The Budget  Slashing the rainy day reserve is just plain reckless. Last year, then-finance minister Jim Flaherty agreed. He said it would be “imprudent” to cut the contingency reserve. Earlier this year, the then-employment minister, now the defence minister, promised that the government would not touch the contingency fund.

The Budget  Would my colleague agree that the government's approach lacks some wisdom, given that, with interest rates so low at the moment, now is the time to invest? It is possible that in the future, as former finance minister Jim Flaherty said, interest rates could go up, especially if there is inflation, since there is a lot of money in the system. The central banks have put a lot of money into the system, so inflation could resume some day.

Taxation  In contrast, a reduction in personal income taxes has a considerably lower multiplier...”. Those are not my words. That is the sound economic argument laid out by Jim Flaherty in his 2009 budget. Could the current minister explain why he is ignoring this wise advice and handing out tax breaks to the rich instead of investing seriously in infrastructure and the economic growth middle-class Canadians so urgently need?

Taxation  How does that pass Jim Flaherty's test of fairness?

Taxation  It will not help the 1.5 million single parents who are struggling, but it will cost billions of federal and provincial dollars. Will the Conservatives listen to the late Jim Flaherty and experts across Canada, and will they scrap this tax scheme?

Infrastructure  Speaker, the mayors of Montreal and Toronto met today, and what did they talk about? They talked about infrastructure. The late Jim Flaherty himself said that it is the best way to stimulate job creation and growth. The Conservatives have since cut 90% of these expenditures, and reports are showing that employment in Canada is precarious.

Employment  Speaker, the government's record is 15 months of substandard job creation, the longest streak of job mediocrity in four decades. The late Jim Flaherty said in his budget plans that building infrastructure is the most cost-effective way to drive jobs and growth. He also said income splitting for the wealthy is too costly and unfair, and it does nothing for growth.

Business of Supply  Speaker, I would like to provide some comments in regard to income splitting and the alternatives. Jim Flaherty, the former Conservative minister of finance, pointed out quite correctly that income splitting was not the best way to develop government policy, that at the end of the day very few would actually benefit from it, yet there is a substantial cost.

The Economy  Speaker, the New York Times story said that the situation was that the U.S. economy had fallen back, not that the Canadian economy had moved forward. The late Jim Flaherty said that income splitting was too expensive and would cost $12 billion over the planning cycle. He also said that it would be unfair, because 86% of Canadians would never qualify.

The Economy  Instead of spending $12 billion on a tax break for the wealthy, which is expensive and unfair, as Jim Flaherty said, will the government devote that funding to community infrastructure for new jobs and growth?

Business of Supply  For instance, the Prince Edward Island finance minister, Wes Sheridan, has proposed an expansion of the Canada pension plan that would target the segment of the middle class that Jim Flaherty himself said was not saving enough for retirement. With respect to old age security, while in Davos, Switzerland, the Prime Minister announced by surprise that the qualifying age for old age security would be raised from 65 to 67.

Business of Supply  The government should retreat from its income splitting commitment because it is costly and it would benefit only 15% of Canadians. We heard from the former minister of finance, Jim Flaherty, on this, and he expressed concerns that it was unfair. Before plummeting oil prices, income splitting was unfair. After plummeting oil prices and its fiscal impact, it is unaffordable.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2  Clearly, the experts have said the $50,000 transfer on income splitting is only going to benefit about 15% of Canadians, experts including the late Jim Flaherty, who said the same thing. The government was clearly aware of this, so it surrounded it with other tax benefits for children. My question for my hon. colleague is this. Does he think it is fair to be giving $2 billion to 15% of the population?

Hon. Jim Flaherty  Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, on March 18, when Jim Flaherty retired from politics, we all expressed our best wishes to Jim, Christine, and family for their next promising chapter of life together. It seems unfair that, so soon after, we now have to say goodbye to this great public servant, husband and father.

Veterans Affairs  There was once a minister willing to stand up to the Prime Minister, but unfortunately Jim Flaherty is gone now. When will the Minister of Veterans Affairs stop the Prime Minister from making these callous cuts and misleading veterans and Canadians?