John McCallum

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do remember doing the report, and I also enjoyed working with the hon. member on that report.

I would have to go back and consult with my colleagues. It seems I may have been misinformed on this issue, but I will check.

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented on November 23, 2011, be concurred in.

I would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

This refers to the third report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and it involves government support for small and medium-sized enterprises.

I think we all know that small and medium-sized enterprises play a crucial role in our economy. They account for something like 98% of all firms, 60% of all jobs, and 70% of all net new jobs, so anything government can do to support small and medium-sized enterprises is very positive and helpful.

We decided to examine two cases and we questioned witnesses to determine whether these programs were good or bad, whether they should be renewed and whether they should be changed in any way.

One of these items that we examined was the Canadian innovation commercialization program. This was a program designed for small and medium-sized enterprises, whereby they could put bids in for government support to help fund their innovation, and then their innovation would be examined and commented on by government departments.

We had a number of witnesses both from within the government and outside the government, and the general consensus was that this program was a success. It was helping Canadian small companies to innovate, be successful and improve productivity.

The program was to run for two years. In our committee report, we recommended that this program be made permanent. The government, in its answer, gave a somewhat ambiguous reply, but we then learned in the budget that the government had indeed cancelled the program.

It is ironic that the government should have cancelled the program, because just today a new OECD report came out on the Canadian economy, and the primary recommendation was that Canada had to do something and get its act together to deal with our very lacklustre performance in the areas of productivity and innovation.

This program that the government killed was precisely designed to help small businesses be more productive and innovative. All of the witnesses said that this program was having success, and yet the government chose to kill it.

As I have said before, often there have to be some reductions in government expenditures. We on the Liberal side do not object to that, but when the Conservatives focus their cuts on science, on Statistics Canada, on knowledge-generating, innovation-generating activities of government, then we certainly take exception to that.

Canada's productivity has lagged since 2002, I believe, which is a long period of time. It is actually lower today than it was 10 years ago.

All kinds of new programs and new activities should be considered to improve Canada's very dismal productivity and innovation performance. The fact that the government chose to eliminate one of the more successful programs in this area is certainly not good news for Canadian innovators and Canadian small businesses in general.

The second case that we examined was the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises.

Government can be very difficult to understand for a small company without massive numbers of employees, particularly in the area of procurement. The idea of this agency is that it could help small and medium-sized businesses have access to government procurement. Government procurement, as we have heard in recent weeks, has been a total flop in certain areas, as in the case of the F-35s, but it involves billions of dollars.

It is important that small and medium-sized businesses have access to these programs since it is difficult for them to obtain all the required information. It is important that a government program help these businesses find the information and participate in government procurement.

I know from my time in government that often these procurements are very large. An effort is made to bundle the smaller components to make them into a bigger contract.

Again we heard from stakeholders that this program was a success. We heard that there were certain things that could be done to improve it, but that over time the agency had been increasing the number of companies benefiting from its activities and increasing the amount of procurement going to the smaller companies.

The committee report was unanimously concurred in. All political parties agreed. We are disappointed that the government cancelled the first program that I talked about because, in this day and age, Canada needs more innovation and productivity, as the OECD said today.

By cancelling this program, the government is negatively affecting the productivity and innovation of small and medium-sized businesses in Canada.

[The Environment, June 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Prime Minister thinks he is a dictator. We just need to listen to what he said in France yesterday. He said, “If it's the case that we're spending on organizations that are doing things contrary to government policy, I think that is an inappropriate use of taxpayers' money and we'll look to eliminate it”.

My goodness, why does the Prime Minister make such outrageous statements whenever he is out of the country? Is he afraid of Parliament?

[Governor General, June 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, at the present time, the Governor General of Canada pays no income tax.

Under this motion, our Governor General would have to pay his taxes. For reasons of transparency, we agree with this motion, that is, that the Governor General should pay income tax.

Queen Elizabeth pays income tax. The Governor General of New Zealand pays income tax. Moreover, the Lieutenant Governors of all the provinces of Canada pay income tax. So why should the Governor General of Canada not pay income tax?

There is no reason why he should not pay taxes. He should pay taxes, just like the Queen, like Governors General in other countries and just like all Canadians.

There is a precedent for this. Before 2001, a portion of the salary of members of the House was not taxable. In 2001, for reasons of transparency, the Chrétien government canceled this non-taxable portion and increased members' salaries. This case is similar. It is not a good idea for part or all of the Governor General's salary not to be taxable.

However, I would like to add an important condition: the Governor General should not be punished. He began his term some time ago for a given salary, which he accepted. If he is now required to pay tax, the government should increase his gross salary so that his net salary is the same as before. This is more or less what was done for the members and it is what the government should do in the Governor General's case.

I know Governor General David Johnston quite well. In fact, he was my boss in the 1990s, when he was the principal of McGill University and I was the dean of the Faculty of Arts. I know he worked very hard as principal of McGill University and president of the University of Waterloo for some 30 years before becoming Governor General.

However, there is another important element here. Unknown I think to the mover of this motion, it turns out that the government is proposing to do something just like what I had said in the budget bill, and that is increasing the salary of the Governor General and making that larger salary taxable. However, the government is increasing the salary as if the Governor General paid the highest marginal rate. Therefore, some might say that he is getting a pay hike.

The reason I talked about his three decades at McGill and at Waterloo as president is to state with certainty that his income, other than Governor General income, must certainly be in excess of $138,000. Therefore, the government is correct, and this is one rare occasion when I agree with it, that by increasing his salary by the amount that, it will indeed leave his after-tax salary unchanged.

Therefore, the Liberal Party agrees with the motion subject to the caveat that the pre-tax salary has to be raised. While we deplore the budget implementation bill for 1001 reasons, in this case we agree with the government.

[City of Markham, May 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Markham town council on its decision last night to become a city, effective Canada Day, 2012.

Over the last half century, probably no place in Canada has changed more than Markham has. From a small, agriculture-based town, Markham has emerged as Canada's high-tech centre and is the most diverse community in the country.

With a population of 300,000, it is time for Markham to become a city, not only for reasons of population, but also to attract investment and jobs.

Markham is also a very well-governed town. The town council has managed to keep property taxes virtually flat for the last four years.

Markham is also one of the greenest communities in the country.

When asked which community I represent in this Parliament, as of Canada Day, I will be very proud to say, the city of Markham.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 17th, 2012]

With regard to government employment levels, for each of the federal electoral districts of Parry Sound—Muskoka, Macleod, Haldimand—Norfolk, Halton, Edmonton Centre, Central Nova, Mégantic—L'Érable and Eglinton—Lawrence: (a) what is the current total number of federal employees in the riding; and (b) what is the total number of anticipated job reductions in the riding for the fiscal year (i) 2012-2013, (ii) 2013-2014, (iii) 2014-2015?

[The Budget, May 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, two days ago the President of the Treasury Board tweeted that the Standing Orders prevented him from giving us the full details of his spending cuts, which is false. Then he tweeted that we already had these details, which is also false. Three weeks earlier, his parliamentary secretary said we would get those details “soon”.

What is going on? Will the government give us the full details, program by program, of those spending cuts, and if so, when?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 15th, 2012]

With regard to search and rescue operations: (a) prior to January 31, 2012, what was the “standard protocol followed by JRCC” (Joint Rescue Coordination Centre) referred to in paragraph 5 of the memorandum from Major-General J.H. Vance to the Chief of Defence Staff, dated February 7, 2012, under file number 3120-1 (WH Ops 1-1); (b) in what document or documents was this standard protocol issued, laid down or promulgated; (c) what are or were the dates and file numbers of the documents in (b); and (d) have there been changes to this protocol since January 31, 2012, and, if so, (i) what is the nature of those changes, (ii) when were the changes made, (iii) when did the changes come into effect, (iv) in what document or documents were the changes issued, laid down or promulgated, (v) what are or were the dates and file numbers of those documents?

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 15th, 2012]

With regard to the government's planned advertising campaign for the budget tabled on March 29, 2012, for every instance of an advertisement: (a) what is the medium of the ad; (b) where did or will the ad appear (location, television station, radio station, publication, etc.); (c) what is the duration or size of the ad; (d) when was the ad displayed or when will it be displayed; and (e) what is the cost of the ad?

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 15th, 2012]

With regard to the government's planned advertising campaign for the budget tabled on March 29, 2012: (a) what is the total estimated cost of planned advertising for the budget; and (b) what is the estimated cost of planned advertising broken down by the mediums of (i) television, (ii) radio, (iii) movie theatres, (iv) online video game environments, (v) internet ads, (vi) trade publications, (vii) billboards or other signage, (viii) print?