Ralph Goodale

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 31st, 2011]

With respect to the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan: (a) what was the nature of the exchange of information, including documentation, between the government and (i) the province of Saskatchewan, (ii) the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, (iii) BHP Billiton and its subsidiaries, (iv) any other corporation, entity or individual, (v) other governments, (vi) Parliament, (vii) the public; and (b) what were the government’s communications plan or plans and contingency communications plan or plans with respect to the approval or rejection of the takeover under the Investment Canada Act; and (c) what was the government’s definition of “net benefit” in this particular case and how is it different from the tests applied to previous bids by (i) Vale Inco, (ii) US Steel, (iii) Nortel?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 31st, 2011]

With respect to media reports surrounding the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan: (a) has the government launched or conducted a review of its procedures and practices with respect to the distribution of sensitive information affecting decisions under the Investment Canada Act following the multiple leaks emanating from within the government and, if so, (i) what was the nature of the documents or information that prematurely made their way into the public sphere, (ii) did the government find a breach of Cabinet confidence occurred, (iii) who was responsible, (iv) which government departments were involved; and (b) regardless of whether the government conducted an appropriate investigation, what remedial action has been taken to protect against leaks of this nature in the future?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 31st, 2011]

With respect to media reports surrounding the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan: (a) has the government launched or completed an investigation into the leak to former Postmedia columnist Don Martin which led to a column published in the National Post on November 1, 2010 entitled “Investment Canada gives Potash takeover tentative nod” that cited multiple government sources and, if so, (i) what was the nature of the documents or information obtained by Mr. Martin, (ii) did the government find a breach of Cabinet confidence occurred, (iii) who was responsible, (iv) which government departments were involved; and (b) regardless of whether the government conducted an appropriate investigation, what remedial action has been taken to protect against leaks of this nature in the future?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 31st, 2011]

With respect to the government’s decision on the matter of the takeover bid by BHP Billiton for the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan: (a) what was the nature and extent of the public opinion research conducted by any part of the government, or by any other entity and made available to the government either directly or indirectly on this specific takeover or, more broadly, on the application of the Canada Investment Act; (b) what was the total cost; (c) what company, companies or government departments were contracted or engaged in association with this research; and (d) what were the results of this research?

[Government Priorities, December 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government has had a year and a half, and retroactivity is not a bad thing when the cause is right.

This is all about choices. The Conservatives could help families take care of sick or disabled loved ones, but instead they risk $6 billion on extra corporate tax cuts. They could invest in students so everyone who gets the grades gets to go to college or university, but instead they risk $13 billion on American-style mega-jails. They could help families cope with household debts and make ends meet, but instead they risk $21 billion on stealth fighter jets.

Why are the Conservatives so stone deaf to ordinary Canadians?

[Disability Benefits, December 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, excuses do not help.

This issue involves a choice: on one side, hundreds of ordinary Canadians who have worked hard, paid their taxes, played by the rules, and now have the misfortune of Parkinson's disease or other disabilities; and on the other side, the moneylenders, the bondholders, the big banks and the wealthy, the comfortable people who will have a very nice Christmas this year. The Conservatives have made their choice. They stand with the privileged elite.

How can they look themselves in the mirror knowing some disabled pensioners will be going hungry?

[Disability Benefits, December 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, 15 days from today, more than 400 long-term disability pensioners from Nortel will be cut off their benefits. They will be destitute, quite literally out on the street. But it does not have to be that way. This Parliament is sovereign. Where the law is deficient, the government has the power to fix it.

The member for York West has legislation ready to go to save long-term disability pensions.

Will the government agree to deal with this matter before it begins its Christmas holidays later today?

[Pensions, December 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the disabled at Nortel. Two-thirds of Canadians do not have decent retirement savings at all. Under the current government, poverty for senior citizens has jumped 25%. Family household debt has skyrocketed. It is 50% higher than disposable incomes. The well-being of children is dropping.

Why does the government lavish $6 million in personal benefits on one Conservative senator, Senator Brazeau and his used Porsche, when it has nothing for pensions, family caregivers or better access to education?

[Pensions, December 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is plainly wrong.

Since coming to office, the Conservatives have wasted a billion dollars in extra spending on partisan advertising, outside consultants and other excesses. The Prime Minister's personal political expenses are up by more than 30% in just the last two years. The political spending of the Minister of Justice is up by nearly 20%. The Minister of Transport, is up 100%. The chief government whip is up 235%. Yet disgraceful Conservative senators are hacking the pensions of the long-term disabled.

How can the Conservatives look themselves in the mirror?

[Pensions, December 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the unelected, unaccountable, Conservative-dominated Senate killed the long-term disability pensions, and again the government laughs, of more than 400 Nortel employees. These people are suffering from Parkinson's Disease and similar disabilities. Without their pensions, they will be destitute just 28 days from today.

At a time when Conservatives have a lot of money for jets and jails, corporate tax giveaways and bloated ministerial offices, why can the government not help 408 innocent, hard-working but now disabled Canadians?