Speech (committee meeting)

{
    "time": "2006-05-30 16:20:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Hon. Jim Flaherty",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"130607\" data-originallang=\"en\">Thank you.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"130608\" data-originallang=\"en\">The purpose of tax reductions is not simply to have people pay less tax and have more money in their pockets. The purpose is to create more economic activity, to create more investment, because people have more resources in their own hands to reinvest in their businesses, to start new businesses. We know that the small and medium-sized business sector is where job creation happens in Canada for the most part. So as a matter of principle, we believe in reducing the burden on Canadians and on Canadian families. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"130609\" data-originallang=\"en\">We also acknowledge that at the end of the day there is only one taxpayer, that there aren't three different people paying taxes to municipal, provincial, and federal governments, that there is one taxpayer who has one large burden in Canadian society. So we have reduced that burden substantially.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"130610\" data-originallang=\"en\">The other thing we're trying to do is to be clear, particularly with respect to how we budget, which is why most\u2014not all but most\u2014of the budgeting in the budget is on a two-year horizon, so that we're not doing what the previous government was wont to do, which was this kind of hockey-stick financing where they would say, \u201cOh, we'll have a 10-year program, or an 8-year program\", and the funding is in the blade of the stick for the first couple of years. It's not very much, and then the funding goes up like this, like the handle of a hockey stick. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"130611\" data-originallang=\"en\">What we're trying to do is to be realistic and clear with Canadians about our budgeting and to avoid the kinds of so-called surprise surpluses the previous government was fond of creating. Those surprise surpluses are bad for several reasons. One, they distort funding, but also they put government in the position of avoiding Parliament with respect to substantial spending decisions at year-end with these surprise surpluses. So they're a good thing not to do for several reasons, and we're moving away from that. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"130612\" data-originallang=\"en\">We've also made a suggestion on the surplus issue in the fiscal balance paper that was issued with the budget about one alternative for distributing a surplus: in addition to paying down $3 billion of debt each year, perhaps taking the additional surplus or part of it and allocating it to CPP and QPP.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"130607\" data-originallang=\"en\">Merci.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"130608\" data-originallang=\"en\">Les r\u00e9ductions d'imp\u00f4t n'ont pas simplement pour objet de faire payer moins d'imp\u00f4t aux Canadiens et de leur laisser plus d'argent dans les poches. Elles ont pour objet de stimuler l'activit\u00e9 \u00e9conomique et l'investissement, car elles laissent entre les mains des Canadiens davantage de ressources pour r\u00e9investir dans les entreprises et pour en lancer de nouvelles. Nous savons que le secteur de la petite et moyenne entreprise est celui qui cr\u00e9e l'essentiel des emplois au Canada. Par principe, nous croyons en la r\u00e9duction du fardeau fiscal pour les Canadiens et les familles canadiennes.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"130609\" data-originallang=\"en\">Nous reconnaissons \u00e9galement qu'en d\u00e9finitive, il n'y a qu'un seul contribuable, qui doit verser des imp\u00f4ts ou des taxes aux autorit\u00e9s f\u00e9d\u00e9rale, provinciale et municipale; c'est un contribuable unique, qui supporte un fardeau fiscal consid\u00e9rable dans la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 canadienne. Il faut donc r\u00e9duire sensiblement ce fardeau.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"130610\" data-originallang=\"en\">Par ailleurs, nous tenons \u00e0 \u00eatre clairs, en particulier en ce qui concerne nos mesures budg\u00e9taires, et c'est pourquoi la plupart \u2014 non pas la totalit\u00e9, mais la plupart \u2014 de nos propositions sont \u00e0 deux ans d'\u00e9ch\u00e9ance, et nous ne faisons pas comme le gouvernement pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent, qui avait l'habitude de jouer avec les finances comme on joue au hockey, qui proposait des programmes sur huit ou dix ans, pour proposer un financement minime pendant les premi\u00e8res ann\u00e9es et qui passait son temps, ensuite, \u00e0 \u00ab niaiser avec la rondelle \u00bb.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"130611\" data-originallang=\"en\">Nous nous effor\u00e7ons d'\u00eatre r\u00e9alistes et clairs envers les Canadiens quant \u00e0 notre gestion budg\u00e9taire, de fa\u00e7on \u00e0 \u00e9viter les soi-disant exc\u00e9dents surprises que le gouvernement pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent avaient l'habitude d'annoncer. Ces exc\u00e9dents surprises sont pernicieux pour diff\u00e9rentes raisons. Tout d'abord, ils d\u00e9stabilisent le financement des programmes, mais en outre, ils permettent au gouvernement de contourner le Parlement lors d'importantes d\u00e9cisions de d\u00e9penser. Il y a donc plusieurs raisons de s'en abstenir, et nous nous en abstiendrons.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"130612\" data-originallang=\"en\">Dans le document sur l'\u00e9quilibre fiscal qui accompagnait le budget, nous avons \u00e9galement fait une proposition concernant l'emploi de l'exc\u00e9dent budg\u00e9taire: en plus des 3 milliards de dollars consacr\u00e9s chaque ann\u00e9e au remboursement de la dette, on pourrait consacrer une partie de l'exc\u00e9dent restant au R\u00e9gime des pensions du Canada et au R\u00e9gime des rentes du Qu\u00e9bec.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/committees/finance/39-1/7/jim-flaherty-32/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/jim-flaherty/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/413/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "1556051",
    "document_url": "/committees/finance/39-1/7/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fcommittees%2Ffinance%2F39-1%2F7%2F"
    }
}