Ralph Goodale

[Veterans Affairs, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the longer the minister clings to the government, the worse they both look. His portfolio has been grossly mismanaged, and when the Auditor General blows the whistle, the minister is AWOL. Worse still, he is fighting veterans in court, denying any special obligation to respond to their needs. He insults 90-year-old veterans who have the courage to complain. He runs away from the spouse of a PTSD sufferer.

He refuses to take any responsibility, so surely the Prime Minister must. To prevent any more trouble for veterans, will the Prime Minister fire this failed minister?

[Veterans Affairs, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs failed to deliver over a billion dollars in support for veterans, which was promised by the government and voted on by this Parliament. He closed eight specialized service centres across the country. Veterans are forced to wait months, even years, for the most basic mental health services. When a new program gets announced, the minister misleads veterans by claiming that it will be delivered in six years, when it will really be spread over 50 years.

There is no trust or credibility left. Will the minister simply stop the travesty and resign?

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 27th, 2014]

With regard to the Minister of Transport’s commitment on April 23, 2014 to “immediately remov[e] the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars from dangerous goods service by directing the phase-out of tank cars that have no continuous reinforcement of their bottom shell”: (a) how many of these tank cars remained in service in each month since last April; (b) when does the government expect this phase-out to be complete; (c) what constraints limit the government’s ability to complete the phase-out; and (d) have any of these tank cars been involved in accidents since last April, and if so, where and when?

[Veterans Affairs, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of bad choices, since 2006, the government has made new promises to returning soldiers and veterans totalling $1.1 billion, but those promises were broken. The programs and services were never delivered. The government pocketed the cash. What did it do with it? Since 2006, it blew it on nearly $750 million in tax-paid government advertising.

How can it justify swiping a billion dollars from veterans while wasting hundreds of millions on its own self-indulgence?

[Infrastrucure, November 20th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, one dollar invested in new affordable housing grows the economy by $1.40. One dollar in roads, water, or transit brings $1.20 in new growth. A billion dollars in new infrastructure stimulates 16,000 person-years of employment. However, the Conservatives have chopped their infrastructure fund by $1.2 billion to pay for gimmicks that do nothing for jobs or growth. The PBO says their employment insurance scheme actually kills 10,000 jobs, and the late Jim Flaherty said income splitting was too expensive, unfair, and anti-growth. Why such bad choices?

[Presence in Gallery, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I must note that I truly admire the way Mr. Flaherty had the courage to stand up against a whole variety of issues, including when he conscientiously believed his government had erred.

[The Budget, November 17th, 2014]

My goodness, they are are testy, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Flaherty warned that income splitting was too costly and unfair. He also worried about weak economic growth.

On page 43 of the government's fiscal update, the Conservatives confirm that the rate of Canadian economic growth will actually drop every single year through to 2019. Investments in public infrastructure could help turn that around. So say the Chamber of Commerce, the premiers, the Bank of Canada, the IMF, and the G20.

Will the government shift $2 billion from flawed income splitting to incremental infrastructure investment for greater growth?

[The Budget, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, all those transfers were in the budget of 2005.

Mr. Flaherty warned that income splitting would be too costly and unfair. He also—

[The Budget, November 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, to claim a surplus in 2015 the late Jim Flaherty raised taxes in each of the past four years: payroll taxes, tariff taxes, taxes on small business owners and credit unions—billions of dollars per year. He chopped services for returning veterans, forensic labs, immigration offices, national parks, the environment, food safety, and the list goes on.

Why did the government inflict all of that pain on ordinary Canadians for a deeply flawed income-splitting scheme that discriminates against 85% of Canadian households?

[Taxation, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, over 100 other countries in the world will grow faster than Canada next year.

The government's income-splitting scheme is riddled with discrepancies. That is why it will not give straight answers. A couple struggling to raise a family on a single $45,000 income will get just $150 from income splitting. That is a grand total of 40 cents a day, but if the salary is $160,000, like an MP's, for example, they will get $2,000. That is what Jim Flaherty warned against, and it has not been corrected.

It is expensive, unfair, and anti-growth. Why?