Olivia Chow

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, there is a very serious fiscal imbalance, and that is one of investing in our communities and cities.

In my city, the city of Toronto, there is a desperate need for federal investment, whether it is infrastructure in highways like the QEW, or in public transit, or in the city itself so it can deal with some of its emerging needs.

In Montreal in the summertime, for example, a whole section was closed because of the crumbling infrastructure. It was really serious, and it is not only in Montreal. I have seen it in Ottawa as well. A stadium has had to be sectioned off, again because of aging infrastructure.

We have a very low corporate tax rate already in all the G-7 countries. We are lower than Japan, Italy, Germany and the United States. Instead of reducing the corporate tax rate any further, would it not make sense for the federal government to transfer more funding to different provinces as well as dramatically increase investment in infrastructure, especially municipal infrastructure?

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, while I am watching the Conservatives and the Liberals trying to do their best to make more corporate tax cuts, ordinary Canadian families are going into debt. The average debt load per family is $44,500, which is a huge debt for people to carry on their backs. Students are graduating with huge debts of, on average, $30,000.

In my riding, I hear stories from University of Toronto graduates. One student told me recently that she has to work an extra day per week in order to have enough money to pay just the interest on the debt that she has from studying.

Instead of investing in our future generations, we are allowing these students to graduate with a huge debt. Why are we continuing this insane role of racing to the bottom and making these corporate tax cuts that--

[Business of Supply, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, two days ago the Minister of Finance stood in the House and said that he would continue the Liberal tradition of giving deep corporate tax cuts to the most profitable big corporations like the banks that have just made somewhere near $19 billion worth of profit last year.

In fact, the Liberals since 2000 have reduced the corporate tax rate from 28% to 21%. One would think that would help the manufacturing industry, but no, it did not. Why? Because the manufacturing industry already has a 21% rate. It did not help small businesses whatsoever. Why? Because small businesses only pay a 12% corporate tax rate anyway.

Therefore, these huge corporate tax cuts during those years have actually had no impact on the manufacturing industry or small businesses which is one of the reasons why we see the manufacturing industry suffering right now. Over those 10 years we have seen close to $60 billion worth of tax revenue that this country has forgone and that is really shameful.

Since the Liberal economic policy is so similar to that of the Conservatives, is that why every member of the Liberal Party chose to not vote against the throne speech yesterday?

[Corporate Tax Cuts, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, $60 billion is a very stark figure. It is a lot of money. That sum, $60 billion, has been given in corporate tax cuts to huge corporations, like big banks, since 2000.

I fail to understand why banks that made $19 billion in profits last year will get even more tax breaks according to the Conservatives' throne speech. In all, by 2011 there will be a 10 point drop in the federal corporate tax rate since 2001.

The Liberals and Conservatives give tax breaks to the richest Canadians, but there is nothing for affordable child care. There is nothing to hire more nurses and doctors. There is nothing to invest in our cities, our artists and to improve our public transit.

Just for this year without the big corporate tax cuts, Canada would have had $12.7 billion to invest in ordinary Canadians. To give even more corporate tax cuts after the billions in tax giveaways is insulting to the two-thirds of Canadians who say they are not benefiting from the economic growth. It is wrong and it is unfair.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there are many seniors who are having difficulty finding money to buy prescription drugs. These seniors are having difficulty finding affordable home care, finding high quality services so they can stay in their homes. Some of them have difficulty in paying nursing homes that have decent nursing care.

The member talked about the importance of narrowing the prosperity gap, the gap between those who are rich and those who are having difficulty making ends meet. However, I noticed the Liberals' record while they were in government that there was a huge tax cut of $100 billion which started in 2000. Each year since then, until 2006, there is almost $50 billion to $54 billion in tax cuts. This means that Canada has fewer financial resources to invest in seniors to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. The prosperity gap continues to grow.

How would the member justify that kind of huge corporate tax cut? I recently heard the Liberal leader saying that it is the direction in which he would like to take Canada.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech did not mention how the immigration system would be fixed in order to have less wait times to bring families to Canada, to have the rules relaxed so that more family members can join their loved ones in Canada and so the visitor visa system would not be arbitrary so people can visit their loved ones in Canada. Because that is missing in the throne speech, how does it impact on the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no fairness in this throne speech. Ordinary Canadians are working 200 hours more today than nine years ago and two-thirds of Canadians are not benefiting from economic growth. I cannot understand where is the fairness when there is over $60 billion of corporate tax cuts since 2000 and just last year alone there was a tax cut of $12.67 billion in corporate tax cuts.

Where is the fairness when corporations such as the big banks are making $19 billion worth of profit and there is absolutely nothing for ordinary Canadians whether it is for child care, universities, home care, public transit, or for cities like Toronto? Where is the fairness in this throne speech?

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 19th, 2007]

However, Mr. Speaker, none of that is working because we have thousands of families being cruelly split apart. Let me give an example.

A Vancouver woman cannot bring her husband to Canada because she was born Christian and he is a Muslim. I will quote from a media story. She said, “I never thought my government would try to break my marriage up because of culture and religion”.

Do we have a Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that unites families or do we have a marriage counsellor here?

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there are over 4,000 words in the throne speech and nothing on immigration, nothing on matters that are important for ordinary immigrant communities and families. We have alleged fraud in overseas visa offices in Chandigarh, refugees turned away at the border, thousands of families being split apart and the system is in a complete mess.

Why is the minister ignoring the problem or is the government too busy sending out greeting cards?

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I wish that the gun clubs, some of which are for profit, would have detailed screening and that the guns would be stored in the gun clubs rather than allowing people to take their guns home because many guns are stolen from residences, which is most unfortunate because many of the guns being used on the street are in fact stolen.