John McCallum

[G8 Summit, June 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the law is very clear that spending government money is “subject to there being an appropriation for the particular service”. The Auditor General was very clear that there was no appropriation for the service of building G8 gazebos. The money was supposed to be for border infrastructure.

If the government is so confident that it spent the money wisely, why does it not invite the Auditor General to do a value for money audit?

[Privy Council Office, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we know the government's waste fighter-in-chief sprayed $50 million around his riding with no oversight and no paperwork. Now we learn that the department of the Prime Minister himself has been breaking the rules on hospitality expenses.

So if the President of the Treasury Board is the fox guarding the taxpayers' chicken coop and if the boss of the fox is himself breaking the rules as well, how can Canadians possibly believe that this crew will cut government fat fairly and competently?

[The Budget, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the 1995 cuts were necessary because of the $42 billion deficit we had inherited from the Conservatives. However, it took maybe three years to balance the budget. After that, we re-invested in the economy and were able to sign the health agreement with the provinces that was in effect from 2004 to 2014. The Conservatives are trying to take credit for it, but that was a Liberal plan, a 10-year plan with a 6% per year increase in health transfers. That was after we returned to a balanced budget. We had the money to make these investments in health, education and social programs.

[The Budget, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend across the aisle for her positive comments about my re-election and the NDP wave, which I somehow managed to survive. I congratulate her as well for her re-election.

However, I take some exception to these remarks about Liberals cutting transfers to provinces, et cetera. She is talking about 16 years ago, in 1995. I would point out that this action was taken, and I would not subscribe to her definition of it, but there were severe cutbacks, she is right about that, because the Liberals of the day inherited a super huge $42 billion Conservative deficit. We were on the brink of a fiscal crisis.

The most important point is, and the finance minister should listen to this, what were the finance minister's colleagues of the day, the Conservative Party and the Reform Party, in the mid-1990s saying to the Liberal government? They were saying, “Cut more. You're not cutting enough”. And now they turn around and say that we cut too much. They cannot have it both ways. They said, at the time, “You're not cutting nearly enough”. I remember those days very well.

[The Budget, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Mount Royal.

In some sense, one could say that I only have three problems with this budget, which I would like to address. First of all, it makes the wrong choices. Second, it really is very weak on accountability. Third, it attempts to balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable in society. Other than that, I suppose we could say it is okay. I would say those are three rather important points.

The budget makes the wrong choices. It lacks accountability, and the government is trying to balance its budget on the backs of society's most vulnerable.

I want to start by talking about wrong choices. The worst choice is probably the tax cuts for large corporations, which will cost the government $6 billion a year.

It is not the only bad choice. There are the untendered fighter jets. There is the billions on prisons. However, this is $6 billion per year, which is a big chunk of the money available.

We think prosperity, growth, innovation and productivity are crucial, but we do not think the best way to do that is through reducing tax on the largest companies. We think it is better to either reduce the taxes on the smaller businesses or to have incentives to invest, like a five-year period for accelerated capital cost allowance or to have incentives like a flow-through shared type of mechanism to encourage investment in green technology and high tech industries. Those are just examples which we think are much more cost efficient and cost effective in raising productivity and promoting growth, innovation and jobs than the measure the government took.

However, the net effect of this decision to proceed with tax cuts to the largest corporations is that it puts families at the back of the line. Either the families get a pittance or they have to wait who knows how many years until the books are balanced. We think since families are struggling to make ends meet, families should be at the front rather than at the back of the line, which is where they are in this budget.

Let me give a few examples. In certain cases, families get something but it is a pittance. The government spends $34 million to help students. There are about a million students in Canada, so that is $34 per student per year. It makes no difference. The government spends money to help caregivers, but the maximum credit is $300. That is not going to be a material help for a caregiver looking after his or her loved ones.

Then there are some more major measures, such as the income-splitting measure, but that comes to nothing until the books are balanced. The government claims that is after three years, four years or who knows how many years.

My point is that by doing these tax cuts for very large corporations, the government leaves families out. This is not the most effective way to stimulate growth and jobs and it has the consequence that either families get a pittance now or a bit more down the road. We think that is the wrong approach.

The second point is the lack of fiscal accountability. When we were government in 2005, we did find $11 billion over five years in savings and we booked every item in the budget, so Canadians were clear on exactly what item was being cut or saved, where it would come from and what was going to happen as a consequence of these cuts.

The problem with this budget is that Canadians do not have a clue as to where those cuts will come from. Whose ox will be gored? We know a little bit coming out. There will be lots of cuts in Newfoundland on fisheries where a bit is coming out, but there is very little information in the budget knowing which services will be cut and which people will lose their jobs.

Instead, we get what I would call weasel words. For example, we are told that the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development will have savings on the order of $500 million. That is interesting. What cuts will it get for $500 million? Here is the answer, taken straight from the budget. This is what the Conservatives are going to do: “Improve alignment of program funding with actual needs; Find efficiencies through improved procurement processes and use of technology; Improve use of internal resources and administrative efficiency; Align program activities with core mandate”.

This is a good one: “Refocus programming to benefit all Canadians”.

That is just gobbledygook. Those are weasel words. That does not tell Canadians anything at all about who is going to pay for these cuts, what services are going to be cut and who is going to lose their jobs. All we get are these weasel words and that is why I say the budget is lacking in accountability.

Third, the government is trying to balance its budget on the backs of society's most vulnerable, both in Canada and around the world. Last year's budget froze CIDA funding that included money for economic development in other parts of the world. In that budget, a quarter of the savings put towards reducing the deficit came from freezing international development funding.

In other words, a quarter from the previous year's budget of all the savings that were found were found by restraining CIDA funding. One quarter of the savings to balance Canada's books came on the backs of the poorest people in the world who received cuts in their development assistance.

I would mark the contrast between the Canadian Conservative government that got savings on the backs of the poorest people in the world and the British Conservative government that made an exemption for only two areas which were not debt cuts. The two areas that were not debt cuts were national health and international development. So, whereas the British Conservative government singled out development assistance for especially preferential treatment, the Canadian government singled out international development assistance for especially negative treatment. I think that is a prime example of balancing the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world.

This inclination to hurt the most vulnerable does not just go abroad. It is also true at home.

We heard today, in the supplementary estimates (A), that some of the money for affordable housing was being put back. However, do members know what was the one area where the cut of about $120 million was not put back at all? Housing on reserves. There is probably the area of greatest need in this country.

The Conservatives cut the money for reserves, they cut international development assistance, they provide firefighters and caregivers and music lesson goers with tax credits, but those tax credits are worth nothing if people's income is low enough that they do not pay income tax.

To conclude, the Conservatives are making the wrong choices in this budget, they are weak on accountability and they are trying to balance the budget on the backs of society's most vulnerable, both here in Canada and abroad.

[The Budget, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the minister not only for his election but also for his appointment to an important role in cabinet. I definitely think it is good for Canada when a person of his experience and knowledge decides to enter into public service.

The member said he would represent the values of his constituents. My question is not about a multi-million dollar item but a question of values, because one item in the budget did offend me.

For those with children taking music lessons, for example, there is a tax credit worth $75 per child. However, parents only receive that credit if they have enough money to be paying income tax. There are about nine million Canadians who do not pay income tax. It turns out that a single mother earning $20,000 would not benefit from this $75, whereas children of better off parents would.

How does this reflect the values of your constituents, Mr. Minister, to have such a program where only the well-off children get benefits for music lessons but not the poorer ones?

[User Fees, June 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of the Treasury Board raised the possibility of charging new user fees, but he is hiding the details.

Does this mean there will be processing fees for employment insurance and pensions, or a filing fee at the Canada Revenue Agency—a tax on taxes, in other words? Let us be frank: a user fee is a tax, is it not?

[Microcredit Programs, June 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, one year ago today the House of Commons unanimously passed my motion encouraging the government to increase funding for microcredit programs.

I have seen microcredit in action first-hand, and I can say that these programs are producing real results all over the world. These programs help the world's most disadvantaged people. Of course I was very disappointed that the budget presented this week does not contain a single new initiative on microcredit.

I am disappointed, but not surprised. The government has shown a lack of concern for people with low income, whether we are talking about tax credits for children taking music lessons here at home or whether we are talking about the poorest of the poor who depend on microcredit around the world.

Indifference to those less fortunate, whether at home or abroad, that is the common thread running through the government.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 25th, 2011]

With regard to the backdrops used by the government for the announcements from December 10, 2010 to February 1, 2011, inclusive, and for October 15, 2008, to March 31, 2009, inclusive, for each backdrop purchased, what were: (a) the dates (i) the tender was issued for the backdrop, (ii) the contract was signed, (iii) the backdrop was delivered; (b) the cost of the backdrop; (c) the announcement for which the backdrop was used; (d) the department that paid for the backdrop; and (e) the date or dates the backdrop was used?

[The Budget, March 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that there is an important issue of those taxes being high and people from Toronto, for instance, going to Buffalo and similar other points across the country.

One of the reasons for this, and an important and recent reason, is the new charge the government has imposed for security. None of us will oppose security. We all think it is essential. However, the security charges in the United States are much lower than in Canada. We believe the government has charged more to airlines and to customers for security than it spends on security. It is a tax grab.

It is too late now as we are almost into an election. However, when the government had power, it should have been more moderate in its security charges so as to alleviate the kind of problem to which the hon. member referred.