John McCallum
MP Lib MarkhamâThornhill Former
Question Period Record
McCallum asks the Minister of Finance to follow his parliamentary secretary's lead, admit to the EI payroll tax increase coming after the two-year freeze, and tell Canadians how much it will be.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Finance said that he would not raise taxes, while at the same time booking a huge EI payroll tax increase. Yesterday the minister's parliamentary secretary actually told the truth, saying âthat after a two year period the premiums will increaseâ. Today, will the minister follow the lead of his parliamentary secretary and tell the truth to Canadians, admit to the payroll tax increase and tell Canadians how much?
Translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, la semaine derniĂšre, le ministre des Finances a dit qu'il n'augmenterait pas les impĂŽts, mais il a du mĂȘme souffle prĂ©vu une Ă©norme augmentation des cotisations Ă l'assurance-emploi. Hier, le secrĂ©taire parlementaire du ministre s'est Ă©chappĂ© et a dit la vĂ©ritĂ©, soit que les cotisations allaient augmenter aprĂšs deux ans. Le ministre suivra-t-il aujourd'hui l'exemple donnĂ© par son secrĂ©taire parlementaire en disant la vĂ©ritĂ© aux Canadiens, en admettant que les charges sociales augmenteront et en disant de quel ordre sera l'augmentation?
McCallum stated that General Baril deposited his report with the chief of defence staff at 8 a.m. that morning, that he would receive it within hours, and that he has instructed the department to release it to the Canadian people at the earliest possible time.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, at 8 o'clock this morning General Baril deposited his report with our chief of defence staff. I will receive it within hours. I have instructed our department to move heaven and earth to release this report to the Canadian people at the earliest possible time. My primary responsibility is to the families of those killed and to the Canadian people to get this information out at the earliest possible moment.
McCallum asks when the government will provide full program-by-program details of its spending cuts, citing contradictory tweets by the President of the Treasury Board and an earlier promise by his parliamentary secretary.
Source text
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 âsoonâ. What is going on? Will the government give us the full details, program by program, of those spending cuts, and if so, when?
Translation: Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, il y a deux jours, le prĂ©sident du Conseil du TrĂ©sor a envoyĂ© un gazouillis selon lequel le RĂšglement de la Chambre l'empĂȘchait de nous donner tous les renseignements sur les compressions des dĂ©penses, ce qui est faux. Il a par la suite gazouillĂ© que nous avions dĂ©jĂ ces renseignements, ce qui est tout aussi faux. Il y a trois semaines, son secrĂ©taire parlementaire a dit que nous obtiendrions ces renseignements « sous peu ». J'aimerais bien savoir ce qui se passe. Le gouvernement nous donnera-t-il tous les renseignements, programme par programme, sur ces compressions dans les dĂ©penses, et, si oui, quand nous les donnera-t-il?
Documents show Infrastructure Canada disbursed less than one-quarter of Economic Action Plan funds last year; why is the government now imposing an arbitrary deadline that endangers hundreds of projects when it failed to get the money out on time?
Source text
Monsieur le Président, des documents révÚlent que l'an dernier, Infrastructure Canada a déboursé moins du quart des sommes prévues dans le Plan d'action économique. Non seulement ils n'ont pas investi les sommes promises, mais maintenant, ils veulent imposer une date limite arbitraire qui met en danger des centaines de projets. Ils n'ont pas sorti l'argent à temps et maintenant, ils veulent couper avant le temps. C'est de l'incompétence ou de la mauvaise foi?
Translation: Mr. Speaker, documents show that last year, Infrastructure Canada disbursed less than 25% of the money allocated in the economic action plan. Not only did it not invest the amount promised, but now it wants to impose an arbitrary deadline that is jeopardizing hundreds of projects. It did not release the money on time and now they want to cut it off early. Is this a matter of incompetence or bad faith?
McCallum notes the House voted to end ten percenters, saving $20 million, and asks when the government will comply with the will of the House of Commons.
Source text
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?
Translation: Monsieur le Président, hier, la Chambre a voté en faveur d'une motion demandant qu'on mette un terme à la pratique permettant aux députés d'envoyer gratuitement de la propagande à l'extérieur de leurs circonscriptions. Nous avons appuyé l'élimination de ce programme de pourriel partisan pour épargner 20 millions de dollars aux contribuables. Si le gouvernement tient vraiment à réduire le gaspillage, il va sans doute sauter sur cette occasion d'économiser 20 millions de dollars. Ma question s'adresse au premier ministre. Les libéraux ont déjà mis fin à leur participation à ce programme. Quand le gouvernement respectera-t-il également la volonté de la Chambre des communes?
McCallum says the claim is not true and that there was no political interference, then criticises the member for allegedly challenging a witness's right to respond in French.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a parliamentary committee, the hon. member challenged the right of a witness to respond to him in French. I hope today he will be so kind as to allow me to respond to him in French. My response is that what he just said is not true. There was no political interference in the past and there will be none in the future.
McCallum states the matter is still being investigated, then accuses the member of insulting French Canadians and challenging the professionalism of 30,000 public servants at the Canada Revenue Agency.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the matter is still being investigated. Not only did this member insult French Canadians with his remarks on bilingualism, but he is also challenging the professionalism of 30,000 public servants at the Canada Revenue Agency. He should apologize to French Canadians and those public servants.
McCallum noted that France is part of the anti-terrorism naval group and said Canada is proud to work with France and other countries on this important goal.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to forget that France is part of this group of ships against terrorism. Furthermore, we are proud to be part of this defence against terrorism here or anywhere. We are working with France and other countries to achieve this goal, which is very important for Canada.
McCallum said Canada disagrees with the U.S. on Iraq but remains an ally on continental defence and the war against terrorism, and said Canada is proud to be in the gulf fighting terrorism.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, just explained, it is clear that Canada does not agree with the U.S. when it comes to Iraq. The Bloc Quebecois needs to understand that on other issues, the U.S. remains Canada's friend and ally. We have an agreement on the joint defence of the continent, on the war against terrorism, and this war is also taking place overseas. The Bloc Quebecois needs to understand that Canada is proud to be in the gulf to fight terrorism with its ships.
McCallum corrected an NDP leader's misquotation and said the government is speeding up helicopter delivery by moving from a two contract system to a one contract system, but did not directly confirm the best value criterion.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, since I have already answered that question a thousand and one times, perhaps I might clarify to the leader of the NDP that he misquoted me. What I in fact said was that when we are defending the ships of our allies in the region there might not be time to ask the commanders of the ships what their destination was when those ships were under attack and we were coming to their defence. The answer to the question is that the government has been engaged in speeding up the delivery of the helicopter by moving from a two contract system to a one contract system. Indeed we are doing everything we can to make that delivery as--
Career
Stub generated by processor · Not yet reviewed