Jim Maloway

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the member is totally wrong. The government has to be competitive in corporation taxes, but in this case we are already much lower than our biggest competitor, the United States. There is absolutely no need to be any lower than we are right now.

The argument against the corporate tax cuts is a very strong one and I think the Liberals have realized that somewhat belatedly. Only a few months ago the Liberals were in the back pocket of the government, supporting the government's tax cuts.

I do not think the government position will sell very well when the public realizes that over the last 20 years or so it has gone from almost equal contribution between working people paying individual taxes and corporations paying roughly the same amount. Right now corporations are paying a tiny percentage of what hard-working taxpayers are paying.

I invite the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar to go out and explain that to her constituents. They are not going to accept that.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member and others have mentioned Ireland's 12.5% corporate tax rate. The fact of the matter is that Ireland is practically in bankruptcy right now. It was successful for a number of years and attracted companies basically in a race to the bottom in the corporate tax area and we have seen the final result: a country with huge debts that it cannot pay at this point.

My point regarding the member's speech is that less than a year ago, the Liberals were singing a different tune. Less than a year ago, they were supporting tax reductions. They have been keeping the government in power for the last two years and all of a sudden, just in the last few months, there has been an abrupt change. They might be able to fool members of the public who do not pay attention to debates in the House, but anybody who has been sitting here for the last year or two will know where the Liberals were just a few months ago.

Why the sudden change? Did the leader wake up and look in the mirror one day or did a polling company contact the Liberal Party to say that it had to make a 100% change in its position on corporate taxation? Why have Liberals gone from being pro tax reductions for big corporations to making a total about-face and now not wanting the tax reductions to take place? Why?

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, most of the people I talk to, both citizens and people in companies, believe corporation taxes are low enough already. In fact, there is a belief that good corporate citizenship comes with added responsibility to want to pay taxes to help the country. Corporations just do not arbitrarily move to the lowest tax jurisdiction. One of the previous speakers already pointed out that tax rates in Las Vegas were extremely low and we do not have an exodus of corporations heading toward Las Vegas.

The fact is corporations have to look at the total package. Canada provides a lot of social benefits like health care, which are not provided in the United States, and other things. There is a whole number of inputs in to making corporate decisions. If the government thinks for one minute that corporations will just pack up and leave, that will not happen.

We already have low corporate tax rates. There is no reason to reduce them, whether we are in a surplus position or a deficit position. We are in a deficit position right now and this is totally irresponsible on the part of the government.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, just a few months ago, the Liberals were supporting tax cuts and supporting the Conservative government. In order to justify their flip-flopping, they seem to be arguing today that although they believe in corporate tax reductions, only if the country is in surplus. However, now that the country is in deficit, they do not agree that corporate taxes should be reduced.

The point is that just a few months ago they were on the side of supporting corporate tax reductions when in fact the country was in a deficit position.

Could members help me out here? Why did the Liberals have this sudden change of heart? Did they do some polling that showed that corporate tax cuts are not popular and now they have changed their mind?

[Petitions, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my petition deals with Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan.

As we all know, in May 2008, Parliament passed a resolution to withdraw the forces by July 2011. The Prime Minister, with the agreement of the Liberal Party, broke his oft-repeated promise to honour the parliamentary motion and, furthermore, refuses to put it to a vote in the House.

Committing 1,000 soldiers to a training mission still presents a danger to our troops and an unnecessary expense when our country is faced with a $56 billion deficit. The military mission has cost Canadians more than $18 billion so far, money that could have been used to improve health care and seniors pensions right here in Canada.

In fact, polls show that a clear majority of Canadians do not want Canada's military presence to continue after the scheduled removal date of July 2011. Therefore, the petitions call upon the Prime Minister to honour the will of Parliament and bring the troops home now.

[Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member because I believe he has improved the picture a lot compared to the way it was before. Our caucus member, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, has done a lot in lobbying for veterans with the minister, the government and just in general over the years.

I do have a concern. I liked pretty much everything I heard from the minister except for the fact that I am concerned about the lump sum issues. We have to be very careful. We are dealing with generally younger people who are under a lot of stress with a disability. I am uncertain that there is a role really for lump sum payments. I like the idea of increasing the payments for the lifetime of the individual. It really comes down to that.

However, I think the government will find itself in more trouble taking the route of lump sum payments. At the end of the day, when the resources and the money are gone, the problem will be revisiting the government. People will be saying that their needs are still there.

A predictable long-term series of payments is the way to proceed.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member would like to comment on the curious position of the Liberal Party on this free trade debate.

We saw what those members did on Colombia when they changed leaders and changed critics. They changed their position. Now they seem to agree with the Panama agreement even though they have been told by the Americans that the American Congress refuses to pass a similar type of agreement with Panama because it is a country that launders drug money and, as the member pointed out, is a tax haven.

In his opinion, why would the Liberal caucus support this agreement when its friends, American Democrats, are opposed to a similar agreement?

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that France knew how to deal with Panama. Only 12 months ago Panama managed to get itself off of France's blacklist when France simply started levying a 50% tax on dividends, interest, royalties and service fees based in France paid to a beneficiary in any of several countries, including Panama. Guess what? Panama signed agreements with France.

I talked about the 54 United States congresspersons who are refusing to let President Obama sign the agreement. The powerful American government is still not able to get the kinds of results out of Panama that France did because France took direct action. By putting pressure on corporations, the corporations went to the French government and demanded that something be done to straighten out Panama's practices. Guess what? Something happened within three months.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member certainly summed up the situation rather well.

The fact of the matter is that last year Canada's merchandise exports to Panama totalled only $91 million. We can see there is trade going on between the countries right now. We do not need a free trade agreement to trade with countries, including Panama. In fact, it is happening.

It is interesting that 54 United States congresspersons have demanded that President Obama hold back on this agreement until Panama does something about its status as a tax haven, a major conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers and the money laundering activities that are going on there. There are 350,000 foreign corporations that are doing business in that country.

The question is, why are we pursuing this issue when the Americans are holding off?

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. According to American statistics, Panama has 350,000 foreign companies registered. They are registered in large part because of the tax haven status. That is one of the reasons why a good number of American Congress members refuse to ratify a similar agreement with the United States and Panama.

Until the American government gets tough with Panama and forces it to start co-operating and shuts down the money laundering facilities and the tax haven activities of Panama, this is going to continue.

We are rewarding bad behaviour by simply promoting and passing this legislation. The Americans are holding it up. They are refusing to act.

Last year France was tough and put heavy taxes on companies doing business with Panama. Panama came to the table immediately and signed a double taxation agreement with France as a result of that pressure. It is about time the Canadian government gets tough and quits rolling over to countries like Panama.