Scott Brison

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his erudite comments.

The issue of money laundering is one that no Canadian should underestimate. The fact that the estimates range between a $5 billion problem to as high as a $20 billion problem speaks volumes about the degree to which we really do not have a very good handle on the scale of the problem. What we do realize is its impact on facilitating and enabling organized crime in any range of applications, whether it is in particular on the side of the narcotics trade, is significant.

We should also not underestimate the degree to which significant resources are needed to fighting money laundering. In recent years we have seen an exponential increase in the range and complexity of financial vehicles available to criminals.

When we talk about organized crime, we are not talking about underfunded agencies. We are talking about some of the most sophisticated, well funded groups in the world with international linkages and the economies of scale to attract and to invest in the very best technologies. That is why, whatever we do in terms of new agencies and new approaches to money laundering, we have to ensure that the funds are committed to our RCMP and our enforcement capabilities. Otherwise all that will occur is the government will take baby steps in the right direction but really not achieve the goals of reducing the incidents of organized crime and money laundering, which should of course be the goal of the legislation. The government has had a terrible record of underfunding, the RCMP for instance. Clearly while new agencies and new approaches might be helpful, if they are underfunded, it will not achieve the goals that the government has attached to this legislation.

We have some concerns relative to issues of privacy and the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough articulated some of those concerns. It is important as well to ensure that the new agency's mandate and efforts are separated assiduously from those of the Canada Customs and Revenue Canada Agency. If the customs and revenue agency sees evidence of money laundering, it may be appropriate to refer some cases to this new agency to deal with money laundering.

That being the case, what we want to avoid in those cases where this agency has not found sufficient evidence of money laundering but may find some evidence relative to inappropriate behaviours relative to one's taxes, is the agency to result in a souped-up Revenue Canada to sink its teeth a little deeper into the ankles of Canadian taxpayer.

The issues of enforcement, and particularly the onus being placed on financial institutions, will be one that will be very difficult from an enforcement perspective and from a privacy perspective. We have to be awfully careful in this regard that a significant level of education occurs at the outset and that our financial institutions are prepared on a consistent basis throughout various financial institutions and throughout a branch of networks to carry out the mandate of this legislation. I suggest to the government that this will be a significant challenge and that the government has to be prepared.

The government has to be prepared to invest significantly in technologically driven approaches to deal with money laundering. Again, we are not dealing with amateurs. These are not underfunded agencies and local yokels who are doing a bit of criminal activities and do not really have the resources to carry on their activities. The government is fighting some of the best funded organizations in the world.

I would argue that we need to engage other countries more actively than we are right now in a co-operative effort. Clearly, money laundering and electronic transfers of money do not recognize borders, particularly if one were to consider just for a moment the impact of even the Interac system and its impact on the ability to launder money, to hide transactions and to break really large transactions into a multitude of smaller ones.

I am sure many of us in the House use online banking sometimes and I would suggest all of us probably use our bank cards. However, consider in the wrong hands and with nefarious motives what extraordinarily powerful tools the Interac system and online banking are. These are the simplest consumer available technologies of which we are aware. We are not even considering some of the extraordinarily powerful technologies being used in the mysterious world of arbitrage and currency trading.

If we are not very careful to ensure the necessary resources are committed to this fight, then we are sending this new agency, our RCMP and others into battle with pellet guns which will not be in the long term interest of the effort to reduce the incidence of money laundering and organized crime.

Accountability is of real importance. There is concern about the growing trend toward agencies which the government has pushed in recent years. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and the new money laundering agencies are not very accountable.

We must ensure, particularly in areas of privacy, that we do not create agencies that are able to run roughshod over the rights of Canadians. At the same time, however, agencies must have the resources and ability to do their jobs. It is a balancing act. I hope the government has a good understanding of what it will be up against with the new agency.

We must invest properly and make sure the accountability is there to protect ordinary, law-abiding Canadians. However resources must also be committed to ensuring Canadians who do not take the law seriously, who participate in money laundering and globally powerful organized crime networks, are caught and dealt with.

Those are some of our concerns. The legislation, like so much of the government's legislation, represents a baby step in the right direction. However given the power of organized crime globally and the resources available to it, we are taking baby steps in the right direction while the forces we battle are taking gigantic leaps. We are not making the progress we should be making in this place to ensure that money laundering and organized crime are dealt with effectively in Canada.

[The Economy, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, whether or not the minister likes it, the UBS Warburg most recent report on Canada has said that Canada is currently in a recession. Growth is projected to be only 1.5% for the entire year, which is almost a full point lower than the growth rate of 2.4% the minister was predicting a month ago. A 40% slower growth rate clearly threatens the minister's projections.

With all the economic uncertainty, with UBS Warburg saying that Canada is in fact in a recession, will the minister commit today to tabling a fall budget?

[The Economy, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister says that he will decide by the end of summer whether to have a fall budget. The minister knows that budget planning does not happen overnight. In fact, daily budget planning meetings begin months in advance of an actual budget day.

Will the minister confirm if in fact meetings to plan a fall budget are currently taking place within his ministry?

[The Economy, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Thomas d'Aquino, head of the BCNI, has said:

How can you have a paper on innovation without anything on taxes? You can't. It's a contradiction in terms.

Yet the ministers of HRDC and industry, the big spenders of the Liberal cabinet, believe they can improve productivity with big spending alone.

Why is the finance minister being shut out of a productivity plan that desperately needs leadership on tax reform? Is the Liberal leadership race more important than improving productivity for all Canadians?

[The Economy, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, real incomes in Canada are 30% lower than those of Americans because of a growing productivity gap. The HRDC-Industry Canada white paper on productivity will reportedly focus on government spending initiatives alone to reverse this trend.

Will the Prime Minister expand the terms of reference for the white paper to include tax reform, which all leading economists and business leaders agree is absolutely necessary to improving productivity?

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to this group of amendments and, in particular, to recognize the contributions, both in committee and in the House, made to advancing the support for defending the interests of refugees in Canada.

These individuals have escaped great strife, faced personal risk, tremendous loss, and in many cases bloodshed and some of the worst atrocities imaginable to those of us in our very safe environment in Canada. They seek refuge and the safety of a place where they can regroup, protect their families, work to develop futures in Canada or potentially at some point to return to their homelands.

I need not remind anyone in the House that what they return to is sometimes devastating. If we look at the former Yugoslavia, over half the homes were destroyed as a result of efforts at ethnic cleansing. Effectively all records such as birth records and property deeds, some of which had been held by the same families for generations, were gone. For all intents and purposes many of the refugees who come here have no other choice because they have been forced out of their homelands. They actually lose every sense of attachment to their heritage, birthplace and home country.

We need to consider some of the hardships many of these individuals endured prior to coming here when we design legislation and to ensure that we are vigilant in defending what has been a principle of Canadian immigration policy for some time: protection of legitimate refugees, recognition of their rights and support for them during such difficult times.

That is what the PC amendment proposed by my colleague from Fundy—Royal seeks to do. I find it wrong headed that a government that is so soft on many groups in society, that is so soft on crime and criminals, that balks at strengthening or proposing more effective approaches to young offenders, that refuses to pursue issues of law and order more aggressively, is also a government that seems to be disproportionately hard on legitimate refugees. It is inconsistent with the principles that have guided Canadian refugee and immigration policies for so long.

I understand why members of the House on all sides, including some members on the government's side, have significant reservations about the government's direction in this regard. We must avoid public policy reinforcing some of the stereotypes which to such a degree impede the progress and security of refugees in Canada.

It is very easy in this place when we create two tiers of rights for people to feed what would be a self-fulfilling prophecy by further hurting people who have been hurt so badly by circumstances that they did not bring upon themselves. Hands were dealt to them which have been unimaginatively bad. With some of the circumstances people have had to deal with in their home countries, to come to Canada and not have every level of protection, security and equality is offensive.

When we consider that many of these people are escaping some of the most egregious examples of inequality, prejudice, bloodshed and ethnic cleansing, it sets a very bad example for the government to fail to provide every level of protection, support and security in Canada. We are a country that has been largely built by people who have chosen this place as their home. In some cases this was by choice and in other cases it was in situations of duress and great struggle for freedom and security for themselves and their families.

I hope government members will be supportive of some of our amendments in this group. Some of the Bloc amendments also deserve consideration in the same regard.

I commend the hon. member for Fundy—Royal who because of his erudite discourse in the House is frequently confused with me. However I commend him once again for bringing a great level of commitment to good public policy and of vigilance on behalf of the huddled masses, or refugees who seek to become Canadians, to ensure that their interests are protected when the government fails to do so in the legislation.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member, respectfully, is wrong. The fact is that the provincial government in Ontario has increased its spending and investment in health care disproportionately when compared with the federal commitment to health care in Ontario.

There has been a sharp decline in the federal commitment to health care in every province and the provinces have had to make that up. In Ontario there has been a dramatic increase in the provincial investment in health care to help compensate for the draconian cuts by the federal government.

Unfortunately it is easier in some ways for a province like Ontario to make up that money but in a province like Nova Scotia with a weaker tax base it is very difficult. I would ask the member to be cognizant and respectful of that.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's intervention. This hon. member is not confused, but I believe he may be.

In terms of the issue of tax point transfers, it is entirely consistent with our party's position, going back to the 1997 election platform, that we should be enabling provinces to have more say over their own tax policies and ultimately over spending priorities through giving them an opportunity through tax points to achieve that.

That being the case, he is quite right that without an adjustment through equalization to ensure that there is some sort of ameliorative impact from the equalization perspective, some provinces would be worse off. That is why it is fundamentally important to ensure that the equalization system, as I articulated, takes that into account. One of the best ways to achieve that would be to remove the equalization caps, which we do have consensus on from 10 premiers across Canada.

There is another point. The hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois who has proposed this opposition day motion is proposing that there be a first ministers conference to debate and discuss this issue. If the hon. Liberal member opposite is ingenuously interested in hearing the views of Atlantic Canadian premiers, then he should be supportive of this motion such that first ministers would be able to get together and have this kind of discussion.

The hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois is not saying in this motion that he would want the transfers of the points. The motion says that we want to have the discussion.

Certainly the hon. member's government should not be afraid of a meaningful discussion, a first ministers conference on this issue, which would give an opportunity to Atlantic Canadian premiers, among others, to express their views and to negotiate and achieve on behalf of their constituents what they are capable of doing.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak to the opposition day motion brought to the House by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I share the hon. member's view that federal-provincial co-operation needs to be expedited in the area of tax point transfer.

We have a huge difficulty in Canada now with the reticence of the federal government to engage in any meaningful co-operative effort with the provinces. The PC Party has a strong history in this regard, going back to our 1997 platform in which we proposed a tax point transfer to the provinces to enable provinces to better address some of the social investment needs. The provinces are probably most capable of determining those priorities as they are closest to the people affected by the decisions.

We need some sort of practical action to create a new system of government that is much more responsive, more accountable and ultimately more efficient. By giving provincial and regional concerns a clearer voice, Canada can become a stronger country.

These practical changes can be achieved through federal-provincial discussion and agreement without constitutional amendments. That is important because I think most Canadians want to avoid a constitutional dialogue at this point. If we can achieve that through federal-provincial discussions, which we can, then we should proceed.

This requires co-operative federalism, not brinkmanship, bravado and disdain for the provinces, which have been the trademarks of the government since 1993. The Liberal government has had a paternalistic approach to the provinces. It is an Ottawa knows best approach. Whether on health care, education or any social spending, the government has attacked the provinces since 1993 with draconian cuts to transfers. These arbitrary and unilateral cuts have created, for instance, a health care crisis in every region of the country. The government has also slashed transfers to the provinces while barely tinkering with its own spending in terms of program spending.

The Liberal government had a choice to balance its books. Instead of reducing federal program spending significantly, it chose to maintain federal program spending but to cut the transfers to the provinces such that the hard decisions ultimately had to be made by the provinces.

The question is why the federal government slashed health care transfers to the provinces while leaving its own departments unscathed. The answer is because it could. It had the power to. It was able to escape the accountability of explaining and dealing with the impacts of those cuts because it had the power to act unilaterally and arbitrarily.

This proposal of a tax point transfer to the provinces could go a long way to ensure that federal governments do not have that unfettered power to do again what this government did in the early and mid-1990s by cutting the transfers to the provinces so dramatically.

Again, the big problem here is that the federal government currently has the power to trample over the provinces and escape accountability for the consequences of these actions. Currently the provinces have very little authority over their revenues, yet they have all of the responsibilities for how the programs, investments and spending programs will be administered. It is like what Mark Twain once referred to as a bad job. We could say that currently the provinces have a bad job: a lot of responsibility but no authority.

The same federal government that created the health care and post-secondary education crises across Canada by its cuts to the provinces has tried to act like a knight in shining armour by introducing, for instance, a millennium scholarship program to directly fund students from the federal coffers. The government is more interested in whose names are on the cheques than in the long term interests of ordinary Canadians who want health care and education systems they can depend on. Clearly some sort of reform is necessary.

However, that is not exactly what the hon. member is calling for with this motion. He is actually just calling for a first ministers conference to discuss the possibility of a tax point transfer. Clearly there is nothing wrong with having a discussion of first ministers on an issue of this importance. I would hope that members opposite and members of all parties would see that in the interests of a constructive approach we should all be supportive of the notion of a first ministers conference to explore the possibility of this type of initiative. It makes a lot of sense.

Not only does this initiative make sense, but even those who may disagree with the notion of a tax point transfer should at least agree to the idea of having a discussion with the first ministers of the provinces on this. We also need to broaden the nature of this discussion to include equalization. Our equalization system is currently broken. When we look at the history of equalization, a cornerstone of Canadian public policy and the only constitutionally enshrined spending program, we see that it was introduced around 1958. At that time the stated goals of equalization were to achieve approximately equal levels of taxation and equal levels of services across Canada.

Clearly, particularly on the tax front, with some provinces like Ontario and Alberta increasingly in positions to take fairly aggressive tax reduction policies, we are seeing a ghettoization of Canada in terms of the very important role of tax policy. Ten years ago I do not think anyone recognized how important tax policy could be in terms of creating levels of economic growth, opportunity and ultimately prosperity for citizens within a particular jurisdiction. However, today we have seen what has happened in countries like Ireland, where an aggressive tax strategy focused on capital taxes and corporate taxes has helped achieve a 92% growth in GDP per capita over a 10 year period during a period of time when Canada has had a 5% growth.

Enabling the provinces to have through equalization a little more control over their natural resource wealth, for instance, would go a long way in provinces like Nova Scotia and Newfoundland toward actually enabling those provinces to reduce taxes and to create greater levels of economic growth, not specifically in resource areas but in new economy ventures et cetera. Clearly we have to address the issue of the clawback of resource revenues that impacts provinces like Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in such a negative way.

We also have to address the issue, as my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska mentioned in his comments, of the caps on equalization. We have 10 provinces with 10 premiers who have agreed that now we should take the caps off the equalization levels that go a long way toward denying individual provinces and recipient provinces the opportunities and the ability to grasp the economic levers they need to grasp, including tax policy and social investment policy, in order to create some level of sustainable economy and to ultimately be independent of equalization.

In regard to the current equalization system's treatment of recipient provinces, it is like how in certain jurisdictions social welfare systems sometimes treat people worse if they get a job. If they actually get a job they end up worse off than if they stay on welfare. In some ways we have an equalization system that has created a welfare trap, in that we actually treat provinces that are starting to become successful and starting to forge ahead worse than if they were not to pursue and embrace economic opportunities in a way that we should be encouraging.

The former premier of Newfoundland, currently the Minister of Industry and self-promotion, said in October:

—the development of offshore oil and gas both here and in Nova Scotia have been made more difficult by the way the current equalization formula works. The current claw back provisions in particular slow the pace at which equalization receiving provinces can catch up to the Canadian average standard of living.

I could not agree more with his comments then. Goodness knows where he is on that today.

We need a consistent commitment from the government to enable provinces, through equalization, through tax point transfers, to achieve on behalf of their constituents prosperity and equality in the 21st century.

[Income Tax Act, May 30th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-209. I congratulate the hon. member for Jonquière for her consistent and strong commitment to environmental policy in the House.

I heard the Liberal member opposite boast of his government's commitment to public transit. The party that he represents actually committed a paragraph of verbiage to the public transit issue. I am certain that paragraph committed by the Liberals to the public transit system of Canada probably has not had the extraordinary level of impact on encouraging Canadians to take public transit that he may have expected. It is not the first time members opposite have been delusional about their party's red book commitments.

I commend our party's critic, the hon. member for Fundy—Royal, who has been so effective and instrumental in the development of our party's policies on environmental issues. In the last election our platform was highly rated by groups, including the Sierra Club, for its commitment to environmental policies.

On the specific issue at hand, that of incentivizing public transit through the tax system, my first gut reaction from the perspective purely of a tax system is that I do not like to see a tax code complicated through this type of Pavlovian tax policy where we encourage one kind of behaviour with one sort of tax policy and discourage another with a different sort of tax policy.

That being the case and given the overwhelming evidence that public transit is far less deleterious to the environment than individual automobile transit, the member's proposal is quite innovative and should be seriously considered.

I also see the potential for a tax break. Whether or not it complicates the tax code, we should always try to look for any tax break we might eke out of the Liberals. They are not biologically predisposed to lowering taxes by and large, so we should be supportive if they are embracing a tax reduction in any area.

I did hear the Liberal member opposite speak a few minutes ago of the emissions from public transit vehicles. He was disputing the information we heard earlier today relative to the overwhelming positive impact of public transit versus individual automobiles. He should remember that the emissions produced by a bus for the number of people in that bus on a comparative level have about 40 to 50 times less impact on the environment than individual automobile traffic.

While it addresses a very important environmental issue in urban centres, we also need a greater commitment to public transit in terms of a national infrastructure. It is a great notion to create incentives to encourage public transit, but we need a greater commitment on a national level to our public transit infrastructure.

This is becoming an increasingly important issue in smaller or growing cities and municipalities such as the greater Halifax area in Nova Scotia. From a fiscal perspective, if we look at the degree to which the federal government has cut back in recent years from transfers to the provinces, we see that the provinces have been forced into a position of cutting back transfers to cities. We as a country must take a serious look at a federal and provincial strategy to improve public transit infrastructure not just in the large urban centres but in cities such as St. John's and Halifax to serve a wider cross-section of Canadians.

This brings into play the whole issue of how the federal government will deal with the growth or the emergence of city states in Canada, the consolidation of municipalities and the commensurate increases in responsibilities. Some would say that due to the commensurate increase in responsibilities there needs to be an increase in the level of power of some of the consolidated cities that have emerged.

That debate is fraught with all kinds of constitutional landmines. We should not allow the fear of constitutional difficulties to prevent us from looking at real solutions. We should work with our provinces, not ram solutions down their throats, to develop joint strategies to address infrastructure issues, in this case public transit.

All of us who have experienced increased traffic levels and environmental damage by growth in our cities realize that the hon. member's initiative could go a long way to improve the situation in terms of attracting more people to public transit. However we must make sure that we do not ignore the greater issue of ensuring through federal and provincial co-operation that the moneys are there for better public transit infrastructure across Canada.