at this government for what the opposition leader says is a failure to meet the Kyoto targets, the very targets the Leader of the Opposition said he could not make. He could not meet those targets by 2012. How can we believe anything the Leader of the Opposition says?

Let us turn to economic matters. That may be a little closer to the heart of this issue that we are debating today. There is still a credibility gap when it comes to members of the opposition. Again, we can point first and foremost to the leader of the official opposition, who has stated on more than one occasion that he did not believe there was anything such as a fiscal imbalance. He did not believe, for example, that there was anything called a fiscal imbalance, yet when we introduced measures in the last budget to fix the fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provinces, all we heard was criticism from members opposite.

We can talk about things like the equalization formula, on which the Liberal leader has stated that, first, he believes in a fiscal cap. He believes sincerely that no province that receives equalization payments should end up in a fiscal position with a fiscal capacity higher than that of a province that pays into the equalization formula.

That is exactly what we did: we put a cap on to prevent that very thing from happening. Yet what do we hear from members of the opposition? Criticism. They say this is a betrayal of our position. There is no betrayal. We are doing what is fair, what is just, and what is in the best interests of all Canadians, yet members opposite criticize it.

We also have examples in regard to my colleague, the member for Wascana, who, when he was minister of finance in the former Liberal government, stated, he did not believe that there was any fiscal imbalance in this country. He also stated that he was not in a position to remove non-renewable natural resources from the equalization formula, nor would he agree to. In fact, for 13 years, the last three in which he was minister of finance for this country, the Liberals did nothing to deal with the equalization formula.

True, they gave, and again, it is about credibility: the Liberals say one thing when they are in government and another when they are in opposition. How can we believe anything they say now? How can Canadians believe anything they say now? That is why for any motion this government brings, whether it be on income trusts, fiscal caps or the environment, how can one believe anything the Liberals say because of the fact they have changed their position so many times in the past?

Let me conclude by saying that what we have done with our position on tax havens and double-dipping is to ensure that there is a level of tax fairness for all Canadians. Once again, this goes back to the flip-flop and members opposite, such as the member for Markham—Unionville, who has stated he believes there should be no double-dipping. He believes there should be a crackdown on tax havens. Yet day after day in this House in question period, the same member stands up and criticizes the Minister of Finance for doing the very thing which he advocated.

That party has no credibility on any issues and particularly on this motion, and that is why I will be voting against it.

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for St. Catharines.

I will start off my comments by saying I find it almost amusing to hear some of the comments coming from the members opposite, particularly the member for Scarborough Centre, who just finished speaking. He made many comments quoting campaign commitments that this party and this government made in the last campaign with respect to income trusts.

He is quite right. We said that we would not tax income trusts. We ended up doing just that. The Prime Minister has stated publicly for the record that it was the toughest decision he ever had to make, but he also explained the reasons why. We were rapidly moving into an income trust society with the announcements from BCE and Telus that they were planning to move into income trusts.

What the member for Scarborough Centre continued to say, and the example he tried to present, that once we make a commitment, we cannot, come hell or high water, go back on that commitment. He used example after example.

I am confused. I remember back prior to the 2006 election when the former finance minister, the hon. member for Wascana, mused out loud whether the government at the time, the former Liberal government, would want to tax income trusts.

We all know the story. The markets went crazy. Insiders on Bay Street seemed to profit from his announcement. He finally came back and, in my opinion, due to a lack of political courage, made the statement, “We will not tax income trusts”. It was a commitment. Yet now, in the motion before the House, the official opposition is talking about a 10% tax on income trusts, not the 31.5% tax that we had said, which would level the playing field between trusts and other corporations. The Liberals are saying that they would tax it 10%.

The member may not be in a position to answer this question. How do we square that circle? On the one hand he is accusing the government of breaking a commitment that he says should be firm and cast in stone, not to tax income trusts. Yet the Liberals made the same commitment, but now they are saying that they will tax it at 10% only.

Are the Liberals breaking a commitment by degree? Are they suggesting that perhaps on the one hand the government of the day, because the Liberals happen to be in political opposition, cannot break a commitment, but they can, that it is okay as long as it is less than the taxation system the Conservatives want? It does not make any sense. He is saying a commitment is a commitment, yet with the Liberals apparently a commitment is not a commitment.

We have seen this act before. I have seen this movie many times before, flip-flop after flip-flop. We see it continually in the House every time we seem to have a controversial vote. The opinions and the position that the Liberals took when they were in government is contrary to the position they are now taking as the official opposition.

A case in point is the recent Bloc Québécois private member's bill, Bill C-257,, which dealt with replacement worker legislation. This type of private member's bill, this initiative, has been before the House over the past number of years at least 11 times. When the Liberal party was in power, when it was the government of the day, every time that private member's bill, or that suggestion came forward to ban replacement workers, that party opposed it, vehemently, vigorously and without question.

However, now that the Liberals are in opposition, they support it. In fact, even though Bill C-257, was defeated, a Liberal backbencher is now introducing yet another private member's bill calling on the ban of replacement workers.

For anyone on the Liberal side of the House to suggest that this government has a problem honouring its commitments, I suggest they take a good hard look in the mirror.

It is not just Bill C-257. We have seen time and time again the Leader of the Opposition, since he has been elected leader of the Liberal Party, continually change his opinion on very important matters. This speaks to the lack of credibility that I think most Canadians have with the Liberal Party these days.

Let me give members a few examples. First, let us talk about what seems to be the favourite subject of the Leader of the Opposition, which is Kyoto. There was a time not too long ago, and of course we have all the quotes if the members opposite would care to listen to them once again, when the leader of the official opposition party said that--

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Are you going to make a campaign promise, John?

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 191.

[Government Response to Petitions, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.

[Motions for Papers, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.