Scott Brison

[The Economy, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's selection of the new finance minister was obviously based on their shared economic expertise. The new finance minister when industry minister said:

High taxes, if anything, should increase productivity because it would drive innovation in order to lower other costs.

Does the new finance minister still believe that high taxes help improve productivity by making Canadians work harder and will this be the official government policy now?

[Financial Information Strategy, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Motion No. 437. Particularly given what has occurred in the private sector in recent months and years and the increased level of scrutiny and focus on some of the corporate governance issues, we should only expect that the public sector and legislatures, and in this case the House of Commons, try to achieve the same level of clarity and granularity in the types of accounting and bookkeeping methodologies we use in order to maintain some level of credibility.

This is a time when international markets are looking very seriously at the way governments maintain and handle their accounting and the fiscal governance that are issues that are so important. Transparency, consistency and ongoing accountability for these numbers and the methodology are important.

Further, I would support us restoring the debating of the estimates of the government on the floor of the House of Commons, which was the case until the late sixties. That of course would improve and increase the level of scrutiny of the estimates and would lead to far more rational government spending patterns.

It was no accident that the spending increased so significantly during the late sixties and throughout the seventies under Liberal governments after the House of Commons was denied the opportunity to have the estimates debated on the floor of the House of Commons. The hon. member's motion to improve the financial information systems for the government would go a long way to help strengthen the scrutiny for members of parliament and the House of Commons over government spending and would also help individual Canadians be better aware.

The issue is particularly important given the events of the weekend. Today international financial markets are looking very closely at Canada. Early indications on the European markets, prior to the Canadian markets opening, were that we would see a downward trend in the Canadian dollar today.

We are at a time when, because of a dispute between the former finance minister and the Prime Minister, the government has placed in great jeopardy that confidence we as a country are seeking to achieve in the international financial markets. At a time of tremendous tumult in international financial markets, at a time when we need to be presenting a strong and unified front on behalf of Canada in the form of the government, the government has been divided at the most senior levels. Therefore, while we could say this is about accrual accounting it could also be said that it has been a cruel weekend for the government. The fact is that the government, by not resolving internal issues, has placed the country in jeopardy and effectively has chosen to risk the well-being of the Canadian economy at a very critical time.

When international financial markets question the stability of a government, sometimes central banks within those countries will increase rates in order to maintain some strength of the currency. We see now that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has indicated that we will be seeing higher rates over the next period of time. The reason the Bank of Canada is strengthening rates at this time is to mask a lot of the structural weaknesses that exist within the government. The government has not embraced some of the aggressive and innovative fiscal policies that other countries have utilized, like tax reform, to strengthen and improve productivity and improve the Canadian economy.

The Canadian dollar has suffered. We lost about 20% of the value of the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar since 1993. Now I think we will see the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of Canada making a decision to maintain the Canadian dollar as much as possible at its current level by increasing rates. As such, when the government has an internal feud between the former finance minister and the current Prime Minister, which affects the degree to which international markets trust the government and have faith in its policies, I believe we will see a more aggressive interest rate policy from the Bank of Canada.

When Canadians buy their homes, sign their mortgage documents, buy and finance their cars, they will pay a higher price in part because of the fact that the government has not managed its internal issues as well as it should have. The fact is that when higher interest rates are used to try to put a band-aid over some of the structural weaknesses in a government or some of the dysfunctionality between personalities of some of the most senior ministers and members of cabinet, Canadians pay a price where it counts and that is every month when they pay their mortgage and car payments.

What does that do for Canadian productivity? Obviously it has a negative impact on productivity. What does it do for standard of living? It reduces standard of living because Canadians can afford less.

We have seen a dramatic drop in the Canadian standard of living relative to that of the U.S. since this government was elected. This type of internal warfare between cabinet ministers within the government adds to that policy malaise and that drift of government at a time when we have an agricultural crisis, a health care crisis and a productivity crisis where Canada has become less competitive in recent years compared with our trading partners. The dollar currency is in significant decline and has been in a secular decline since the government was elected in 1993.

The last thing we need at a time like this is some internal dispute between the former finance minister and the current Prime Minister. My belief is that the Prime Minister has demonstrated that in many ways he is out of control. We are trying to seek ways in the House today with this motion to try to improve control over the nation's finances.

We have a Prime Minister who is behaving almost as if he is out of control. The government has placed this parliament in an almost minority parliament situation. The whip of the Liberal government cannot depend on a large portion of that caucus to vote in the ways that the government would want them to vote. We are in a minority situation right now as a parliament.

As we talk about ways that we want to strengthen our credibility from a financial perspective as a country and improve governance issues over the finances of the country, we should consider and mourn in many respects the way that the government has risked our credibility in the international financial markets.

We have the fact that the Bank of Canada will have to use interest rate policies to try to compensate for that and strengthen the Canadian dollar in some ways artificially to fight the trend of traders betting against the Canadian dollar at a critical time. We have the fact that we have a new finance minister who as industry minister once said that high taxes were good for productivity because they would force Canadians to work harder. All these things cause me to be very concerned.

It is important that we consider with Motion No. 437 ways to improve transparency and governance over the nation's finances. However we would be remiss if we did not take some time to consider how the government has placed the international reputation of Canada in the financial community in great jeopardy.

The Prime Minister's ego has taken precedence over what is good for Canada at a very critical time. It is not simply that the former finance minister has been treated shabbily. I think the country has been treated shabbily by the Prime Minister.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last night in Halifax the right hon. Brian Mulroney spoke to over 1,000 Nova Scotia Progressive Conservatives telling them that “squalid conduct and stunning hypocrisy will be the only legacy of the Liberal government”.

That is in contrast to the visionary policies like free trade of the Mulroney PC government, which were commended in introductory remarks last night from President George Bush Sr. in which the former president said that history had proven Mr. Mulroney right. Mr. Mulroney said, “it's tragic to see Canada getting clobbered regularly by the U.S. in softwood lumber and agriculture”.

The current trade minister has explained this tragedy by saying that the current Prime Minister lacks clout in Washington. He is right. It is a situation Mr. Mulroney characterized as “a pathetic failure in international leadership”.

Mr. Mulroney's speech provides valuable lessons to the Liberal government in managing international relationships as well as in leadership, integrity and courage.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-56. This legislation approaches some very difficult and complex topics. When we are speaking on the legislation, it is important to identify what it is about and what it is not about.

We are talking about medical and health research, assisted reproductive technologies, stem cell research and the incredible potential that it can have to eradicate disease, create more advanced treatments and improve the human condition.

In addressing issues such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, MS or any of these diseases and conditions that we may be able to approach more effectively with technology and research from stem cell research, clearly it is in society's interest and the interests of mankind to develop treatments. As such I do not think there is anyone in the House who would not agree with the end result of achieving these advancements in research from stem cells.

On the issue of human cloning, as a member of a caucus of 14 we see the tremendous benefit of cloning more caucus members. However I think we will pursue more conventional means and elect more of them in the next election. We recently tried artificial ways to expand our caucus and it did not really work out that well, except in one case with which we are very pleased.

On the very serious issue of human cloning, my own view is that we are getting a little too close to playing God when we take that development to that extent. As such I agree with prohibitions against human cloning.

I support stem cell research for the benefit of medical advancement and the potential benefit to humankind of eradicating some of the diseases I mentioned.

I do not see that the abortion issue ought to be used to complicate the debate. That is a separate issue. In Canada the woman's right to choose has been legally protected for some time. That is a separate debate and I hope that members of the House will try not to link the issues of stem cell research with the issue of abortion. That is a very different debate and ought to be treated differently. In fact it damages the quality of the debate we have on this legislation to confuse the two issues.

I am pleased that in our caucus we will be having a free vote on this issue. It is a morally charged issue and one that I take very seriously. I also take seriously representations by my constituents on this issue. There are ranges of views on the issue.

When people and families need assisted reproductive technologies to facilitate childbirth and for who it is important to have access to those technologies, I take their views seriously. People who have family members who have had Alzheimer's, or MS or Parkinson's and whose lives have been impacted negatively by those diseases have strong and important opinions to express and I take them seriously.

As such, over the next period of time I will be determining whether I will be supporting this legislation or not. My belief is that this legislation does in many ways achieve a middle ground with which I am fairly comfortable. This is not perfect legislation. There are areas of the legislation I disagree with. However, as with any piece of legislation, we have to weigh and balance the pros and the cons of it.

As I say, in most ways the government has, with this legislation, struck a fairly reasonable middle ground position. As such, I am inclined at this point to consider favourably the notion of supporting the legislation.

[Firefighters' Pensions, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my complete support and that of the PC Party caucus for Motion No. 326. I also want to commend the hon. member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey for this motion.

It has all been said by members rising in the House today. We all recognize the extraordinary sacrifice and risk made our professional firefighters. In the same spirit as this motion, I have presented private member's motions in the past on the tax credit for volunteer firefighters to help recognize the sacrifice and commitment made by volunteer firefighters in rural communities. That is important as well.

When we think of the importance of volunteerism in our communities, particularly our rural and small town communities, we must consider that in many of these communities, including most of the communities in my riding, something as essential as fire protection is provided by volunteers. It is remarkable that we have not as a parliament and the government has not done something to provide some level of tax benefit to offset some of the costs of volunteer firefighters. I hope that not only will parliament endorse the motion today, but I hope that in the future we will see volunteer firefighters get their due through tax treatment.

September 11 reminded us of the extraordinary dangers and risks of our firefighters. Changing the accrual rate to 2.33% is an issue of fairness. It is commonsensical to allow the firefighters to have an accrual rate that will provide them with a reasonable level of income in their retirement. It is clearly the least we could do to ensure that these brave men and women are provided for adequately and fairly.

The motion is about fairness and I wholeheartedly support it. It is a step in the right direction. However I really hope that in the future the House will support a tax credit for volunteer firefighters, those people who not only take the ultimate risk when they provide protection for us against fire in our homes and places of work but they do so as volunteers. I hope that we go a step further at some point in the future in recognizing the tremendous bravery, courage and commitment that these people offer to their communities.

I commend again the hon. member for having brought this forward to the House. I also commend the professional firefighters for their very effective lobby. I really want to commend them for their constant professionalism and diligence in ensuring that we are informed of the very important issues affecting them and our constituents. I hope in a small way that our legislators, our members of parliament who are here today and who have showed their support for the motion, will remind them that they have been doing a very good job. I think our support for this motion indicates that.

[Business of the House, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that the privacy commissioner took those extraordinary steps and used the very strong totalitarian language that he did to describe the situation indicates his frustration with the government, a frustration he shares with many Canadians and many members of parliament who recognize the degree to which the government, through stealthy methods, jettisons any notion of access to information and will do anything it can to further reduce the role of parliament.

I think the privacy commissioner has taken very extreme and extraordinary measures in this case because of his frustrations with the government, its lack of response and its internal commitment to forge ahead and further reduce parliament.

[Business of the House, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, the member points out the issue surrounding some of the ministers. If a minister in any other government had performed as abysmally as the Minister of National Defence had by conveniently forgetting or concealing what he knew at that period of time, there would have been a call to cabinet and to the Prime Minister to change the rules to ensure that ministers had to report and inform their cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister more quickly of these types of things.

Instead, the Prime Minister has said that the rules should be changed to make it easier for ministers to not inform cabinet and the Prime Minister. We seem to be going in the other direction. If we do not want someone saying that a minister has made a mistake we will make it almost impossible to make a mistake. We will lower the bar and then ministers can limbo under the bar. This is really awful.

In terms of the immigration issues, Canadians have significant concerns about the flaws within our immigration system. Those concerns exist along with a sense of genuine pride about the degree to which immigration has helped build this country and the multicultural mosaic of Canada for which we are all so proud. What Canadians want is an immigration system that works again and is not a threat to national security. The immigration policy and the execution of the immigration policy could be addressed in this legislation without reducing civil liberties, rights and freedoms.

What is interesting is that the government claims it wants to protect the civil liberties and rights of people seeking refuge in Canada yet this legislation actually reduces the civil liberties and rights of Canadians.

The government ought to focus on making the existing rules work, enforcing the existing rules and providing the resources necessary to enforce these rules.

If the goal of the legislation is simply to further reduce the role of parliament and strengthen cabinet's grip over power and that of the Prime Minister's over the levers, why does the government not just say so and say that it is further emasculating and disemboweling parliament. Instead, the government sneakily provides this type of legislation and purports to use this sort of legislation to strengthen security measures when we all know at the end of the day that this is another power grab designed to reduce parliament and strengthen the power of cabinet and the Prime Minister's Office.

[Business of the House, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the hon. member's question I would like to commend him for his work and commitment to access to information which he has demonstrated in the House and often against a significant level of inertia on the front benches of his own government. However he has continued to fight on behalf of parliament and on behalf of all Canadians.

The fact that the privacy commissioner took the extraordinary step of going to the media on this indicates his frustration with the fact that the system itself may not be working and the fact that he works for a government that is not interested in the views of senior public servants who want to do the right thing. I think that speaks volumes about the dysfunctionality of the relationship between the senior public service and the government. He was right to point that out.

If the hon. member is interested in access to information, which I know he is, he will appreciate my concern about the fact that the legislation would give individual ministers, without parliamentary approval, the right to issue orders that can remain secret for 23 days, in effect for 45 days, a month and a half, without any approval from cabinet. A week is a long time in politics but 45 days is like a lifetime. An awful lot can happen in 45 days.

I know the hon. member shares my concerns because he has been committed to the notion of parliamentary supremacy and access to information for individual parliamentarians. As such, I would expect that he would vote, like many of us, against the legislation because it would be inconsistent with the principles he has demonstrated consistently in the House and through his courageous work last summer on the access to information file to support the legislation.

I am certain his government will understand when he rises in the House and votes against this terribly flawed piece of legislation. I will certainly commend him for that and defend him because he is a very principled member of parliament.

[Business of the House, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill C-55, the public safety act. No Canadian or anyone in the House doubts the importance of protecting security at this critical time. As the Prime Minister and everyone in the House has said, it has become almost a cliche to say the world changed on September 11.

However the threats to security that were demonstrated on September 11 have existed for a long time. In responding to what happened on September 11 the government's goals may be laudable but its means of achieving them have been anything but. The Liberal government has done more to foster global terrorism and expose Canadians to the risk of terrorism on our soil than any government in the history of Canada.

Since coming to office the government has done more to reduce and gut resources for the RCMP, CSIS and the military than any government in the past. Our rules and laws are not the problem. They are not what we need to change. For a long time we have needed the resources to enforce the existing rules. Regardless of the legislation we pass in the House to strengthen the government's hand to act in a more totalitarian way, the goal of improving the security of Canadians will not be met without increased resources for the RCMP, CSIS and the military.

The government recently took baby steps in the right direction on these issues. However for years it has taken funds out of these important enforcement agencies with a backhoe. It now proposes to replace the funds with a teaspoon. The government is trying to fill in some of the potholes it has created through years of neglect.

The Minister of Transport stood in the House at the beginning of the debate and praised Bill C-55. However after listening to him the question remains: Why do we need the legislation? We already have an Emergencies Act to allow a fast response to a national emergency. After the crisis of September 11 the government responded and took extraordinary action within the existing rules.

Bill C-55 is the essence of Liberal parliamentary democracy. By that I mean it would continue the Liberal tradition of doing everything they can to jettison parliamentary democracy. Under the Liberal government more than any previous government we have seen an increased concentration of decision making power away from parliament and into the hands not only of cabinet but of the Prime Minister's Office. Bill C-55 represents another nail in the coffin of Canadian parliamentary democracy.

This legislation would allow the government to bypass parliament. It would severely curtail parliamentary scrutiny and review. The rules Canadians consider so important such as protection of privacy and property and protection against arbitrary arrest would all be compromised by Bill C-55. That is unnecessary because we can provide the security Canadians need and want without compromising the civil liberties they value.

The Liberal privacy commissioner has used the term totalitarian to discuss aspects of Bill C-55. What a scathing condemnation of his own government to refer to the legislation as being totalitarian. Canadians are intelligent and will decide for themselves the number of ways the bill violates their rights. I am afraid that Canadians will not realize until too late the regressive nature of the bill in terms of pulling back some of the fundamental civil liberties that Canadians have come to assume are part of our values.

The bill represents another flawed piece of Liberal legislation. It is a slap in the face for Canadians who value their privacy and property rights. In the wake of September 11 it is understandable that the government would seek to draft legislation that would address some of these extreme circumstances we find ourselves in not just in Canada but around the world.

The arbitrary nature of the decision making process by the government in creating the legislation is really unfortunate. The government refers to consultation and that it has listened. It really has not listened or pursued a full and consultative approach in creating the legislation.

If the government were to reverse some of the very significant and draconian cuts that were made to the military, the RCMP and CSIS resources, a lot of the existing rules would be fine just the way they are. The government in some ways is using September 11 as a means to further strengthen its hand and further reduce parliamentary scrutiny.

I do not want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I saw the government use September 11 as an excuse to create a $4 billion tax grab with the air security tax. In Canada it is $24 for every round trip. The U.S. equivalent for the same level of security is $5. The government used that opportunity, the fear of Canadians post September 11 to exact more revenue out of Canadian taxpayers which made me feel very skeptical. I really question the government's motives.

With the legislation perhaps the government sees that September 11 has created further opportunity to concentrate power at the expense of the civil liberties of Canadians. I urge the government to not always use every opportunity to reduce the role of parliament and concentrate greater levels of power in the executive branch. Instead it should enforce the rules that are there now and increase the resources that are needed to do so.

The bill furthers the concentration of power in the hands of the ministers. We know what the government did in terms of ministerial accountability. We have seen minister after minister fail to be accountable to parliament, to committees and to the trust that Canadians vest in them.

The interim orders made by ministers alone without parliamentary approval could remain secret for 23 days. They could be in effect for 45 days without any cabinet approval.

We have a defence minister now who cannot remember what happens at briefing sessions and forgets to brief the Prime Minister and cabinet. This is like a dream piece of legislation for the defence minister. Not only can he forget something for seven days, he could forget something for 45 days without having to worry about it.

The whole notion of ministerial accountability is gutted by the legislation. A minister would not even have to seek cabinet approval and could act arbitrarily. These extreme measures could be in effect for 45 days without cabinet approval. That of course would help because based on the Prime Minister's style of leadership, he would probably rather golf than govern anyway. It would probably be inconvenient to call cabinet meetings particularly during the summertime.

Unless specified in the order, the order can be in effect for a year. If the minister so chooses, it can be renewed for at least another year. All this is without parliamentary approval. The changes from Bill C-42 are a slight improvement, a tiny pittance of an improvement, but once again parliament and the public are relegated to the back seat.

The changes to the National Defence Act in this legislation are a perfect example. The minister in the past has demonstrated that he is less than forthright with the public, parliament, his party, his caucus and even his leader and cabinet. Did we take hostages or did we not? Were the hostages handed over or not? Was the Prime Minister told or was he not?

The fact is the whole British parliamentary system is based on the sanctity of ministerial accountability. The Minister of National Defence would have had his marching orders provided to him by the Prime Minister if he had served in the cabinet of Tony Blair. He would have been gone by 10 o'clock on the morning the debacle became public.

Instead, in order to protect the sub-mediocrity of the front benches, the government will do anything to avoid resignations. It would even send them to Denmark if the opportunity existed just so it could say that it was not wrong and the Prime Minister did not make a mistake. Canadians know a lot better.

It took the minister three briefings to bring him up to speed. There was a day when cabinet ministers were chosen based on their perspicacity and ability to be briefed quickly and understand issues. The Prime Minister wants that minister now to have even greater unchecked authority, controlled access to military zones anywhere in Canada. Make no mistake about it. Under this legislation the government can drive a tank onto any street in the country and at the discretion of the minister call it a military secure zone.

Most Canadians, including the minister's own chain of command within the military, have expressed significant doubts as to the competence of the minister. For him to be provided with this level of power to act arbitrarily and create a military zone wherever he wants is truly frightening.

Under subsection 260.1(1)(b) concerning controlled access military zones, there is some question as to what the government means by property. Is this real property as in real estate, or property in terms of equipment, such as a main battle tank or military vehicle? The answer comes in subsection 260.1(3) where the designation of the nature of the zone states:

A controlled access military zone may consist of an area of land or water, a portion of airspace, or a structure or part of one, surrounding a thing referred to in subsection (1) or including it, whether the zone designated is fixed or moves with that thing. The zone automatically includes all corresponding airspace above, and water and land below, the earth's surface.

If the nature of this legislation were to create these zones in, on or around areas with permanent structures not designated as military bases, there would be no need for clarification of this type. This gives the minister, Canada's defensive minister in this case, not as the minister of defence but as the defensive minister, the ability to designate a controlled military access zone around any piece of military property he feels necessary and as the equipment moves through an area, so goes the zone.

Canadians work long, hard hours and pay a lot of taxes. They work hard for everything they own. The stroke of a pen by the minister can negate the expectations of a person's property rights in Canada. That is clearly egregious to Canadians when they think of it. It should be offensive to every member of the House.

Liberals might suggest that checks and balances are contained within subsection (6) where a maximum time limit of one year is put on the zone. However as 7(b) states that following the renewal of a year, the governor in council can sidestep the subsection should the government want the designation in effect for more than one year.

These are broad, sweeping powers provided to a minister who has demonstrated very little competence, who has in fact earned the wrath of Canadians and lost the respect of his own chain of command. The fact that the Minister of National Defence, particularly the present Minister of National Defence, would be given this level of power is truly emblematic of the deep flaws and rot within the legislation.

While there are a number of issues we disagree with, the bill does have some positive notes. We believe there are some positive steps being taken with regard to part 4 of the bill which deals specifically with an amendment to the criminal code.

The notion of criminalizing a hoax in regard to terrorist activities makes a great deal of sense. That has already existed for a long time in airports. We cannot make jokes about bombings and that sort of thing. That makes a tremendous amount of sense. However that is like a thimble full of positive steps in a sea of bad things in the legislation.

If the government were serious about improving the security of Canadians, it would address some of the flaws and mistakes of the past. It would address funding issues for the RCMP and CSIS. It would address funding issues of our Canadian military. The government would address some of the flaws in our current immigration system.

Canadians ought not to learn about flaws in our immigration system on 60 Minutes. Parliament should be more assiduously focused on addressing those flaws and those issues.

If the government were serious about achieving the ends of a more secure Canada and a Canada more willing to protect itself against the threats of international terrorism on our soil, there are ways that could be accomplished. Those laudable goals could have been accomplished without compromising the human rights and the civil liberties of Canadians.

The government used September 11 in an exploitative way to create a multibillion dollar tax grab by creating the air security tax. It was intentionally larger than it needed to be to exact as much money out of Canadian taxpayers as possible. The government exploited September 11 to raise more government revenue in a shameless, unconscionable way. It is now using September 11 once again as an excuse to clamp down on the civil liberties of Canadians and to further reduce parliament's important role in representing Canadians to further strengthen the power of cabinet, the power of the Prime Minister and the PMO.

It is absolutely shameful that the government would take an event like September 11, an event that has in so many ways focused the efforts of people around the world on what can be done to better protect ourselves against terrorism. Instead of moving in a constructive way to fight terrorism and find ways to better protect Canadians against terrorism on our soil, it is using September 11 as a way to extend its powers, to raise more tax revenues, to further reduce the role of parliament and further strengthen cabinet and the Prime Minister's hold over the power of this country.

I think that is really unfortunate. We fight terrorism to protect democracy. The government uses the threat of terrorism to reduce democracy. That is just a terrible state of affairs.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 26th, 2002]

Perhaps it will, but I still believe that higher cigarette taxes at the end of the day will reduce the incidence of smoking among young people. Perhaps there will be some incidence of black market increase but on the whole this is one tax increase that may actually be almost supportable based on its impact on reducing smoking.