Scott Brison

[Prebudget Consultations, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the hon. member's question, I was in fact part of the cabinet in 2005 when we introduced a budget referred to by the Sierra Club as the greenest budget in the history of Canada.

We did take steps to address environmental issues and climate change issues. In fact, our present leader was the environment minister who introduced project green, a plan to green the Government of Canada. As minister of public works, I established in my department the Office of Greening Government Operations, which aimed, through green procurement, green building management, and LEED's gold standards in buildings, to address that.

The fact is that I want to see governments do more. This is something I share with the member. She said something that was extremely important, that is, that economic growth can coincide with environmental responsibility. She is absolutely right.

Innovative governments and companies around the world are seizing the green agenda, the green rush. They are investing in clean technologies and the research, development and commercialization of those technologies. It is broadly felt that in fact environmental technologies and clean tech will be the fastest growing area of the 21st century. Canada has the potential to be a global leader in clean energy and clean tech, so I agree with her on that.

[Prebudget Consultations, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on prebudget consultation as we lead up to what is arguably the most important legislative instrument of the government on an annual basis, the introduction of a budget.

It is interesting today that the debate is around where to spend the surplus. That was not always the case. It took years and it was a struggle for all Canadians, not just a Liberal government that worked to reduce and eliminate the deficit. However, over a period of time all Canadians made sacrifices and worked together to achieve what was to become the soundest fiscal situation in any of the industrialized world. A declining debt to GDP ratio, a capacity for governments both to lower taxes and increase spending. In fact, the Conservative government inherited the strongest fiscal situation of any government in the history of Canada upon entering office.

It is interesting that the member for Yellowhead said something that was extremely telling a few minutes ago. He posed the question as to why the Liberals still cared about the Kelowna accord. Why did Liberals include the Kelowna accord as one of their priorities? Why did Liberals still considered the Kelowna accord to be important? According to the member for Yellowhead, in the consultations across the country, he did not hear many Canadians speaking about that.

A responsible and progressive government would defend the rights and interests of all Canadian, regardless of whether they form the majority. The government and the Conservative Party have demonstrated a remarkable capacity under the Prime Minister to pit one group against another, to write people off if they do not believe they will vote for them. It was for easy for them to write off the Kelowna accord.

They did a simple political calculation and politically the aboriginal and first nations people in Canada would not vote for the Conservatives, so they were expendable. It was very easy for them also to eliminate early learning and child care. They calculated that by and large young women would not vote for them according to the polls, so they wrote them off. They took them off the political balance sheet.

Good governments and principled governments do more than help those people who vote for them. They help all Canadians. There is a responsibility, particularly for aboriginal and first nations communities, to work with them, to address the economic and social challenges that are faced by aboriginal and first nations communities. It not just good public policy for them to ensure equality of opportunity, but it is good public policy for all Canadians, particularly as we see aboriginal and first nations communities being one of the fastest growing populations in the country.

If we do not, as non-aboriginal political representatives, take this seriously, we are letting down all Canadians on what could be a massive economic and social challenge. We need to not only bring back the Kelowna accord and address those social issues, but we need to move beyond Kelowna and address the economic challenges and opportunities for Canadian aboriginal people.

My riding in rural Nova Scotia has three aboriginal reserves, the Cambridge Reserve, Port Reserve and Shubenacadie Reserve. The challenges being faced by people in those communities is immense. As a government, we invested in schools at Shubenacadie Reserve and we invested in people. We were prepared to move beyond that with the Kelowna accord on a national basis. I would like, as one the priorities of a future Liberal government, to restore the Kelowna accord and to move beyond it.

We believed in early learning and child care. In fact, it is not just good social policy; it is good economic policy. An article in The Economist magazine called “A guide to womenomics” focused on the kinds of economic policies that not only could address equality issues, but also address economic growth and prosperity. It pointed to the countries that enjoyed the greatest level of economic growth, particularly Scandinavian countries. These countries not only did the right thing in terms of reforming their tax systems and cutting corporate and personal taxes and moving to a more competitive tax system, but they also invested in social policy, particularly early learning and child care.

If we do not have a strong network of early learning and child care, it will hurt women disproportionately. Women pay a higher career cost and earnings cost than men, typically, for the responsibility of raising children. Regardless of how progressive couples become, that continues to be a fact.

The degree to which communities and society work together to share that burden and opportunity will reduce the barriers for women in the workplace and increase the economic prosperity of the country. That was made clear by The Economist. It is not a left wing or right wing principle; it is just good, basic, sound economic and social policy.

Beyond that, we are in a situation where other countries, and I mentioned some of the Scandinavian countries, countries like Norway and Sweden and Ireland and Australia, have reformed their tax systems to be more competitive. One of the benefits we have as a country in a surplus situation is we can reform our tax system. There is no country in the world, however, that is reforming its tax system by cutting a consumption tax. Canada is the only one.

The global economic consensus is that a country is better off cutting personal income taxes and reducing income tax. In fact, with the $14 billion per year that the Conservatives are expending with the GST cut, they could have increased the basic personal exemption, the point at which Canadians start paying income taxes, to about $20,000 per year. It is currently around $9,600. We could take millions and millions of low income Canadians off the income tax rolls altogether and provide a tax break through the income tax system to all Canadians and have a more competitive tax system.

The fact is our corporate tax rates are still higher than many of our OECD competitors. While statutory corporate tax rates may be becoming as competitive, the actual effect of corporate tax rates are still higher in Canada. The problem is it is a moving target. The Conservatives are saying that in five or ten years Canada will be one of the most competitive corporate tax environments in the world. In five or ten years other countries are going to move faster, address corporate taxes and become more competitive and we are going to be sitting here. They say in the long run that we will be more competitive. John Maynard Keynes, the economist, once said, “In the long run, we're all dead”.

We actually have a responsibility to be nimble, to move more quickly and to reform our tax system for growth, prosperity and equity more quickly. Cutting the GST is not the best way to achieve that. I believe it is more important to cut personal income taxes.

Beyond that, it is critically important that we not ignore the looming economic challenges facing the country. The reduction, or practically the elimination, of the fiscal envelope or fiscal capacity of the government to act in times of crisis is troubling. The latest edition of The Economist magazine said, “Economists reckon that Canada's fiscal and current account surpluses could disappear”.

Who would have thought, even a few months ago, that a country with as massive a surplus as Canada was enjoying, a country that had been lauded by countries, economists and finance ministers around the world as a beacon of fiscal probity and economic innovation would have The Economist magazine say, “Economists reckon that Canada's fiscal and current account balances could disappear?”

It is a very serious situation because it speaks to the bad economic management of the government. Not only is it incapable of investing in sound social policy, but it is also incapable of good economic growth policy. I would not mind it being completely market reliant and laissez-faire if it in fact understood the market.

Beyond that, Canadians are looking for long term investments on recreational infrastructure. Across my riding, facilities were built in the memorial wave of federal investment. Facilities, arenas and recreational facilities were built as part of the centennial wave of federal investment. However, across my riding there is a tremendous infrastructure deficit in places like Lantz, Brooklyn and Windsor.

We see child care facilities that need investment and parents who need help to afford quality child care.

We see an agricultural industry that is facing immense challenges. I hope one of the questions will be on agriculture, because we need to address agriculture and the government does not take--

[Trade, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates pioneered and owns the Canadarm and RADARSAT technologies. MDA's space division is selling out to Americans partly because under George Bush's ITAR rules, the only way MDA can get more American contracts is to sell out to an American company. George Bush's ITAR law is hurting Canada's space industry. It is gutting Canada's economic and defence sovereignty.

When will the Prime Minister stand up for Canada's national interests and secure ITAR exemptions?

[Trade, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Fred Montaseri, a Canadian citizen, was fired because of George Bush's ITAR law. This law bans Canadian firms that employ Canadians from countries like Iran, China and Haiti. The British and Australian governments have negotiated ITAR exemptions for their countries.

When will this Prime Minister defend multiculturalism and defend Canadian jobs? When will he stand up for Canada and stand up against George Bush's discriminatory ITAR law?

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first, in terms of the accelerated capital cost allowance, I agree that having accelerated the capital allowance makes sense, in light of the decline of the American dollar, to encourage Canadian manufacturers to invest in productivity enhancement and to build competitiveness during a difficult time. That is why I believe the government ought to have made it a permanent as opposed to a two year program.

The difficulty with having it as a two year program is we force manufacturers, which make these kinds of massive capital investment decisions over the long term, to accelerate their decision making and their purchases to a two year period, which is a very short period. This is not sensible. It is not good business. That is why Canadian manufacturers are looking for a permanent, or at least a five year, accelerated capital cost allowance.

Second, the member boasted about the government's $1 billion program for communities, which was brought forward several weeks ago. The fact is that $1 billion program was brought forward to replace a $1.5 billion Liberal program that the Conservative government killed—

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the intervention from the hon. member. In a 10 minute speech there are only so many subjects one can cover. However, I agree with her completely about the importance of streamlining the recognition of foreign credentials.

Labour mobility within Canada is something with which the federal government ought to be seized, working with provincial governments to bring down those barriers and to help ensure more seamless movement of people within Canada and for talent to come to Canada. They are both very important issues.

On foreign credentials, we ought to look at the U.K. model. Foreign nationals can begin their professional accreditation in their country of origin such that by the time they come to Canada much of that work, if not all of it, has been completed. This kind of innovative approach is one that we should do. I share with the member the focus on post-secondary education and lifelong learning as competitiveness.

In terms of the corporate tax issue, we can stand for better post-secondary education, lifelong learning, better labour mobility and streamlining foreign credentials and still believe that tax competitiveness, corporate and personal, is important. That is where I would differ with her.

Unlike the Canadian New Democrats, other social democratic parties around the world, whether it be in the U.K. with the Labour Party or in Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland, have embraced progressive social policy and innovative competitiveness policy.

Therefore, it is not impossible for a political party or a country to embrace both the need to be competitive to create the revenues to actually grow the economy and to make the kinds of innovative social investments of which the member speaks. We have to do both.

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on this motion at a critically important time for Canada in the global economy.

We live in a time of unprecedented rapidity of change, a hyper-competitive global economy where a country or a company is either moving forward or is falling behind. We cannot sit still.

The week before last, I was at the world economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, surrounded by political and business leaders from around the world, people who represented some of the fastest growing economies and companies in the world. The focus at Davos was on issues like science, research and development, the importance of science to competitiveness, and the issue of climate change and the greening of the global economy.

In fact, European Business magazine's issue that particular week was “Profit from a changing climate”, which said that greening one's economy can in fact create jobs, opportunity and prosperity, and that we are heading toward a global carbon-constrained economy. In that kind of environment, as a price is put on carbon by multilateral government organizations and individual governments, we will see that environmental laggers will become economic laggers.

The focus was on competitiveness in a cleaner, greener environment. Here in Canada we have a government that has not focused on competitiveness, has not focused on environmental stewardship, and in fact has focused only on short term politics as opposed to building competitiveness. Its tax measures have been more focused on buying votes than on building a richer, fairer or greener Canada.

It was also announced at the world economic forum, in its most recent study, that Canada has slipped in terms of our global competitiveness this year to number 13 in the world.

This is a time when countries like Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Australia and New Zealand have reformed their tax systems to be more competitive, to attract capital, to grow their economies, and to build higher wage jobs and greater prosperity for their citizens.

In Canada, we have not had significant tax reform in fact since 1971 with the Carter commission under the Chrétien government and the government of the member for LaSalle—Émard. We saw the biggest personal tax cut in Canadian history, but we really need overall tax competitiveness.

Instead, this government has chosen to cut consumption taxes with the GST. It was repeated by economists around the world that in fact it makes more sense, instead of cutting the GST and that $14 billion per year that it takes out of revenue, to cut personal income taxes, for instance, focusing on low and middle income Canadians.

With $14 billion a year, we could raise the basic personal exemption, the threshold at which Canadians start to pay taxes, to about $20,000. That would take millions of low income Canadians off the tax rolls altogether. It would be fairer. It would also provide tax relief to all Canadians at every income level, particularly favouring low and middle income Canadians. It would build a more competitive tax system because economists are united around the world that if we are going to cut taxes for competitiveness, to create jobs and prosperity and for better fairness and equity, it is better to cut income taxes than consumption taxes.

The government has taken a different approach. It is the government and has the right to do that. I just believe that there are fairer and more competitive approaches to tax reform.

Furthermore, beyond that, there has been some discussion this morning on competitiveness and manufacturing. I serve on the industry committee and the recommendations presented by the industry committee a year ago could make a huge difference. As my colleague from Markham has said, the government has chosen to only respect and follow one-half of one recommendation.

Today in The Globe and Mail, there is an article entitled “Business pushes for new tax relief, Finance Minister under pressure to offer new subsidies but slowing economy eroding federal coffers”.

Why is the government seeing the federal coffers decline? It is not only the slowing of the economy. It is the fact that we have the biggest spending government in Canadian history. It is a government that has not only chosen to increase spending like a drunken sailor. At the same time it is cutting a consumption tax instead of focusing on business taxes, personal income taxes and competitiveness.

Furthermore, the article says that companies pitch Ottawa on scientific innovation. Our leader has presented making the SR and ED program refundable, such that all companies can benefit, through the tax system, from sound investments in research, development and commercialization, because science matters.

When we speak of science, it is important that at the very top decision making levels of government, governments in today's economy understand the importance of science. I was particularly dismayed when the Prime Minister not only fired the national science adviser to the Prime Minister, but completely eliminated the position. There is only one other jurisdiction in the world this year that has demoted and reduced the role of the national science adviser, and that is the Bush administration.

The national science adviser provided to the Prime Minister the kind of sound advice, whether it was on climate change, or stem cell research, or reproductive technology, or the green economy or on innovative new areas such as cleantech. I believe cleantech will be the fastest growing area of the global economy. We are seeing venture capital firms, such as Kleiner Perkins and others, which were behind the Internet revolution, now investing massively in this area. This is an area where Canada could excel.

David Rubenstein from the Carlyle Group, speaking at a venture capital conference in Quebec City a few months ago, and who was also at the Davos conference two weeks ago, said to me personally, “Canada has the potential to be a global leader in clean energy and cleantech”.

To that end and further, in today's Report on Business is an article “Energy players in carbon capture drive”. Currently a group of energy leaders and businesses in Alberta is focused and prepared to make massive investments in a CO₂ sequestration project. It says that the federal and provincial government plans to back its development are still at a preliminary stage.

Business is ready to act. Business is looking for sound signals and strong investment alongside of business to leverage on government and business investment to make the kinds of investments that can not only reduce Canada's carbon footprint, but can also make Canada a leader in clean energy. This is another area on which the government has not focused. We know its interest in climate change is perfunctory at best. We also understand the government has no real interest in long term competitiveness. It is more focused on short term, vote buying schemes.

It is critically important for Canadians, whether they are in the manufacturing sector, the forestry sector or agriculture, to see a government with a plan. Our Liberal leader recently spoke in Hamilton to launch a Liberal industrial strategy around manufacturing, including the $1 billion advanced manufacturing prosperity fund, the AMP program. Our leader spoke of partnering and leveraging with private sector capital to create the kinds of high wage jobs that could make Canada more competitive, to stand shoulder to shoulder with Canada's manufacturing sector, not to abandon them with the laissez-faire “I don't care approach” of the Conservative government, but to stand with them and to help their businesses become more competitive. We need to reform our SR and ED program to ensure Canadian businesses have the capacity and the incentive to investment in cutting edge research and development that can create the kinds of discoveries which lead to greater competitiveness.

Furthermore, the previous Liberal government made a significant investment in the forestry sector, a $1.5 billion focused forestry fund that the Conservative government eliminated in one of its first acts as a government. The $1.5 billion, which was introduced two years ago by a Liberal government, focused on helping forestry communities diversify and succeed. The government replaced it with a less generous $1 billion program, less focused. The Conservative program was focused on all industries, not only the forestry industry.

The government is offering too little, too late, without vision, without focus and without an absolute plan to help bring Canada forward.

The Liberal Party and the Liberal leader are offering Canadians a plan to build a richer, fairer, greener Canada to be more competitive to create the kind of sustainable wealth that Canadians deserve and also to ensure that Canada plays its role as a responsible environmental citizen of the world. This is the kind of plan Canadians deserve and this is the kind of responsibility parliamentarians have to present those kinds of plans, to debate them and to earn their support among Canadians.

[Science and Technology, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Carty's firing has sent shock waves throughout the Canadian and global scientific communities. There is one other national government that has downgraded the role of the national science adviser. That is the Bush administration.

Is it an inconvenient truth that the Prime Minister is more interested in following Bush's advice on science than he is interested in following the advice of real Canadian scientists like Arthur Carty?

[Science and Technology, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's attack on the public service, science and the truth does not end with Linda Keen.

Arthur Carty was the national science adviser to the Prime Minister until the Prime Minister eliminated that position. Dr. Carty was a voice of reason on climate change, stem cell research, resource management and the environment.

What inconvenient truth from Dr. Carty led to his dismissal? Does the Prime Minister not realize that his attack on science is making Canada look like the flat earth society?

[Forestry Industry, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Industry said that it was not his responsibility to help workers who lose their jobs.

According to the minister, it is merely a matter of “structural adjustments”. What arrogance. What ruthlessness.

Will the minister apologize for his arrogance to the millions of workers in the manufacturing and forestry sectors who have lost their jobs?