Ralph Goodale

[Government Spending, February 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, nearly three million Canadians are taking care of sick or aging loved ones in their own homes. Two-thirds of family caregivers are women with incomes below $45,000. Many have to quit their jobs or use up their savings to handle their family obligations. However, the government says it would be “reckless” to offer any help. Instead, it blows $6 billion on extra tax cuts for the biggest and wealthiest 5% of corporations.

Why Bay Street ahead of families? Why do these Conservatives hide corporate profit data like a state secret?

[Taxation, February 10th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, 100% of all Canadian businesses will pay billions more in higher job-killing Conservative payroll taxes this year, next year and on and on.

However, only about 1 in 20, 5%, will get an income tax rate cut and they are the biggest and the wealthiest. They already had globally competitive tax rates. They are not the primary job creators.

Every nickel of those big corporate tax cuts are on borrowed money. Why them? Why not small business? Why not families struggling with caregiving, learning and pensions?

[Taxation, February 10th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, $1.3 billion. That is how much more employers and employees will pay this year because the Conservatives increased job-killing payroll taxes on January 1. And that is not all.

The extra payroll tax next year will be $3 billion, then $5 billion and then $7 billion. If the government is looking for jobs, why this escalating Conservative tax on jobs, punishing small business? Why waste $6 billion every year on big corporations, which is the least effective way to get jobs?

[Taxation, February 10th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the clear will of Canadians was expressed in this House last night.

The vast majority of Canadians are saying no to expensive risky schemes like the government's $6 billion tax cut for big business, a corporate tax cut on borrowed money, a tax cut only for those who have already had their taxes cut by 35% and are not the primary job creators.

Canadians are focusing instead on the needs of average families, on learning, caregiving and pensions. Will the government now do what the vast majority of Canadians have asked?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, still no answer. The government's lack of candour breeds suspicion.

Could the Prime Minister at least guarantee minimum gains for Canada? For example, will he get rid of U.S. country of origin labelling? Will there be no more buy American policies? Will we get hassle free access for durum, beef, pork and softwood? Will passport requirements be removed? Will Canada be exempt from the patriot act? What are the guarantees?

Again I ask, will Parliament have the final say before any perimeter deal gets locked in?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, still no answer. If we have a common entry and common exit system, does it not follow that Canada no longer has sovereign Canadian control over immigration and refugees? Canadians need to know what is at risk.

On the question of privacy, what additional personal information will Canadians be required to disclose and what are the guarantees against cases of abuse like Maher Arar?

Before surrendering Canadian borders, sovereignty and privacy, will the government bring full details of any proposed agreement before Parliament for debate and approval?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's negotiations with the United States will have a direct bearing on Canadian sovereignty and the privacy of Canadian citizens. That is obvious already. He talks to Americans, but so far not Canadians.

Therefore, we need to ask this. What is the Prime Minister prepared to bargain away? For example, with respect to the admissibility of visitors, immigrants and refugees, will Canada apply its own standards, which many Canadians believe are better than American standards, or will a Republican/Tea Party Congress make the rules?

[Finance, February 1st, 2011]

That you're fudging the deficit, Jim.

[Taxation, February 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, specifically on the corporate tax cuts, the job creation is not there, so says the Bank of Canada. Corporate tax cuts are the least effective way to get immediate growth, so says the Department of Finance. The benefits of these corporate tax cuts are trivial, so says the chief analyst of Statistics Canada.

Why do Conservatives waste $6 billion on imprudent, ineffective extra corporate tax cuts, mostly for big business, while imposing higher EI payroll taxes, mostly hurting small business and killing jobs?

[Taxation, February 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on corporate tax cuts the government is both bullheaded and wrong, but there is Conservative precedent for flexibility.

Let us look at when the finance minister was in the government of Ontario. In 2001, he announced provincial corporate tax cuts to come into effect two years later. However, in the face of intervening economic difficulty, his government put those tax cuts on hold. The minister applauded that delay, defended that delay and voted for that delay.

Why will he not do the same thing today and invest instead in families?