Ralph Goodale

[Potash Industry, October 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, just repeating the falsehood does not make it true. The proposed takeover of the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan amounts to the takeover of the entire Canadian industry. It is the biggest proposed resource takeover ever, and many people in Saskatchewan and beyond, including prominent business leaders, are asking: After potash is gone, what is left?

Even the former chairman of BHP said, “Canada has already been reduced to an industry 'branch office' and is largely irrelevant on the global mining stage”.

Will the government stop the bleeding and just say no?

[The Economy, October 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, for months the government has been saying, “Don't worry, be happy. Middle class families do not need any support; they can just fend for themselves”. But yesterday and today, the Bank of Canada shot the government's story full of holes. In fact, the Canadian economy has just suffered its worst quarter in months and faces serious risks from a global currency war to massive household debt.

The government's numbers about recovery are a fiction. How will the minister reconcile his hocus-pocus with hard facts from the Bank of Canada?

[Potash Industry, October 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, BHP Billiton is the public bidder going after PotashCorp, but there may be others, including some from China.

Will the government confirm that it has before it right now certain inquiries from Chinese representatives? Do they represent the Sinochem Group or some other agency like the China Investment Corporation? Are they proposing an active or a passive investment? Would the government of Saskatchewan receive a golden share in any such transaction to protect the public interest? Saskatchewan people deserve answers.

[Potash Industry, October 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, given its sheer size, the possible sale of the PotashCorp of Saskatchewan is effectively the sale of the entire Canadian potash industry, especially if the Canpotex marketing system is demolished and other players like Agrium and Mosaic are pushed aside.

Billions of dollars in provincial revenues are hanging in the balance. The implications for more than a million Saskatchewanians are huge.

Again, what does the government consider to be a net benefit from any such transaction? Saskatchewan certainly has a right to know.

[Government Priorities, October 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, technology problems plague the F-35 program, commitments from some other countries are wobbly, even the U.S. Pentagon says the program is two years behind schedule, there is a cost overrun of 65%, the accounting system at Lockheed Martin is a total mess, and the Canadian government has no guarantees, not on price, jobs, quality, or value for money. Talk about reckless. The government is flying by the seat of its pants. Why is it gambling 16 billion tax dollars on stealth airplanes but will not invest a cent in caregivers?

[Government Priorities, October 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that increase was budgeted in 2004.

The total cost of tangible help for more than 600,000 family caregivers would be less than one-half of 1% of the current government's annual spending, to which Conservatives are now adding $16 billion for untendered stealth fighter aircraft. They provide no justification for this being the airplane Canada needs, no competition, no regional industrial plan, and no job guarantees.

Why is there a $16 billion blank cheque for that and nothing for caregivers?

[Government Priorities, October 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are painfully familiar with the pressures of caring for sick or aging family members at home. Eighty per cent of home care services in Canada are provided by family members, three-quarters of whom are women, and two-thirds have household incomes under $45,000. Their home care work is unpaid, often at the expense of their day jobs. But it is a labour of love, with very little help.

Why does the current government put tax cuts for the most privileged corporations ahead of family care?

[Resignation of Member, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, with the remarks we have just heard from the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, I hope that these few minutes in the House today may prove to be one of those rare occasions when this place can climb above itself to a better plane. I think the hon. member has started this in a good direction.

The member for Prince George—Peace River, the former House leader and whip for the government, has told us that he is not only not running in the next election but that he will be stepping down from his office as a member of Parliament very soon. For most of the member's time in House leadership, various roles as whip and particularly as House leader for his party, it was my lot to be his counterpart for the Liberal Party and I can tell the House honestly and sincerely that I am sorry to see him go. That is not because we usually agreed on everything, or indeed anything, but for the most part we had what was a constructive and most importantly, respectful relationship.

We are both from the west. We both share backgrounds in agriculture and in rural Canada. We were both elected to this place in every election since 1993, although I did have a head start on him in 1974. Neither of us really wanted to be House leader for our respective parties, but we were on both the government and the opposition sides. Both of us have a great deal of respect for Parliament and for the fundamental institutions of democratic governance in this country.

We both now, by coincidence, share offices here in the Centre Block side-by-side each other. Until today's announcement I was thinking that it would be absolutely impossible to shed this guy because he moved in right next door.

The member for Prince George—Peace River was one of those MPs who could hear and understand and respect somebody else's different point of view. I found that I could always deal with him on a straight-up basis.

I remember one incident when I prepared a very detailed email about House tactics and I fired it off to my assistant whose name started with “Ja”. His first name was Jamie. In the flow of emails, I hit the wrong button and that very detailed memo went to another guy whose name started with “Ja” but ended with “y”. I called him and said he just might want to ignore that email. He said that he did not think it was intended for him and not to worry, that it had already been destroyed.

More generally, we could have candid discussions about serious issues as House leaders. We would rarely agree, as I mentioned before, but we could come to a conclusion about how the parliamentary procedural dimensions of those issues ought to be handled. We could look each other in the eye, shake hands on it and be absolutely confident that each would keep his word. That element of trust is fundamental to the functioning of this place and is a rare quality, and I always respected that in that particular gentleman.

I say to my friend from Prince George—Peace River, yes indeed I am sorry to see you go. I will not have to listen anymore to your long-winded answers to my very short and succinct Thursday questions about House business, but I will miss your goodwill, and your respect for Parliament and for the people who work here on all sides of the chamber.

I want, on behalf of the official opposition, to wish all the best to the member for Prince George—Peace River, to his wife and to his family. He leaves this place with a reputation for decency, and that is a high accomplishment for all of us who serve in public life.

May I leave him with a short poem that I think neatly sums up the life of a House leader in the House of Commons. All party leaders should pay attention to this:

It's not my place
To run the train
The whistle I can't blow.
It's not my place
To say how far
The train's allowed to go.
It's not my place
To shoot off steam
Nor even clang the bell.
But let the damn thing
Jump the track...
And see who catches hell!

[Potash Industry, October 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government saying, “Trust us”, just does not work. One just need ask the victims of Nortel across the country or Vale Inco in Sudbury or U.S. Steel in Hamilton.

In 2008, the chairman of Australia's BHP said this:

Canada's policies are a worst-case scenario; Canada has lost more head offices than any other country; Canada has already been reduced to an industry 'branch office' and is largely irrelevant on the global mining stage.

Given that point of view from BHP, again I ask what the government's definition is of net benefit.

[Potash Industry, October 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to any possible takeover of the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, what is the government's definition of net benefit to Canada?

Does the government agree that in this case, involving the biggest potash mining company in the world and the richest potash reserves in the world, all in Saskatchewan, it must be what is best of Saskatchewan that is front and centre?

Will the government commit to that and to complete transparency and enforceability in deciding this matter?