John McCallum

[*Question No. 72, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to (a), the daily turnover in the international gold market is approximately six to seven million ounces per day.

With respect to (b), Canada has had a clear and transparent policy since 1980 to sell gold at a gradual and controlled pace to reduce the proportion of gold held in our official international reserves in order to benefit Canadian taxpayers. Because gold is less liquid than many other assets and earns a low rate of return, this policy has increased the return on Canada’s reserve assets and increased their liquidity.

With respect to (c), yes, the gold sales program has been very profitable for the Government of Canada. Estimates show that, since the beginning of the gold sales program, the income on reserve assets has been more than U.S.$13 billion higher than if the gold stocks had been maintained.

With respect to (d), proceeds from Canada’s gold sales are used to purchase other foreign currency assets that yield higher returns. These higher returns benefit Canadian taxpayers.

[Blood Samples Act, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favour of the bill.

[Nelson Mandela, June 12th, 2001]

, seconded by the hon. members for Windsor West, Medicine Hat, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, Winnipeg—Transcona and Calgary Centre, moved:

That this House, recognizing the great moral leadership provided by Nelson Mandela to South Africa and to all humanity, agree that he be declared an honorary citizen of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a sense of both pride and humility, pride to be part of this process but also humility because I think the more one learns about Nelson Mandela the more one realizes that one is not worthy to so much as gather up the crumbs from under his table.

In defence of such admittedly extravagant language, if I had to defend it in a sentence I would say that he forgave his tormentors. Who in this House, in this country and on this planet would do likewise? He forgave his tormentors and those of his people.

With respect to the hon. member for Calgary West, talking about going from one extreme to another, all I would say is that I believe Mr. Mandela himself would agree that in a democracy everyone has the right to his or her opinion, however off the wall that opinion might be.

In our time I know of three leaders who were sent to prison and whose causes inspired the world.

There was Mahatma Gandhi, who was assassinated before being able to reach his goal of democracy. There was Martin Luther King, who reminded his mighty nation that there were two classes of Americans, separate and unequal. He too was assassinated. And then there was, and still is, Nelson Mandela, who led the people of South Africa on a long march to freedom.

At that time, while many other countries were indifferent, Canada, and all political parties in Canada, beginning with the Progressive Conservative Party of John George Diefenbaker, supported Mr. Mandela.

Only once before in our history have we honoured a foreigner with our own citizenship, and that was Raoul Wallenberg, the great Swede who saved the lives of 100,000 Jews during World War II.

Now, in his sunset years, Mr. Mandela's long trek has only one more objective outstanding, and that is the children of Africa who he will help through his Nelson Mandela Children's Fund, to help give to them what we in this country take for granted: food, medicine and education.

It is my fervent hope that when Nelson Mandela comes to Canada in the fall, hordes of children from across the country will meet him and greet him and we will have a huge fundraising event to raise money for his children's fund.

As a Canadian, I am very proud that Canada will be the first nation in the world to grant this honour to Mr. Mandela.

Mr. Speaker, I commend to you, citizen Nelson Mandela.

[Committees Of The House, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a resolution which I know has the support of the four opposition foreign affairs critics. If you would seek unanimous consent, I hope it will be given. The motion concerns the advisability of proclaiming Nelson Mandela an honorary citizen of Canada.

I move the following motion:

Whereas the majority of people in South Africa, whose skin happened to be black, were denied elementary democratic rights by white racist administrations for hundreds of years;

And whereas courageous black South Africans initially formed the African National Congress in 1912 to crusade against apartheid and subsequently opened the organization to people of all colours;

And whereas Nelson Mandela, having emerged as a leader of the ANC, was imprisoned for almost three decades following criminal proceedings that made a mockery of justice;

And whereas after Mr. Mandela finally emerged as a free man, he demonstrated remarkable statesmanship and compassion by forgiving all who had oppressed him and his people;

And whereas Mr. Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, was subsequently elected as President of the new South Africa in its first democratic election and emerged as a moral leader of extraordinary and global stature;

And whereas Canada, beginning with the leadership of John George Diefenbaker, consistently opposed apartheid and supported the struggle of Mr. Mandela and his compatriots during times when many other nations were indifferent;

And whereas Mr. Mandela, most recently on a visit to Canada in 1998, has continually inspired the members of this Parliament, the people of Canada and, most especially, young Canadians with his profound commitment to liberal democracy, human rights and the struggle against oppression of all people;

And whereas the highest recognition that Canada can bestow upon a foreigner is honorary citizenship;

And whereas Canada has previously granted this high honour only once, in 1985, to Raoul Wallenberg in recognition of his remarkable effort in saving the lives of almost 100,000 Jews in Nazi controlled Hungary and his subsequent imprisonment and suffering in the former Soviet Union;

And whereas other remarkable crusaders for justice, including Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, met with violent deaths before Canada could properly recognize their contributions;

And whereas Mr. Mandela's sunset years are devoted to the freedom and welfare of children in Africa and elsewhere;

And whereas Mr. Mandela has graciously agreed to accept this high tribute and will be making his last trip to North America in September of this year,

Now therefore—the House of Commons resolves that the said Nelson Mandela, that icon of the human spirit, be hereby declared to be an honorary citizen of Canada;

And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House in the said resolution by filling in the blank with the words “Senate and the”.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as usual Bloc members are totally out of context. This is the same interview in which I said that the Bloc critic should join the private sector if his forecasts were truly so fantastic.

What I said in this interview—he missed the important point—was: “It could have been said two or three years ago that Mr. Martin would do that—For the past two or three years economists have been making forecasts and they have no political agenda.”

At least, for two or three years, the surpluses could not have been deliberately inflated because they were forecasted by private sector economists.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to these three points.

First, the motion has nothing to do with separatism, at least not directly. This is not a referendum. What I said is that the more tax points are transferred to the provinces, the less important the federal government is in Quebec. This advances the cause of separatism. This is what I said.

Second, I said that it was actually Quebec which was in favour of a single currency, namely the U.S. dollar, because no one among Toronto business people wanted to hear about it.

I also said that a handful of academics including Thomas Courchene supported the idea. I admit to it.

Finally with regard to the finance minister's buddies, yes, I became a Liberal, but I am the only one. The other ones are probably more conservative. I did not make the forecasts, the big forecasting agencies made them, namely universities. They have no axe to grind, no political axe to grind.

Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong, but they are politically neutral.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the debate on the Bloc motion regarding transferring tax points to the provinces. I will broaden the discussion a little if I may because there are three components of the Bloc economic policy that form a logical and coherent whole. That can be taken as a compliment, I suppose.

The first component is today's motion, that is the transfer of tax points from the federal government to the provinces.

The second component, which coincides with that, is the Bloc's notion that the federal government's surpluses next year will be about $18 billion—according to the Bloc—rather than $7 or $8 billion according to the economists. If that is true, it will be easier for the government to make such a transfer to the provinces.

The third component is the Bloc's idea that we should give up the Canadian dollar and use the U.S. dollar.

All three of these components are a logical and consistent whole because all of them separately and together lead to the same thing. All three lead to a weakening of the federal government, a weakening of the Canadian economy and an increase in the likelihood of the separation of Quebec from Canada. While they are logically coherent, I would for those reasons oppose them all very strenuously.

I will go through very briefly each of the three components of the Bloc economic platform. First, on the transfer of tax points, which is the subject of the motion today, I will comment very briefly on the major elements of current transfers including tax points. I will then give the House two reasons why I think the Bloc motion makes little sense at all.

Right now there are three major components of transfers from the federal government to the provinces. The first consists of around $18 billion of cash transfers, which was increased recently by the health accord in the fall of last year and added some $20 billion of federal money for health over five years.

Next, and this is something the Bloc Quebecois and indeed all the provinces tend to forget, we have transfers in the form of tax points because back in 1977 the federal government transferred tax points or taxing powers from the federal government to the provinces. This amounts to a value of $16 billion today whereas in 1977 when the transfer occurred it was about one-tenth of that.

The fact that the Bloc and the provinces tend to ignore this tax point component is relevant, as members will see in a minute, to the subject of its motion respecting the transfer of further tax points.

The third component of special relevance and importance to Quebec concerns equalization payments made to have not provinces. This year those payments consisted of $11 billion of which nearly half or $5.4 billion went to Quebec. This equalization payment has been among the fastest growing components of our expenditures, having increased by 33% over the last decade or so.

It is the status quo. What the Bloc is proposing is that the federal government transfer more tax points to the provinces. In my opinion, this is not a good idea at all. What the federal government did last fall was to make the largest cut in personal income tax in Canadian history, a $100 billion tax cut, but a tax cut for Canadian taxpayers.

What the Bloc Quebecois wants is not a tax cut for Canadian taxpayers, but a tax cut for Canadian provinces. In my opinion, it is a lot better for the federal government to cut personal income tax than to cut taxes for the provinces.

If any province wants more revenue it is entirely free to raise its own taxes, but if Ottawa has excess money it should cut taxes to the people, not to the provinces as the Bloc motion suggests.

The final point is even more important. It shows that the Bloc proposal is inherently and blatantly contradictory. We have had transfers of tax points from Ottawa to the provinces since 1977. Whenever provinces say how much Ottawa is contributing to health care or other social programs, unfailingly they never include the tax points. The provinces say Ottawa only pays 19% of health care or some amount like that because they have forgotten the tax points, which would more or less double the contribution.

Now they want us to transfer further tax points. Do we think that in the future they will acknowledge that transfer when they report the contribution of Ottawa to provincial social programs? Obviously they will not, given the history of the last 24 years when they have never reported tax points.

So it is obvious that the object of this motion on transfer of tax points is to reduce the importance of the federal government in the eyes of Quebecers. That is the true objective of the Bloc Quebecois because, if the importance of the federal government is reduced in the eyes of Quebecers, this will advance the cause of separatists. This is its objective. It has nothing to do with the economy. It is purely political and a good reason to oppose this motion.

The second point is related to the first. According to the finance critic of the Bloc Quebecois, all bank economists who make these economic forecasts are always wrong and only the finance critic of the Bloc Quebecois is right. He showed with graphs the huge forecast errors economists made and the small forecast errors of the Bloc.

I told him the other day that perhaps he should not be here in parliament. If his forecasts are so wonderful, he should start his own business and he would become a millionaire.

It is true that if one can outperform the market in terms of economic forecasts one can be a millionaire.

But before the finance critic of the Bloc Quebecois makes this career change, if I were him, I would continue believing the economists. Consequently, it seems to me more reasonable to think that the federal surplus will be $7 billion or $8 billion, instead of $18 billion, next year.

I will be very brief on this final point because it is all part of the same separatist circle coming together. It is the incessant clamour by the Bloc for Canada to give up its dollar and use the U.S. dollar. It is evident from a separatist point of view that this would be a very nice thing, because come the great day of separation, if we were all using the U.S. dollar, currency would not be an issue. However, if we were using the Canadian dollar, it would be a big problem. Obviously from a purely political view the Bloc favours dollarization.

I have one story to illustrate the point that there is very little support within the Canadian business community for dollarization. We had a debate in Quebec on dollarization, which I participated before I got into politics. Three hundred business people came to the Montreal board of trade meeting. Then the organizers wanted to have a repeat debate at the Toronto board of trade but there was no interest. The dollarization issue is largely a Quebec issue, in particular a Quebec separatist issue, plus a sprinkling of academics across the country. It has no general backing from the Canadian business community.

In conclusion, I mention these three aspects of the Bloc program because they all hang together: the further transfer of tax points; the gross overestimate of next year's federal surplus; and the incessant clamouring to use the U.S. dollar. They are coherent in the sense that individually and taken as a whole they would lead to: first, a weakening of the federal government; second, a weakening of the Canadian economy; and third, an advancing of the cause of Quebec separation. On all three of these grounds I strongly oppose this motion.

[Income Tax Act, May 30th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, as I said a few weeks ago, I agree in many respects with the objectives of this bill, which would allow individuals to deduct a portion of their public transportation costs for environmental reasons.

The purpose of this legislation is definitely in line with the objectives of the government. Measures dealing with public transportation provide greater hopes than before, particularly since the President of the United States has rejected, at least for the time being, the Kyoto agreement.

In principle it is definitely on the right wavelength and certainly on the same wavelength as the initiatives of the government. The measures the government has put in place are arguably superior to the proposed bill in terms of achieving the desired consequences for the environment.

I will outline briefly a number of the government's measures. I am not suggesting they are in and of themselves fully adequate so I will comment on possible future directions in which the proposals in the private member's bill could play a part. However it would be premature to adopt the bill before considering all the alternatives.

In general, the government has committed $1.2 billion over five years to environmental projects of one kind or another. I will mention just a few of these. The government has committed $100 million to the sustainable development technology fund, principally to reduce greenhouse gas.

The government has also committed $25 million and $100 million respectively to the green municipal enabling fund and the green municipal investment fund which are both administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. These funds help the municipalities to determine the feasibility of and best approaches to renewable energy, building retrofits, water conservation and so on.

The green municipal investment fund also supports projects in areas such as energy and water savings, urban transit, which is related to the proposed private member's bill, and waste divergence to strengthen the sustainability of communities.

Other measures announced in the budget tried to achieve similar ends. The budget provided $210 million over three years for the renewal of the climate change action fund and other federal energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

Finally, the budget expanded the existing federal green energy procurement pilot initiatives. These measures were supplemented in the fall economic statement and update with the announcement of a $500 million federal contribution toward the national implementation strategy on climate change.

When we put all those measures together they will contribute in a substantial way to reducing gas emissions in the transportation, electricity, oil and gas, buildings and agriculture sectors. They will also support Canadian projects in other countries.

The government also announced a $2 billion infrastructure Canada program to support municipal infrastructure development. Most urban transit investments are eligible for assistance under this program. Eligible projects include fixed transit assets, such as bus lanes and rail lines, as well as transit vehicles which use alternative fuel.

All these measures show that the environment is a high priority for the Government of Canada. They are the result of extensive consultations with various stakeholders and we in the government think they are likely to achieve a greater impact at lower costs than the proposal in the private member's bill.

I do not want to give the impression that everything is done and that no more initiatives are needed. Because of the difficulties in the Kyoto area, initiatives involving public transit as a means of attacking air emission problems should receive a high priority.

What the member suggested is one alternative. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is studying a large number of alternative tax measures under the general rubric of green taxes. There is also the possibility that initiatives in the area of public transit will come out of the task force on urban relations as well.

In conclusion, while the objectives of this bill are laudable, more studies conducted with the tools I mentioned are required to develop a program that will have a broader scope before we can decide whether or not we accept this proposal.

[Committees Of The House, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

[The Economy, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was using that word in the generic, uncapitalized version. In any event, my point is that words do not matter. The only thing that really matters is that these budget actions were maxi actions that will carry us through for another year.