John McCallum

[Ten Percenters, March 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday this House voted to end the practice of allowing members to send free propaganda outside their ridings. We voted to save taxpayers $20 million by eliminating this partisan junk mail.

If the government is serious about reducing waste, it will surely leap at this opportunity to save $20 million.

My question is for the Prime Minister. The Liberals have already stopped their participation in this program. When will the government also comply with the will of the House of Commons?

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the government has not solved the problems of the less fortunate in Quebec or in Canada. This problem is not unique to Quebec. The government's failure to take action to help the manufacturing or the forestry sector is a problem for Canada as well as Quebec. That is why we decided to vote against the budget. As I already mentioned, we cannot support the Bloc motion because of its reference to federalism.

However, as I stated, and as our leader has explained a number of times, we will vote against the budget. At the same time, we are well aware that Canadians do not want an election at this time. For that reason, we will vote against the budget in a manner that will not trigger—

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals inherited a $42 billion Conservative deficit, there was no painless way to get out of it.

The hon. parliamentary secretary may recall at the time that the Wall Street Journal said Canada would become a third world country. People were saying the IMF had to come in and manage our economy because the previous Conservative government had taken us up to unheard of debt levels. Therefore, the Liberal government came in and had to clean up the mess.

When we have a huge great mess to clean up, we do not do it totally painlessly. In fact, it may be, as he said, a fifth Liberal majority, although I do not know when the fourth one was, but if there is a Liberal government at some time in the future, we will inherit a huge fat Conservative deficit one more time. I suppose again, as in the past and as usual, the Liberal Party will be called upon to deal with the big fat juicy Conservative deficit and clean up the mess.

Unlike those Conservatives, who pretend that all of this can be done totally painlessly, which is absolutely untrue, I would acknowledge that there is likely to be a certain amount of pain in cleaning up a big fat deficit. They are not even acknowledging in their plan that there will be a certain amount of pain, that we cannot simply freeze government budgets and departmental budgets forever and expect every social program to remain intact—

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here today on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada to speak to this Bloc Québécois motion.

I lived over half my life in Quebec and I was a professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal for six years. I therefore think I have a pretty good understanding of the Quebec situation.

The Liberals generally agree with the Bloc regarding most of the specific points raised in the motion. I will elaborate on that in a moment. However, we do see one problem with this motion, since we cannot accept 10 specific words. Those 10 words are: “—federalism does not fulfill the goals and requirements of Quebec—”.

The Liberal Party strongly disagrees with this statement. If the Bloc had said that the kind of federalism practised by the Conservative government does not fulfill the goals of Quebeckers, we would have agreed. We would have said the same thing about other provinces, that is, that the kind of federalism practised by the Conservative government does not fulfill the needs and goals of the people of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba or any Canadians. However, they did not limit the scope of their statement and for that reason, the Liberal Party will vote against the motion.

We agree that the government is not investing enough in the forestry sector, the aerospace industry and the environment, and that the government is not doing enough for Canada's poorest people. However, it is not federalism that is failing; it is the Conservative government that is disappointing Quebec. The Liberals know how to make Confederation work.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to tell you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

As I was saying, the Liberals know how to make Confederation work. A federal government with strong Quebec representation, one that really understands the needs and concerns of Quebeckers, can truly address the problems related to poverty, the environment, and Quebec's forestry and aerospace industries.

This government has failed in those areas simply because the Conservative Party does not share the same values as Quebeckers. The Conservatives' vision for Canada is not what Quebeckers want, nor is it what the people of Ontario want.

Allow me to elaborate on the Bloc Québécois' specific proposals. First, with regard to harmonizing the GST, the Liberal Party totally agrees that the federal and provincial governments must negotiate in good faith to resolve the dispute on compensation for Quebec. The problem is that this Conservative government did not negotiate in good faith with the Government of Quebec on this.

As far as the forestry industry is concerned, I am well versed in the Liberal government's situation because I was Minister of Natural Resources in 2005 when we introduced our strategy for a competitive forestry industry. We allocated $1.5 billion over five years to help that industry.

Unfortunately, as soon as the Conservatives came to power, they cancelled this program altogether. In the past, we had a program that proposed credit and loan guarantees for the industry and financial incentives to help forestry companies buy new equipment.

We also supported non-polluting energy from forestry waste. We presented a detailed and ambitious plan for the forestry industry, which was very warmly received by the sector at the time. The Conservatives cancelled that program. We are still in favour of the initiatives that were proposed in 2005.

As far as aerospace and the manufacturing sector in general are concerned, it is clear that leaders in these industries do not support the budget. They said there was not much in the budget to help their industries.

For example, Jayson Myers, president of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, said that the budget provides “marginal benefit”. Claude Lajeunesse, president of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, said he was disappointed in the budget. It is important to quote what these leaders had to say because people in general are afraid to criticize this government. This government retaliates against those who speak out against it. If two courageous men, who represent their respective industries, honestly say this is a bad budget that does not help the manufacturing or aerospace industries, then we have to take them seriously. It is also true that the government did not even spend the $160 million dollars allocated to the Canadian Space Agency. The money was available, but the government did not spend it. That money could have been used to enhance the economic development of the aerospace industry.

Let us now turn to the environment and the consequences of the federal government's failure to act. Quebec has set ambitious goals for itself. It has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to below the 1990 level and, more recently, it adopted ambitious new vehicle emissions standards.

As for the Liberals, they are proposing an historic investment in clean energy and energy performance jobs. It is clear that this government has done hardly anything for the environment. We agree with the Bloc Québécois on that.

Finally, regarding poverty and the less fortunate, the Conservatives simply have no strategy to reduce poverty among children. In 2006, the Conservatives dismantled the Liberal early learning and child care services program. The Liberal Party had introduced the national child benefit supplement in 1997, and the working income tax benefit in 2005. It had also increased funding for the guaranteed income supplement by $2.7 billion. The Liberal Party helps improve opportunities for all Canadians by focusing on education and investing in a national child care plan.

In summary, we more or less agree on all the specific points raised by the Bloc Québécois in its motion, namely harmonization, the forestry industry, the aerospace industry, the environment and poverty. On all these points, we more or less agree with the Bloc Québécois. The only problem we Liberals have with this motion is that the Liberal Party will never agree with the Bloc Québécois statement that federalism does not meet Quebec's aspirations and needs.

That is the only reason we will be voting against the motion.

[Business of Supply, March 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker I think the hon. parliamentary secretary is living in some fantasy land if he thinks that the budget was well received in terms of manufacturing in general and forestry and aerospace in particular.

I would quote Jayson Myers, the president of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters Association, who said that the budget was a pretty marginal benefit. Or, Claude Lajeunesse, president of Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, who said that he was disappointed in the budget.

Those words may sound a bit mild but this is such a vindictive government that hardly any third party spokesperson dares say anything even slightly negative about the budget. If the head of the aerospace association and the head of the manufacturers association say that the budget is no good for their sectors, then how can the parliamentary secretary possibly put a credible positive spin on it?

[Taxation, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are raising payroll taxes, airplane taxes, income trust taxes and researcher taxes, and these are only the ones we know about so far, yet the Prime Minister says repeatedly he is not raising taxes.

This is a question of truth and honesty and character. For once will the government tell the simple truth: “Yes, we are raising airplane taxes, income trust taxes, researcher taxes and, most important, job-killing payroll taxes”.

For once will it just tell the truth?

[Taxation, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, George Bush Sr. reneged on his famous promise to not bring in new taxes. He said:

“Read my lips: no new taxes”.

He found the courage to admit that, in fact, he was raising taxes.

Despite claims to the contrary, the Conservatives are raising taxes.

Why does the government not show the same courage as George Bush Sr. and admit that it is increasing taxes?

[Income Tax Act, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the bill proposed by my colleague, the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville. We on this side of the House believe the charitable sector is extremely important and it is important for government to act to strengthen it and to increase the credibility of the charitable sector in the minds of Canadian donors.

My colleague's bill would do just that. It is particularly timely because the government recently has acted to undermine the credibility of the charitable sector in the eyes of Canadians. Therefore, my colleague's bill is particularly important in order to redress the imbalance caused by the government's behaviour.

The first example I will mention is this. On January 14, the government promised to match the donations of Canadians for earthquake ravaged Haiti through the Haiti earthquake relief fund. However, two months and one day later, news has broken that the government has not sent a single matched dollar down to Haiti. This is causing a certain amount of anger in the Haitian community and among those who have contributed to Haiti on the understanding that the government would expeditiously match their contributions dollar for dollar. That hurts the government's credibility. The next time there is a disaster and the government promises to provide matching funds Canadians, who will no doubt respond with generosity, may not be as likely to believe the government will act swiftly and with purpose.

The second example where the government has undermined the charitable sector concerns the finance committee and prebudget proposals, which would have had the effect of enhancing the ability of Canadians to make charitable contributions. I believe the finance committee unanimously endorsed the following:

The federal government examine incentives that would have the effect of increasing the level of charitable giving by businesses and individuals. In particular, the government should consider:

an increase in the charitable tax credit rate to 39% for incremental annual increases in giving, provided that annual giving is more than $200 and less than $10,000;

the creation of a corporate structure for not-for-profit organizations that would allow the issuance of share capital and other securities;

and the elimination of the capital gains tax on donations of real estate and land to public charities.

Unfortunately, the finance minister did not share the finance committee's enthusiasm for strengthening Canada's charitable sector in one or more of the three ways that I have just described. However, as we know, there was no mention of any of these recommendations in budget 2010.

My first point is that while we on this side believe it is important to strengthen the charitable sector and to strengthen the credibility of that sector in the minds of donors, the government first, by not following through expeditiously on its matching donations to Haiti, and second, by totally ignoring the proposals to improve the ability of Canadians to give to the charitable sector, particularly at a time of recession when those donations are needed more than ever and when Canadians are less able than normally to afford to give them, the government declined to do. Therefore, it is more important than usual that a bill like that of my colleague arrives in order to strengthen the credibility of the charitable sector.

In the United States, charities file the salaries of their CEO and other top executives with the IRS and they are publicly accessible for anyone who is thinking of donating to that charity. Canadians are not so lucky.

Last fall, one CEO departed a very well known charity, with a $2.7 million incentive payment in cash for leaving that charitable organization before his contract was finished. This was on top of his annual $600,000 salary.

The old saying is “It takes money to make money”, and there is no doubt some truth to that. Some of Canada's largest charities obviously require some very good talent at the top if they are to raise the funds they need to provide services.

Even more important than this, however, is that Canadian donors can feel confident that the money they have worked hard for and donated to charity goes almost entirely toward the charitable purposes it was intended for and not toward very large executive compensation packages. Think about the example I just gave.

It takes a lot of donations from a lot of Canadians to pay someone $2.7 million. To make this tangible, let us assume that someone signed up to give $10 a month through automatic withdrawals to a charity. That is $120 a year. It would take more than 22,000 Canadians, at this level of donations, just to donate enough money to pay the departing CEO of that charity. I would argue this could be enough to damage the confidence some Canadians have in our charitable sector.

Worse, news only emerged about this case because the amounts were discovered in publicly available IRS documents, as this charity operates on both sides of the border. Media reports indicated that Canadians were so outraged by the revelation that the charity had to set up a special phone line to deal with all the incoming calls.

Canadians had a right to be outraged. Canadians listening at home should know that my good colleague, the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, has heard them, which is why we are debating Bill C-470 today.

What exactly would Bill C-470 do to help deter this kind of behaviour and restore the confidence of donors in the charitable sector?

First, it would limit the pay of a charity's CEO to $250,000 per year. It would similarly limit the pay of other executives who work at a charity. The penalty for non-compliance would be that the charity would face revocation of its charitable status, quite a stiff penalty that I am sure every charity would want to avoid.

On the face of it, $250,000 seems to be a reasonable pay threshold for 2010. Should the bill go to committee and it is discovered that a very large charity cannot hope to find a CEO for that amount, I would be amendable to amending the bill slightly.

However, as my colleague has pointed out, there is also a further safeguard in that the minister is not obliged to force the cap of a $250,000 salary, so one cannot exclude the possibility that in some few cases there may be very large charities that, in order to be effective, may have to exceed that limit. The discretion would be in the hands of the minister to allow that and/or there could be amendments to permit it under certain circumstances.

Recent media reports have revealed that some of our larger charities, such as Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada and the United Way of Canada, would not run afoul of the law without current executive pay incentives. Therefore, on the surface, $250,000 seems to be a good starting point for Bill C-470.

Once again, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, on her excellent work on behalf of Canadians. I have certainly heard from my constituents about the $2.7 million example I mentioned earlier. I am sure that many of the members of the House have as well.

I hope all members will listen to those Canadians and vote to send Bill C-470 to committee.

[The Budget, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer agreed with the economists.

Whenever any officer of Parliament or public servant questions any action of the government, the Conservatives respond viciously, as if the person were an enemy of the state. They fired Linda Keen. They smeared Richard Colvin. Now when Kevin Page dares to suggest the government is too rosy in its forecasts, the finance minister lashes out with a totally erroneous hissy fit.

Will the finance minister apologize to Kevin Page?

[The Budget, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said he had prepared “a fiscal outlook based on the same private sector economic forecast used by the Department of Finance”.

However, in lashing out at the PBO in question period yesterday, the Minister of Finance wrongly said the opposite, that the PBO rejected the forecasts of 15 private sector economists. He did not.

Meanwhile, economists like Don Drummond said his views are similar to those of the PBO.

Why this unwarranted attack from the finance minister?